The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)awarded grants totaling $8,394,947.57 to 17 Tribes as part of the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program: 

• Colusa Indian Community Council, CA; 
• Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians (aka Chumash Indians), CA;
• Bishop Paiute Tribe, CA; 
• Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, CA;
• Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone, NV;
• Pueblo of Tesuque, NM;
• Ohkay Owingeh, NM;
• The Seneca Nation of Indians, NY;
• Mohawk Networks, LLC, NY;
• Wichita & Affiliated Tribes, OK;
• Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, OK;
• Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, OK;
• Muscogee (Creek) Nation, OK;
• Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, WA;
• Quinault Indian Nation, WA;
• Hoh Indian Tribe, WA;
• Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, WI.

A recently proposed rule change to the Federal Communication Commission's Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program has fixed-wireless advocates concerned that the high-cost program could kick out broadband providers delivering service over unlicensed spectrum. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel is looking to increase the program's minimum speeds to 100/20 Mbps. However, the language used in a proposed order, as well as comments from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on the proceeding, has created concern among fixed-wireless access (FWA) advocates that the A-CAM program may go the way of the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program and other federal funds that prioritize fiber deployments.

There are about 8.5 million locations in America that lack access to quality service. In Virginia, there are more than 360,000 locations that are unserved or underserved. Each of those locations represents a generations-old farm that can’t harvest using modern tools, a fledgling small business stuck in an analog era, a working class family cut off from vital telehealth care, or a young student missing out on lifechanging opportunities that the digital world can provide. But as of this week, that all changes. Virginia will receive an investment of nearly $1.5 billion dollars to ensure everyone in the state has access. The digital divide is not a new problem – we’ve known about it for decades – and many have tried to bridge that gap and expand broadband infrastructure to every corner of this country. But President Biden is making it a reality, and once again proving that there’s no limit to what this country can do when we work together. Throughout our history, there have been moments when our country came together to achieve great things – to change lives with a commitment to leaving no one behind. Just like the Rural Electrification Act a century ago and the Interstate Highway System that followed it, this is our generation’s opportunity to transform our nation’s infrastructure and, by doing so, improve Americans’ lives.

A day after the Biden administration announced how it will distribute its nearly $42.5 billion Broadband, Equity, Accessibility, and Deployment (BEAD) grant program, a group of state broadband officials touted the hundreds of millions of dollars they’re set to oversee, but with a note of curiosity as to why their awards weren’t greater. While this infusion of cash is undoubtedly cause for celebration, some of the broadband officials questioned how the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) arrived at its funding decisions. Jade Piros de Carvalho, director of the Kansas Office of Broadband Development, said she was pleased with the $452 million awarded to her state, but that she wanted to review how the NTIA arrived at that number. The NTIA’s distribution of the BEAD fund was based largely on data contained in the Federal Communications Commission’s nationwide coverage maps, which have been under scrutiny for months. Kelly Schlegel, director of the New Mexico Office of Broadband Expansion, agreed that the funding was “wonderful,” but expressed some disappointment that her state only received $675 million. Schlegel said New Mexico submitted 34,000 locations to the FCC that were not added to the map during the months-long challenge process leading up to the NTIA’s grant allocation. That, she said, was a “big hit” to the state’s total award. Virginia, which is due nearly $1.5 billion, was a bit more successful in challenging the FCC’s map data, said Tamarah Holmes, director of the Office of Broadband at the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Holmes described how the commonwealth used existing state-level maps to challenge the FCC’s data, crediting one young staff member whose job centered on filing challenges with increasing Virginia’s total award by nearly $200 million.

The US government just dished out $930 million in support for middle mile broadband projects, but a pair of experts said there’s demand for billions in additional funding. Both noted that states could be the next big source of support as they work out how to divvy up their newly allocated Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) allotments. Zayo was one of the big winners in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) recent award round for the Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program, scooping up nearly $93 million for three projects. It was also one of the only big-name providers to win. Bill Long, Zayo’s chief product officer, said that the projects it won grants for are undertakings it has been wanting to tackle for a long time but couldn’t because the business case just wasn’t there. The grants will allow it to both augment its long-haul network but also provide breakout connectivity along both its new and existing routes. Breakout connectivity requires special equipment and enables providers like Zayo to supply dark fiber, wavelengths and other high-bandwidth services to local internet service providers looking to provide last mile connectivity to homes in a given area. When looking at whether such projects are feasible, Long said instead of examining factors like the number of homes passed like last mile providers do, Zayo looks at the number of homes served specifically by the broadband providers it would be selling its services to.

Providing internet to every household and small business by 2030 may not take a village, but it will require the efforts of local officials and service providers working together to pave the way for fast and efficient construction, an effort that the National Association of Counties (NACo) says its members have been steadily working on. “About two years ago, we put together NACo’s Broadband Task Force,” said Seamus Dowdall, NACo's Associate Legislative Director for Telecommunications & Technology. The task force generated a report to define how counties could facilitate the deployment of broadband for their residents in terms of how to prepare for broadband, what barriers existed and how to reduce or eliminate them, strategies to address digital disparities, and how to make sure investments were future-proof to last for decades. The NACo report identified county governments as policymakers, funders, and partners for sustainable broadband access and affordability. Counties collect and analyze plenty of data as a core part of their administrative tasks, making them perfectly suited to understand where the strongest need is for broadband investment. This includes infrastructure, digital literacy and training, and affordability programs. “We found that open middle mile systems can in fact increase competition and that that open system would allow other interconnectors to help boost competition and ultimately options for residents at the last mile,” said Dowdall. “We found that the incentive for future-proofing broadband once again is essential. We’re uniquely positioned to help coordinate dig once policies, whether we’re working with the Department of Transportation or Department of Energy within the county or at the state level, we can help make sure that the investment and infrastructure decisions we make today go as far as possible for the dollars allocated.”

GoNetspeed, a fiber provider primarily operating in New England, is encouraging Massachusetts to adopt legislation that would simplify the process for deploying new broadband infrastructure. Known as One Touch Make Ready (OTMR), the bill would enable providers to better access utility poles and other infrastructure through a streamlined permitting process. The difference between OTMR and traditional pole attachment methods, according to GoNetspeed Chief Legal Counsel Jamie Hoare, “is really who is driving the process.” “The party applying for access to the poles obviously wants to get on the pole as quickly as possible. And they are able to direct the work of the contractors to accomplish that,” Hoare said. “They have an incentive to get it done quickly [and by] being able to direct the contractors, they really are able to get it done in a much faster, more efficient and in a more cost-effective manner.” Under a traditional pole attachment process, the provider applies to the pole owners, who then conduct a survey “to determine what facilities are already on it” and whether there is room for more facilities, Hoare explained. Afterwards, pole owners give providers a make-ready estimate, which bills the applicant for any work that needs to be done, such as shifting existing utility lines or “replacing poles with taller poles.” All told, “that’s a pretty inefficient process,” said Hoare. OTMR also reduces the number of truck rolls needed for the make-ready work. GoNetspeed executives have testified before the Massachusetts state legislature to discuss the benefits of OTMR, such as how it could help accelerate broadband infrastructure deployment in underserved areas. But in Massachusetts, neither a rulemaking nor a legislative approach has addressed the issue thus far.

The second quarter (Q2) of the year is usually a tough stretch for cable operators. They typically see weak subscriber results because of "seasonality" – from students and snowbirds who shut off cable services as they return home for the summer. Cable broadband numbers in Q2 2023 aren't expected to be strong, but they may not be as weak as in recent years – at least for Comcast and Charter Communications, according to the latest expectations for the quarter from New Street Research. Comcast and Charter normally see a decline in broadband subscriber net adds of about 200,000 from Q1 to Q2 of the year. And before the pandemic, they would typically see a drop from around 400,000 to 200,000, New Street's Jonathan Chaplin explained. If "normal seasonality" holds, Charter would be expected to lose about 120,000 subscribers in Q2 2023 versus Q1 results, with Comcast losing about 190,000. However, the current consensus of Wall Street analysts expects Charter to add 16,000 broadband subscribers, with Comcast losing around 76,000. But if Charter and Comcast see improvements in market share trends, Chaplin believes different drivers are leading the way for each operator. For Charter, its new buildouts in rural areas could be on the rise – from about 17,000 subscribers in Q1 2023 to 24,000 in Q2. At Comcast, Chaplin wonders if the company is seeing momentum from a $25 per month lower-end offer aimed at fixed wireless access (FWA) competition, along with some pull-through effect from Comcast's relatively new convergence packages that share similarities with Charter's Spectrum One. In the bigger picture, Chaplin expects some factors to drive sustained improvements in US cable subscriber growth – slowing FWA subscriber growth and improving competitive positioning fueled by network expansions, convergence bundles and new tiers that size up against FWA speeds and pricing.

Europe's telecommunications chiefs love to moan about the data deluge that has swamped their networks, demanding payment – a "fair contribution" or "fair share" – from the Internet giants they hold mainly responsible. Yet none has ever presented any hard data to support the claims. Metrics show many of them fail to cover their capital costs. But there is no proof they would be any better off were the flow of petabytes much thinner. Evidence is probably needed if they are to convince dubious watchdogs and politicians that Amazon, Netflix and other "large traffic generators" (LTGs), as they are described, should chip in. Lobbyists have implied there is a correlation between petabytes and costs, but the headline numbers show no such thing. While petabytes have swelled, total operating expenses have been falling. Financial data published by other big European operators does not support the argument that a surge in traffic equals a huge cost, either. Recent concise analysis carried out by William Webb, the Chief Technology Officer of Access Partnership, is further bad news. "Once an operator has installed a fiber, cable or other high-speed connection to the home, then their costs are almost completely insensitive to data volumes since these connections have near-infinite capacity and the increase in energy caused by higher data usage is small," said Webb. Webb concedes that operators would still have to invest in backbone and core network infrastructure to support a capacity increase, but he points out that spending on this equals a small fraction of what it costs to connect millions of homes to fiber.