Blueprints for BEAD is a series of short notes and analysis on nuances of BEAD that might otherwise get lost in the volume of material published on this federal funding program. Click the “Blueprints for BEAD” tag at the bottom of this story for other posts.
 

By mid June, we will have blown past the halfway mark in the BEAD challenge process - with more than thirty states having completed their “challenge windows” and another handful set to close imminently. But the “challenge window” is only part of the overall challenge process, and there are reasons for communities to stay engaged with the process even after that window closes. Communities - don’t sleep on the rebuttal window!

Where We Sit Today

Each state must conduct a challenge process prior to opening up BEAD grants to verify that the data on the National Broadband Map is accurate. That process will have three stages: the challenge window, the rebuttal window, and the determination window. During the challenge window, eligible challengers (local and Tribal governments, nonprofits, and ISPs) can present evidence that locations are incorrectly categorized as served, underserved, or served. According to the NTIA’s Challenge Process Policy Notice, those same eligible entities can participate in the rebuttal window, where they supply evidence refuting a challenge that was made by someone else. After both of these periods are over, the state weighs all of the evidence and makes a final determination (determination window). 

Why might this rebuttal period be important for communities? In short, not all challenges are created equally. While we might primarily think of challenges that make the map more accurate, some challenges could, in fact, make the map less accurate. Some ISPs might make questionable challenges about the level of service they can or will provide.

As debate continues about the “collision course” between the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) programs, it is worth highlighting the unique leverage Tribal nations have to resolve these concerns on Tribal lands as well as the challenges they may face in navigating the process.

Existing state and federal grant/loan programs are considered “enforceable commitments” under BEAD rules, making locations funded through those programs, including RDOF, ineligible for BEAD grants (unless those awards are declared to be in default). This rule prevents “duplication” of federal or state funding for broadband infrastructure build-outs.

The debate has emerged because some communities are concerned that RDOF-funded building has not yet begun and, in some cases, may never be built-out. In the meantime those locations remain ineligible for BEAD because of these enforceable commitments.

However, the rules about enforceable commitments and duplication are different on Tribal lands. When issuing its BEAD guidance, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) determined that federal and state grant funding for buildout on Tribal lands – like RDOF – that do not carry Tribal Government Resolutions of consent are not considered to be enforceable commitments.

As debate continues about the “collision course” between the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) programs, it is worth highlighting the unique leverage Tribal nations have to resolve these concerns on Tribal lands as well as the challenges they may face in navigating the process.

Existing state and federal grant/loan programs are considered “enforceable commitments” under BEAD rules, making locations funded through those programs, including RDOF, ineligible for BEAD grants (unless those awards are declared to be in default). This rule prevents “duplication” of federal or state funding for broadband infrastructure build-outs.

The debate has emerged because some communities are concerned that RDOF-funded building has not yet begun and, in some cases, may never be built-out. In the meantime those locations remain ineligible for BEAD because of these enforceable commitments.

However, the rules about enforceable commitments and duplication are different on Tribal lands. When issuing its BEAD guidance, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) determined that federal and state grant funding for buildout on Tribal lands – like RDOF – that do not carry Tribal Government Resolutions of consent are not considered to be enforceable commitments.

As debate continues about the “collision course” between the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) programs, it is worth highlighting the unique leverage Tribal nations have to resolve these concerns on Tribal lands as well as the challenges they may face in navigating the process.

Existing state and federal grant/loan programs are considered “enforceable commitments” under BEAD rules, making locations funded through those programs, including RDOF, ineligible for BEAD grants (unless those awards are declared to be in default). This rule prevents “duplication” of federal or state funding for broadband infrastructure build-outs.

The debate has emerged because some communities are concerned that RDOF-funded building has not yet begun and, in some cases, may never be built-out. In the meantime those locations remain ineligible for BEAD because of these enforceable commitments.

However, the rules about enforceable commitments and duplication are different on Tribal lands. When issuing its BEAD guidance, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) determined that federal and state grant funding for buildout on Tribal lands – like RDOF – that do not carry Tribal Government Resolutions of consent are not considered to be enforceable commitments.

As debate continues about the “collision course” between the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) programs, it is worth highlighting the unique leverage Tribal nations have to resolve these concerns on Tribal lands as well as the challenges they may face in navigating the process.

Existing state and federal grant/loan programs are considered “enforceable commitments” under BEAD rules, making locations funded through those programs, including RDOF, ineligible for BEAD grants (unless those awards are declared to be in default). This rule prevents “duplication” of federal or state funding for broadband infrastructure build-outs.

The debate has emerged because some communities are concerned that RDOF-funded building has not yet begun and, in some cases, may never be built-out. In the meantime those locations remain ineligible for BEAD because of these enforceable commitments.

However, the rules about enforceable commitments and duplication are different on Tribal lands. When issuing its BEAD guidance, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) determined that federal and state grant funding for buildout on Tribal lands – like RDOF – that do not carry Tribal Government Resolutions of consent are not considered to be enforceable commitments.

As debate continues about the “collision course” between the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) programs, it is worth highlighting the unique leverage Tribal nations have to resolve these concerns on Tribal lands as well as the challenges they may face in navigating the process.

Existing state and federal grant/loan programs are considered “enforceable commitments” under BEAD rules, making locations funded through those programs, including RDOF, ineligible for BEAD grants (unless those awards are declared to be in default). This rule prevents “duplication” of federal or state funding for broadband infrastructure build-outs.

The debate has emerged because some communities are concerned that RDOF-funded building has not yet begun and, in some cases, may never be built-out. In the meantime those locations remain ineligible for BEAD because of these enforceable commitments.

However, the rules about enforceable commitments and duplication are different on Tribal lands. When issuing its BEAD guidance, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) determined that federal and state grant funding for buildout on Tribal lands – like RDOF – that do not carry Tribal Government Resolutions of consent are not considered to be enforceable commitments.

As debate continues about the “collision course” between the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) programs, it is worth highlighting the unique leverage Tribal nations have to resolve these concerns on Tribal lands as well as the challenges they may face in navigating the process.

Existing state and federal grant/loan programs are considered “enforceable commitments” under BEAD rules, making locations funded through those programs, including RDOF, ineligible for BEAD grants (unless those awards are declared to be in default). This rule prevents “duplication” of federal or state funding for broadband infrastructure build-outs.

The debate has emerged because some communities are concerned that RDOF-funded building has not yet begun and, in some cases, may never be built-out. In the meantime those locations remain ineligible for BEAD because of these enforceable commitments.

However, the rules about enforceable commitments and duplication are different on Tribal lands. When issuing its BEAD guidance, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) determined that federal and state grant funding for buildout on Tribal lands – like RDOF – that do not carry Tribal Government Resolutions of consent are not considered to be enforceable commitments.

As debate continues about the “collision course” between the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) programs, it is worth highlighting the unique leverage Tribal nations have to resolve these concerns on Tribal lands as well as the challenges they may face in navigating the process.

Existing state and federal grant/loan programs are considered “enforceable commitments” under BEAD rules, making locations funded through those programs, including RDOF, ineligible for BEAD grants (unless those awards are declared to be in default). This rule prevents “duplication” of federal or state funding for broadband infrastructure build-outs.

The debate has emerged because some communities are concerned that RDOF-funded building has not yet begun and, in some cases, may never be built-out. In the meantime those locations remain ineligible for BEAD because of these enforceable commitments.

However, the rules about enforceable commitments and duplication are different on Tribal lands. When issuing its BEAD guidance, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) determined that federal and state grant funding for buildout on Tribal lands – like RDOF – that do not carry Tribal Government Resolutions of consent are not considered to be enforceable commitments.

As debate continues about the “collision course” between the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) programs, it is worth highlighting the unique leverage Tribal nations have to resolve these concerns on Tribal lands as well as the challenges they may face in navigating the process.

Existing state and federal grant/loan programs are considered “enforceable commitments” under BEAD rules, making locations funded through those programs, including RDOF, ineligible for BEAD grants (unless those awards are declared to be in default). This rule prevents “duplication” of federal or state funding for broadband infrastructure build-outs.

The debate has emerged because some communities are concerned that RDOF-funded building has not yet begun and, in some cases, may never be built-out. In the meantime those locations remain ineligible for BEAD because of these enforceable commitments.

However, the rules about enforceable commitments and duplication are different on Tribal lands. When issuing its BEAD guidance, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) determined that federal and state grant funding for buildout on Tribal lands – like RDOF – that do not carry Tribal Government Resolutions of consent are not considered to be enforceable commitments.

As debate continues about the “collision course” between the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) programs, it is worth highlighting the unique leverage Tribal nations have to resolve these concerns on Tribal lands as well as the challenges they may face in navigating the process.

Existing state and federal grant/loan programs are considered “enforceable commitments” under BEAD rules, making locations funded through those programs, including RDOF, ineligible for BEAD grants (unless those awards are declared to be in default). This rule prevents “duplication” of federal or state funding for broadband infrastructure build-outs.

The debate has emerged because some communities are concerned that RDOF-funded building has not yet begun and, in some cases, may never be built-out. In the meantime those locations remain ineligible for BEAD because of these enforceable commitments.

However, the rules about enforceable commitments and duplication are different on Tribal lands. When issuing its BEAD guidance, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) determined that federal and state grant funding for buildout on Tribal lands – like RDOF – that do not carry Tribal Government Resolutions of consent are not considered to be enforceable commitments.