CCG Consulting

For well over a decade, it was fairly easy to understand the trajectory of the broadband industry. But the industry is now in total turmoil. Within a short time, cable companies have stopped growing. Currently, all of the industry growth among big internet service providers (ISPs) is coming from cellular fixed wireless access (FWA). Last-mile fiber networks are being built across the country. Wireless internet service providers (WISPs) finally have the radios and enough spectrum to be serious competitors. When I talk about trajectory, I’m not talking about predicting 2024.

There are a lot of fiber networks owned by government entities. I find it perplexing that a lot of these networks are used only for government purposes and nothing else. In some cases, commercial use of the networks is prohibited by the original source of funding that paid for the network. However, a lot of these government-owned networks could be used for commercial purposes. There are some governments that have decided to share the excess capacity. Some networks were built in collaboration with a commercial partner that uses part of the network.

When I first read the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act legislation that created the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grants, I thought it was going to be a grant program that a whole lot of my clients would choose to ignore. The requirements in the legislation seemed overwhelming. But over the last year, my opinion mellowed because I assumed that State Broadband Offices (SBOs) would soften some of the rough edges of the federal rules.

Arizona and Missouri are going to use a cost model as part of their Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program grant review process. Consultants have built complex models that are supposed to predict the cost of building broadband anywhere in the country. The models have to be loaded with specific inputs for any given location, and the models are then supposed to calculate what it will cost to build a broadband network. These two states are using the cost models in the worst possible way because they are using the costs suggested by the cost models to help pick grant winners.

One of the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is a directive that states should take steps to reduce costs and barriers to fiber deployment.

One of the most perplexing requirements for the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant program is that state broadband plans must include a middle-class affordability plan to make sure that all consumers have access to affordable broadband. I don’t know anybody who fully understands what this means.

For many years, I’ve heard people say that broadband is essential. But what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that broadband is important in a lot of people’s lives, or does it mean that broadband is something that society can’t live without? Grocery stores, gas stations, and auto repair shops could all be considered essential for society.

The big ISPs certainly have their knickers in a knot over the adoption of digital discrimination rules by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC was required to adopt some version of digital discrimination rules by language included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

The process of winning Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program grants is expensive, and grant applicants should do everything possible to lower out-of-pocket costs for winning a grant. One of the most interesting ways to lower the cost of accepting a grant is through the use of in-kind matches. In-kind contributions recognize non-cash benefits of property, goods, or services that will benefit a BEAD project.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in the process of increasing the definition of broadband from today’s paltry 25/3 Megabits per second (Mbps) to 100/20 Mbps. This article looks at the FCC’s decision to consider 20 Mbps as the definition of upload.