BEAD Bucks Won't Cover Adoption Issues, Western States' Deployment Needs

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- While some states hope to have enough broadband equity, access and deployment money to also tackle adoption and affordability issues, not just infrastructure, BEAD project costs may dash those hopes, according to Nokia's Lori Adams. Separately Tuesday at NATOA’s annual local government conference, Joanne Hovis, CTC Technology & Energy president, predicted growing concerns when it becomes clear Western states lack enough BEAD money to reach 100% of locations with adequate infrastructure. Speakers also discussed issues local governments face with small cell deployment permitting.

A major BEAD implementation challenge will be competing demands on the labor market and supply chain when states start awarding bids, said Adams, Nokia senior director-broadband policy and funding strategy. She said the first states to launch will be better positioned for labor and resources, while states in the back half will face projects "exponentially more expensive" to build. That likely dooms the chance of finding left-over money for non-deployment issues like digital equity, she said.

BEAD's allocation formula dramatically disfavors large, rural western states, said Hovis, noting the $1.4 billion going to Alabama compared to Oregon's $689 million. BEAD's $42.5 billion total “is woefully inadequate” for western states, and the allocation formula is built on population, with lower density states receiving less, she said. Hovis said state BEAD plans that look in some areas to fixed wireless as a lower-cost option than fiber may not ultimately see any savings. That's due to fixed wireless equipment needing a big and expensive replacement in seven to 10 years, she said.

Sizable amounts of private investment are going into fiber in metro areas, though with a focus on wealthier sections of cities and on fast-growing suburban areas, Hovis said. Meanwhile, the cable industry's future network upgrades, such as the move to DOCSIS 4.0, also will be more neighborhood focused, while past upgrades -- like the move from DOCSIS 2.0 to DOCSIS 3.0 -- were community wide, she said. The end result is a growing urban divide, with different neighborhoods experiencing big differences in broadband pricing and speeds, she said.

In response, Hovis said, more communities will likely take approaches similar to Memphis. The city has crafted a set of incentives -- such as lower permitting fees and right-of-way (ROW) access fees and a streamlined permitting process -- for any fiber infrastructure as long as fiber providers commit to part of their deployment in low-income census tracts, she said.

Speakers also discussed broadband map issues, including maps overstating -- or understating -- broadband availability. Jordana Barton-Garcia, Connect Humanity senior fellow, said Texas' use of the FCC's broadband map for determining BEAD project eligibility is shortchanging the Lower Rio Grande Valley region. The map indicates there's widespread service there, which is grossly incorrect, she said. That's why it has asked NTIA and the state broadband development office for a waiver from using the federal map for that region, since high levels of persistent poverty there mean significant amounts of broadband funding is needed. Mitsi Herrera, program director for the ultraMontgomery broadband economic development program in Montgomery County, Maryland, said the map over-reports the underserved in Maryland -- meaning less money available for connecting community anchor institutions.

Barton Garcia said Connect Humanity is working with communities in the Rio Grande Valley region on creating affordability options post-Affordable Connectivity Program, such as the option of municipal broadband. Herrera said that post-ACP, Montgomery Connects has promoted Lifeline as an option. Adams said the end of ACP will make it more difficult for providers to offer a low-cost option in BEAD projects since those rural projects are, by definition, expensive already. Virginia’s BEAD program design saw some serious delays as it went back and forth with NTIA over forcing providers to offer a low-cost option because of that expense issue, she said.

Permitting Problems

When communities get sued for denying telecom permits, it's often because of allegations the community used RF emissions concerns as a basis for denying placement of a cell tower, said Lani Williams, general counsel at consultancy Local Government Lawyer's Roundtable. While local governments are "getting bombarded" by the public about such health concerns, federal law doesn't allow denial on that basis, she said. Localities also end up in court if their denial decision reasoning is not in writing.

Localities increasingly face wireline and macro tower interests arguing that the $270 annual cap on ROW access fees set out in the FCC’s small cell order also applies to their ROW use, said localities lawyer Nancy Werner of Bradley Werner. The cap rationale for small cells was based on the idea that 5G deployment requires many small cell deployments and higher access fees effectively prohibit that, she said. She said city and county governments need to challenge wireline and macro tower arguments that they also enjoy the same cap.

Wireless Industry Association (WIA) Vice President-Government Affairs Karmen Rajamani acknowledged that many municipalities say $270 is too low and that they have to show justification for more.

Werner said localities also need to stand up to macro tower interest arguments that use the FCC’s small cell order language on the “significant gap” issue to assert there’s little to no local authority to deny any macro tower application. "Courts are starting to buy that argument" from providers, she said. The "significant gap" test bars prohibiting a macro tower needed in a particular place to fill in a coverage gap, and the small cell order made passing mention of the significant gap test not working -- that reference seemingly applying just to small cell deployments, but the industry sometimes uses it to argue it also applies to macro towers, Werner said. If local governments don't push back on that interpretation, they will lose a lot of ability to govern where macro towers go, she said.

Local interests and Rajamani went back and forth for several at-times testy minutes on the $270 cap and about wireless operators applying for and receiving huge batches of permits, but not following through with deployment. Resources might end up being spent on deployment in another community, or a company contracted to do the deployment work wasn't able to fulfill it, she said. Added Werner, permitting rules need to include a time limit.

Asked about the idea of WIA joining NATOA in petitioning the FCC on RF issues related to human health, Rajamani said the group supports getting FCC clarity. The public, Rajamani said, wants to know the agency has looked comprehensively at the issue, even if it comes to the same conclusion it did in its 1996 guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF fields.