FCC Asks for Advice on "Broadband Stimulus" Rules

The Federal Communications Commission is asking for comment on how to distribute broadband funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, commonly known as the "broadband stimulus" program.

The FCC has already established a separate docket for parties wishing to comment generally on a rural broadband strategy (GN Docket No. 09-29). The FCC now is seeking comment as part of its consultative role with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (“RUS”), the agencies that actually are charged with disbursing the funds.

The FCC specifically is seeking comment on five core terms and concepts:

The definition of "unserved area;"

The definition of "underserved area;"

The definition of "broadband;"

The non-discrimination obligations that will be contractual conditions of the Broadband Fund Opportunities Program ("BTOP") grants; and

The network interconnection obligation that will be contractual conditions of BTOP grants.

Comments are limited to these five specified items and are due on April 13, 2009 and should be submitted in GN Docket No. 09-40.

The comment period extends to April 13, 2009. That implies that no final rules can be issued by NTIA or RUS until May, since NTIA and RUS staffers will require time to read and digest the new input.

That in turn means the first third of the funds, which by statute must be released before the end of June, will require submission and awards over a roughly two-month period, at best, by agencies which never before have had to process, much less award, so much money in such a short time frame.

For better or worse, that suggests projects in the first round will be weighted to providers with enough "track record" that NTIA and RUS can reduce the risk of making awards to applicants that are not well placed to execute, that may squander the money or that may prove otherwise embarassing when later oversight reveals what actually happened, or didn't happen, with the awarded funds.

And though most observers probably think the funds are supposed to lead to deployment of new facilities, the statute is part of a "stimulus" package that is supposed to create jobs in the near term. That could lead to a situation where projects actually do not create facilities or make better use of facilities but rather mostly can be pitched as projects that create jobs related to those facilities and use of facilities. "Training" or "education," in other words, might play a bigger role than some think.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing if one assumes that a great deal of non-use is related to people not understanding what they can do with broadband and the Internet, or non-use by people who think they understand what they can do, but don't feel too comfortable using computers and software.