National Telecommunications and Information Administration chief Alan Davidson spoke at the Mountain Connect conference about broadband infrastructure investment. He expects NTIA to start doling out grant money later this year, though likely not from the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program quite yet because it is tied to the availability of new broadband coverage maps from the Federal Communications Commission. Davidson noted that some have misinterpreted the BEAD rules as treating unserved and underserved locations the same, but that’s a mistake. Covering unserved areas is still top priority, but he explained that those states which can demonstrate in their broadband plans that they will reach all the unserved will also be able to use funding for underserved areas as well. Davidson said he expects satellite and other non-fiber technologies will receive plenty of funding. There have been plenty of concerns about whether BEAD will fuel overbuilding of areas set to be covered by the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, especially given the decision to classify areas covered with unlicensed spectrum and satellite as unserved. But Davidson said the NTIA's guidelines were specifically designed to avoid penalizing states for money that’s expected for deployments which haven’t been built yet. But there will be a screening process to avoid overbuilding

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on a petition filed by the National Lifeline Association (NaLA) seeking clarification of the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and Enforcement Bureau (EB) Chiefs’ authority to suspend a participating provider’s Affordable Connectivity Program enrollments and hold a participating provider’s funding based on the “adequate evidence” standard , or in the alternative, reconsideration of the removal rule (47 C.F.R. § 54.1801(e)(2)). NaLA also seeks reconsideration or clarification of the requirement that an Affordable Connectivity Program participating provider offering connected devices provide price information for at least one of the analogous devices from a major retailer

Exploring the need for a Digital Equity Foundation, options and best practices for its potential structure, governance, and the benefits such a foundation could bring to the public. 

• The foundation could provide sustainable, responsive funding for community-based digital inclusion activities. Funds could benefit a wide range of programs, including “digital navigators,” affordable access, rural telehealth initiatives, accessibility, skills training for veterans and the elderly, and education technology that helps to close the “homework gap.”
• There is a precedent for this type of federally funded foundation. Examples include the FirstNet Public Safety Network Trust Fund that Congress established in 2012 with $7.5 billion in auction revenue, the California Emerging Technology Fund, and the eleven existing “agency-sponsored” foundations, such as the CDC Foundation and the National Parks Foundation.
• The foundation should be structured to maximize transparency and efficiency. The foundation should be established as a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation and follow best practice requirements for transparency and public accountability—including: a clear and focused mission statement; governance by an accountable board of directors; mechanisms for federal agency oversight, and reporting to Senate and House Commerce Committees; and establishment of robust community advisory mechanisms.
• The foundation’s governing board and community advisory committee should represent diverse stakeholders. The foundation’s governing board must reflect a balance of expertise and diversity (including geographic diversity) that reinforces the foundation’s mission to promote digital inclusion and equity in communities nationwide. Likewise, the community advisory committee should represent a broad cross-section of beneficiaries, digital equity providers, civil rights groups, and others likely to be impacted by the foundation’s work.

While the task of permanently closing this gap is daunting, the right policy framework to accomplish it can be summed up in two overarching principles: make the most of available funds, and make sure that the projects on which the money is spent are seen through and bear fruit. By taking the following steps, however, states would be well positioned to direct limited funds in ways that would produce maximum connectivity for their citizens.

1. Take advantage of market competition by allocating funds via reverse auction.
2. Allocate funding on a technology-neutral basis to prioritize functionality.
3. Set reasonable, non-symmetrical speed thresholds that will actually benefit consumers.
4. Focus on first serving those who currently lack broadband entirely, rather than overbuilding.
5. Target individuals’ needs by putting money in the pockets of consumers.
6. Collaborate with other states and the federal government to learn from mistakes and converge on the best practices for efficient deployment.
7. Evaluate internal regulations and remove barriers to broadband deployment that would eat up time and money without getting services to citizens.
8. Weed out unsound bidders by withholding full payment until the promised project is complete.
9. Resist calls for government-owned networks, except as a last resort, and rely instead on experienced broadband providers with economies of scale.
10. Provide ongoing oversight to incentivize successful project completion.