Grants to Pre-Mapped States Have Merit, NTIA and USDA Tell GOP Lawmakers
Prioritizing broadband grants toward states that have completed mapping programs could have “certain advantages,” NTIA and USDA officials told House Commerce Committee GOP leaders. But since the maps “vary in accuracy” they are “only one of many factors that we may consider in evaluating a project,” officials told Reps. Joe Barton of Texas and Cliff Stearns of Florida in a letter responding to the lawmakers’ questions raised in a March 25 letter. Barton and Stearns suggested that prioritizing grants to pre-mapped states could be an efficient way of spending grant money.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Since the agencies plan to release money in three phases, grants could go to states with completed maps, while other states finish their work, Barton and Stearns said in their letter. The idea “will be carefully considered,” NTIA Associate Administrator Bernadette McGuire-Rivera said in her letter. RUS agreed, but the agency doesn’t want “to discourage or preclude applications to serve areas that are truly within the spirit of the statute,” said RUS acting Administrator James Newby.
Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps said maps will be a valuable tool for “ensuring the effectiveness of the government’s broadband initiatives over time.” The $7.2 billion included in the stimulus bill won’t be enough to bring broadband service to all parts of the country, Copps said, which is why the FCC’s mission to create a national broadband plan “is so important.” Copps said he expected “there will be no short supply of communities … who can demonstrate their need for broadband.”
Barton and Stearns quizzed the three agencies about whether unserved areas should have priority for funding over underserved places. NTIA must define the terms and is receiving public comments due April 13 “on how best to allocate funds,” McGuire-Rivera said. The law requires NTIA to weigh projects’ ability to increase broadband affordability and provide the highest speeds to the greatest population of users in an area, she said. The agency sees its mission as selecting “scalable, sustainable projects that will provide models for future deployment,” she said. RUS, which isn’t required to define unserved and underserved, believes “it is our goal to work collectively with NTIA” to reach those communities, Newby said. The FCC, which is seeking comment on the definitions, will assist NTIA and RUS, said Copps in his response to the Republican lawmakers.
“A case could be made that America as a country is an underserved area,” Copps said. That is why it is important for the commission to fulfill its mandate under the new law to develop a national broadband plan, he said. “As we consult with NTIA and RUS regarding the definition of underserved area, we may take into consideration” factors such as affordability, competition, ubiquity of service, quality of service, and how other policies could improve broadband availability or encourage further deployment, Copps said. Programs that stimulate demand “will receive significant attention as we develop the national broadband plan,” he said.
Barton and Stearns urged the agencies to remain neutral about technologies in awarding grants, so the government isn’t picking winners or losers. “NTIA must retain the discretion to make intelligent choices about the best fit of particular technologies,” McGuire-Rivera said. RUS’ broadband programs “have always been technology neutral and we plan to continue this practice,” Newby said. But some technologies have advantages over others for certain situations and may be a more appropriate choice, he said. Copps said the national broadband plan “should not limit the full potential of a particular platform.”
Project sustainability was another concern lawmakers raised in their letter to the agencies. They said they share the concern. NTIA pointed out that the law requires the federal share of a project not to exceed 80 percent of total project costs. And applicants may not dip into multiple programs to recoup costs.
RUS said it also is committed to identifying sustainable projects. But basing grant decisions solely on which project is expected to be the most cost-efficient may not be the only criteria in grantmaking. “Many unserved areas are unserved because applicants have historically been unable to make a business case to reflect repayment ability for a loan to bring broadband service,” Newby said. “As such the cost of serving truly unserved areas must be properly balanced against the cost of deploying broadband service in underserved communities.”