Testifying in Congress this week, NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association’s CEO Shirley Bloomfield expressed the concerns of association members, many of whom are frustrated about the progress and implementation of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program.
“BEAD is the largest infusion of broadband capital in our nation’s history, and everybody wishes the BEAD Program were able to roll out faster,” Bloomfield told the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
During her testimony, Bloomfield highlighted aspects of BEAD implementation that have worked well so far. For example, she spoke about the role that grant programs like BEAD have previously played in overcoming broadband deployment barriers. She emphasized the need of these programs to focus on continual achievement of universal service, and she said it was important to ensure that the services enabled by these networks would be useful for consumers long into the future, according to an NTCA press release.
During the subcommittee hearing, Bloomfield explained that while efforts to implement BEAD continue, NTCA members have maintained upgrades of existing networks in their communities and expansions into other rural areas using loans, private capital, Universal Service Fund (USF) support, and grant programs through the Department of Treasury or U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Bloomfield also expressed the ongoing concerns that NTCA members and other smaller and rural providers have about the BEAD Program’s accuracy and fairness. “While NTCA members are eager to finish connecting rural customers in need, several concerns, if not adequately addressed, could deter small, community-based providers from participating in BEAD,” she said, listing five main areas of concern about the BEAD implementation:
- The accuracy of the FCC’s National Broadband Map. “A lack of sufficient reporting standards and inadequate challenge processes continue to undermine its accuracy and reliability,” said Bloomfield. These issues may keep broadband providers from reaching underserved or unserved areas, or keep them from participating in BEAD.
- Project area size. Bloomfield contended that if BEAD requires subgrantees to apply to bring broadband to large areas, smaller providers may avoid applying for BEAD funding and consumers will be left with poorer, less future-proof broadband technologies.
- Matching funds. If greater weight is given to providers who can match funds, a “reverse auction” may result in which larger providers with more resources have the advantage.
- Affordability. Bloomfield argued that “increased costs for labor or supplies and lengthy permitting delays also warrant monitoring and may warrant additional relief.”
- Universal Service Fund (USF) uncertainty. Bloomfield told the subcommittee that the USF has been a great asset to smaller providers. But its current legal jeopardy may keep those providers from participating in the BEAD Program.
Bloomfield’s full testimony — as well as the entire hearing covering the BEAD Program implementation — is found on the subcommittee’s webpage. Her testimony begins at 28:33 in the embedded video.
