There has been a lot of chatter in the broadband industry recently, particularly as the election approaches, about whether the speed with which Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment [BEAD] Program funding is rolling out is too slow.
During our interview earlier this month, Shirley Bloomfield, CEO of NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association, told Telecompetitor the timeline doesn’t bother her too much.
“There has been enough other funding that has gone out — whether it’s been capital funds, whether it’s been ARPA [the American Rescue Plan Act], and people are still using the recovery money, the ReConnect money from USDA. There’s been enough money flowing into the system that I’m not concerned that it’s taken three years.”
Mapping: A Viable Reason for the Slower Speed of BEAD Funding
Bloomfield named two primary reasons why the BEAD funding process so far has been worth the time spent. The first is the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) mapping process.
“The mapping was really important,” Bloomfield said. She understands the time involved — why it took a year to create the original map after Congress funded the FCC’s mapping project, and why the challenges that arose after its release were necessary.
“I think the worst thing that could have happened is if they had rushed out the door and just started making multimillion-dollar investments to areas that already had broadband, or if they had underestimated the unserved areas. I think they were being prudent.”
Despite Bloomfield’s patience with the mapping process, NTCA recently submitted comments to the FCC, proposing amendments to their commission’s broadband reporting process.
“The inability of the FCC to accept numerous challenges at the same time is problematic [for NTCA’s member companies],” said Bloomfield. “Also, there are companies that are coming back in round four, still saying, ‘I’ve got a ghost town, and it is listed as a serviceable location. I’ve got bales of hay in the field, a big boulder, and those all show up as serviceable locations.’”
Fiscal Responsibility: A Second Reason for the Slower Speed of BEAD Funding
In addition to appreciating the complexity of the FCC’s mapping process — even while identifying its problems — Bloomfield thinks fiscal responsibility is another reason it’s reasonable for the speed of BEAD funding to be slower.
The investment in the BEAD Program is an exercise in public trust, Bloomfield says. “Who wants to explain to policymakers in five years why we rushed, and why this community had three different sets of federal funding coming into it but the people there still have no broadband? That, to me, is the worst-case scenario.”
Bloomfield says she’s confident that, despite the delays and the complaints about BEAD funding speed within the industry, states are still eager to have the funds.
“Most states will continue to go forward because, at the end of the day, the governors want this funding in their states. When you’re Texas, and you’re looking at $3 billion, it’s a lot of money coming into your state. And that’s not even considering the exponential factor — that’s just the capital money. That’s not the crews coming in to do the work. That’s not the other industries that get teed up because of that investment.”
For the moment, Bloomfield is more worried about how possible changes to state and federal political administrations could affect investment in broadband. Even so, she thinks the amount of time and effort spent on the BEAD Program so far makes it unlikely that it will be unraveled by shifting political tides.
At the end of the day, Bloomfield’s concern lies with the outcomes of the BEAD funding rather than the speed at which it progresses: “Honestly, I’d rather see this program done right.”
This is the second article in a four-part Industry Perspective series, based on interviews with Shirley Bloomfield. The other three articles are:
- The Fate of the Universal Service Fund
- The Right Technology for the Future
- Cybersecurity and Other Priorities
