The US Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration awarded $301,030 to the Colorado State University (CSU) System for a planning grant to promote and enhance economic development in rural Colorado. The CSU System is using the planning grant to catalyze how Extension Services from a land-grant university will support rural communities in new and better ways, more directly and more responsively, providing a new definition of how a land-grant university may serve its state in the 21st century. CSU will add and redirect resources using its Extension offices to deliver new, high-quality content to rural Colorado to promote local economic development, enhance education, promote better health care, and support rural communities in numerous other ways. CSU Extension will work with its Extension offices to define and coordinate content with local constituents to establish a statewide virtual classroom with an instructor/discussion leader at any rural site, enabled by high-quality broadband connectivity. Ensuring rural communities can participate fully in these new initiatives will require improved internet connectivity/broadband in many rural areas. Thus, the grant will be used for two main purposes: 1) to develop and bring content directly into rural communities, and 2) to work with local communities to enhance broadband where needed to access such content. Additionally, the CSU System has hired broadband consultant NEO Connect to address broadband needs in rural communities.  

[01/31/2023]

I want to take on the phrase ‘technology-neutral’. This phrase is being used to justify building technologies that are clearly not as good as fiber. The phrase was used a lot to justify allowing Starlink into the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) reverse auction. The phrase has been used a lot to justify allowing fixed wireless technology to win grants, and lately, it’s being used more specifically to allow fixed wireless using unlicensed spectrum into the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grants. The argument justifies allowing technologies like satellite or fixed wireless access (FWA) using unlicensed spectrum to get grants since the technologies are ‘good enough’ when compared to the requirement of grant rules. I have two arguments to counter that justification:

• The only reason the technology-neutral argument can be raised is that politicians set the speed requirements for grants at ridiculously low levels. The 100 Mbps speed requirement is an example of what I’ve recently called underbuilding – it allows for building a technology that is already too slow today. Almost all of the cable companies offer download speeds as fast as a gigabit. Even in older cable systems, the maximum speeds are faster than 100 Mbps. Setting a grant speed requirement of only 100 Mbps download is saying to rural folks that they don’t deserve broadband as good as what is available to the large majority of people in the country. 
• The second argument against the technology-neutral argument is that some technologies are clearly not good enough to justify receiving grant dollars. Consider Starlink satellite broadband. It’s a godsend to folks who have no alternatives, and many people rave about how it has solved their broadband problems. But the overall speeds are far slower than what was promised before the technology was launched. I’ve seen a huge number of speed tests for Starlink that don’t come close to the 100/20 Mbps speed required by the BEAD grants. The same can be said for FWA wireless using a cellular spectrum.

The Federal Communications Commission recently released a “pre-production” draft of its new National Broadband Map in an effort to provide more precise details about where internet service does and does not exist in individual locations across the US. While much attention has been paid to how the map represents broadband service for individual households, there is much less understanding among the general public with regards to how the map represents individual community anchor institutions, such as public schools, libraries, and hospitals. In an effort to address this gap in public understanding, and to help contribute to improving the FCC’s Broadband Map overall, this paper presents findings from a study of 200 public libraries in 20 states across the US to gain a better understanding of the following: (1) whether public libraries are classified as “broadband serviceable” or not; (2) whether public library buildings are classified as “residential” or not; and (3) the level of service that public library buildings receive in individual locations. The findings from this study raise important questions about whether the FCC’s current process allows for public challenges to correct these mis-classifications. Recommendations are provided at the end of this report to help ensure that the map helps to address the broadband needs of community anchor institutions across the country.

Federal systems are vulnerable to cyberattacks. The GAO has made 236 recommendations in public reports since 2010 with respect to protecting cyber critical infrastructure. Until these are fully implemented, federal agencies will be more limited in their ability to protect private and sensitive data entrusted to them. In September 2022, GAO's review of 24 agencies found that most had generally established policies and procedures for key privacy program activities. These activities included, among other things, developing system-of-records notices that identify types of personal data collected, conducting privacy impact assessments, and documenting privacy program plans. Agencies varied in establishing policies and procedures for coordinating privacy programs with other agency functions. Further, many agencies did not fully incorporate privacy into their risk management strategies, provide for privacy officials’ input into the authorization of systems containing PII (Personal Identifiable Information), or develop a continuous monitoring strategy for privacy. Without fully establishing these elements of their privacy programs, agencies have less assurance that they are consistently implementing privacy protections. The GAO recommended that:

• Congress consider legislation to designate a dedicated, senior-level privacy official at agencies that lacked one;
• The Office of Management and Budget should facilitate information sharing to help agencies address selected challenges and better implement privacy impact assessments;
• The 23 of the 24 agencies we reviewed should fully implement all of the key practices for their privacy programs;
• Federal financial regulators better ensure the privacy of the PII that they collect, use, and share;
• Congress should consider legislation to improve federal efforts to protect privacy and sensitive data, such as reducing the cybersecurity risks in retirement plans;
• Congress should consider legislation to improve the protection of federally collected and maintained personal and sensitive data.