New broadband stimulus rules? Speak now or forever hold your peace

Word hit the streets yesterday from the National Telecommunications Information Administration and the Rural Utilities Services that there’s only going to be one more round of broadband funding. Nothing earth-shaking here. It’s been expected that NTIA/RUS would consolidate the final two funding rounds. If you look at the level to which the first round was over-subscribed, applicants collectively asking for seven times the $4 billion of funds available, it makes no sense to try to do two funding rounds for smaller amounts when there’s this kind of demand.
Also, the administrative burden of preparing for, receiving and reviewing these applications is huge. Both agencies probably cut their admin time in half by consolidating the last two rounds. In the final analysis, it’ll probably turn out that money will hit the streets faster than if the agencies had to go run applicants through these hoops twice.
The big surprise, and a pleasant one, is the joint RFI (Request for Information) from NTIA and RUS. It appears that both agencies really were listening to the various complaints and concerns that have been raised about the application process.
The RFI acknowledges, for example, that the first rules and information requirements did not accommodate proposals from local governments and public-private partnerships. They were written, it seems, expecting mainly private telecom companies to apply. Requiring details such as past P & L statements, or P & L projections are difficult to respond to when ‘profits’ mean something very different for local governments and nonprofit organizations that were a large percentage of applicants. The RFI asks if rules should be created that are more in line with these organizations’ reality.
The RFI goes right to the heart of several major concerns such as how are terms such as “remote,” “underserved” and “un-served” defined, and whether the use of volunteers to review applications was a good idea. Hopefully we’ll get some better definitions of these, which could go a long way to making sure some of this stimulus money goes to urban areas that are just as underserved as some rural communities.
Besides touching on many of the frequently launched tirades against the process, including the use of panelists to review applications, it also breaks new ground in a couple of places. The RFI asks at one point if the agencies should adjust their focus to encourage proposals with a clear economic development impact. This is significant because it goes beyond just trying to accomplish a goal of getting people online, and gets to the heart of the ARRA’s primary goal – turning the economy around.
Even though the RFI may not address the topic, I strongly advise people to sound off on operational (versus policy) issues that have made this application process tortuous. For example, the agencies need to upgrade their Web computing power to better handle online application filing, if they haven’t already. At the same time, consider streamlining the Web process. Why force people to convert files to PDF format online when they can do that more easily on their desktop and e-mail a zipped file? You may have additional thoughts in this area to contribute.
All in all, I feel the issue this RFI addresses indicates there will be new rules that should make round 2 funding a lot more effective and efficient for everyone involved. There should be [fingers crossed] a lot fewer gray hairs when we get through that round.