The National Broadband Mapping Coalition monthly call series continued on May 22. Dustin Loup led the call once again, teeing up discussions on the latest release of the FCC National Broadband Map, BEAD and other funding developments, and digital equity in general.
Even though Version 4 of the FCC National Broadband Map was released just prior to the May monthly call, Justin Krohn of the Center for Applied Research and Engagement Systems (CARES) at the University of Missouri Extension had already examined the data it contains in some detail. While he saw no change in the number of broadband serviceable locations from the previous release, he found some large changes in the type of broadband coverage shown, citing Nevada and New Mexico as examples. Commenting on this, Tom Reid speculated that the changes from DSL to fiber service designations in remote areas of Ohio and Kentucky he saw between Versions 2 and 3 may be due to the incumbent provider seeking to avoid DSL downgrades in the BEAD program. Adam Thorp of the Missouri Office of Broadband Development further noted a significant drop in fixed cellular locations. Given such differences, Dustin pointed out the potential need for states to update the version used in the BEAD challenge process.
Continuing with developments in BEAD and other funding programs, Dustin remarked that BEAD participation requires a parallel state-level challenge process. Of the various challenge types—e.g., availability, speed, latency, planned service, enforceable commitment—only availability is accepted by FCC, with the other types covered by provider updates or public comments. For more detail on this, Dustin posted a link to the NTIA document on “Understanding ‘True-Up’ in the Challenge Process.” A discussion on challenging data quality prompted Alexis Schrubbe to advise against delaying submissions with data that may not be perfect, allowing time to respond to feedback with corrected data.
The conversation moved on to the issue of locations deemed ineligible for BEAD due to the availability of other funding sources such as the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). Peggy O’Brien of the Rio Grande Council of Governments shared their position that RDOF defaults should prioritize the most expensive and least dense populations. Adam Thorp reported some success in converting RDOF defaults to BEAD eligibility in Missouri. Tom Reid predicted a similar BEAD eligibility issue to arise from the Enhanced ACAM program. Dustin commented that anyone—and local governments in particular—can rebut planned service challenges.
For the final segment, Dustin introduced Seolha Lee of Ready.net who made a short presentation on digital equity and mapping. In response to a perceived need for better data collection tools, Ready.net is exploring the creation of a “digital opportunity portal.” Seolha shared a prototype of a Digital Opportunity Dashboard, commenting that the portal is still in the early stages of development. Anyone interested in discussing or providing feedback can reach Seolha at seolhal@ready.net.
A recording of the call is available to Coalition members on request (info@marconisociety.org). The National Broadband Mapping Coalition monthly call series will continue with the next call scheduled for Wednesday, June 26.
