<p>The <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/">Pew Charitable Trusts </a>has begun publishing memos that will be useful for state broadband offices as they beef up staff to ensure state broadband grant funds are not wasted and track whether states are awarding grants to proposed projects in a way that advances various state’s goals in building a bridge across the digital divide.</p><p>One memo focuses on how allowing providers to object to applications can promote accountability. The second memo examines how state broadband offices can use scoring metrics to evaluate grant applications.</p><p><strong>The Challenge Process</strong></p><p>The first memo begins noting that by “providing a system for existing high-speed [I]nternet providers to raise concerns about grant applications, (it) can help state broadband offices ensure that public funds are not tapped multiple times for the same project or awarded to areas without sufficient need.”</p><p>That can be done through the “<a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2022/01/broadband-grant-progra… process</a>,” which allows Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to challenge an application if the challenger can demonstrate that they already provide service in a grant application area, have started network construction in that area, or have plans to do so.</p><p>The memo boils down four summary points that are “key features from a variety of states.”</p><blockquote><p>• Challenge processes can be an important control to prevent public subsidies from being awarded to areas that are already receiving equivalent service or will receive equivalent service within a set period (e.g., 12 months).

<p>The <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/">Pew Charitable Trusts </a>has begun publishing memos that will be useful for state broadband offices as they beef up staff to ensure state broadband grant funds are not wasted and track whether states are awarding grants to proposed projects in a way that advances various state’s goals in building a bridge across the digital divide.</p><p>One memo focuses on how allowing providers to object to applications can promote accountability. The second memo examines how state broadband offices can use scoring metrics to evaluate grant applications.</p><p><strong>The Challenge Process</strong></p><p>The first memo begins noting that by “providing a system for existing high-speed [I]nternet providers to raise concerns about grant applications, (it) can help state broadband offices ensure that public funds are not tapped multiple times for the same project or awarded to areas without sufficient need.”</p><p>That can be done through the “<a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2022/01/broadband-grant-progra… process</a>,” which allows Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to challenge an application if the challenger can demonstrate that they already provide service in a grant application area, have started network construction in that area, or have plans to do so.</p><p>The memo boils down four summary points that are “key features from a variety of states.”</p><blockquote><p>• Challenge processes can be an important control to prevent public subsidies from being awarded to areas that are already receiving equivalent service or will receive equivalent service within a set period (e.g., 12 months).

<p>The <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/">Pew Charitable Trusts </a>has begun publishing memos that will be useful for state broadband offices as they beef up staff to ensure state broadband grant funds are not wasted and track whether states are awarding grants to proposed projects in a way that advances various state’s goals in building a bridge across the digital divide.</p><p>One memo focuses on how allowing providers to object to applications can promote accountability. The second memo examines how state broadband offices can use scoring metrics to evaluate grant applications.</p><p><strong>The Challenge Process</strong></p><p>The first memo begins noting that by “providing a system for existing high-speed [I]nternet providers to raise concerns about grant applications, (it) can help state broadband offices ensure that public funds are not tapped multiple times for the same project or awarded to areas without sufficient need.”</p><p>That can be done through the “<a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2022/01/broadband-grant-progra… process</a>,” which allows Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to challenge an application if the challenger can demonstrate that they already provide service in a grant application area, have started network construction in that area, or have plans to do so.</p><p>The memo boils down four summary points that are “key features from a variety of states.”</p><blockquote><p>• Challenge processes can be an important control to prevent public subsidies from being awarded to areas that are already receiving equivalent service or will receive equivalent service within a set period (e.g., 12 months).

<p>The <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/">Pew Charitable Trusts </a>has begun publishing memos that will be useful for state broadband offices as they beef up staff to ensure state broadband grant funds are not wasted and track whether states are awarding grants to proposed projects in a way that advances various state’s goals in building a bridge across the digital divide.</p><p>One memo focuses on how allowing providers to object to applications can promote accountability. The second memo examines how state broadband offices can use scoring metrics to evaluate grant applications.</p><p><strong>The Challenge Process</strong></p><p>The first memo begins noting that by “providing a system for existing high-speed [I]nternet providers to raise concerns about grant applications, (it) can help state broadband offices ensure that public funds are not tapped multiple times for the same project or awarded to areas without sufficient need.”</p><p>That can be done through the “<a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2022/01/broadband-grant-progra… process</a>,” which allows Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to challenge an application if the challenger can demonstrate that they already provide service in a grant application area, have started network construction in that area, or have plans to do so.</p><p>The memo boils down four summary points that are “key features from a variety of states.”</p><blockquote><p>• Challenge processes can be an important control to prevent public subsidies from being awarded to areas that are already receiving equivalent service or will receive equivalent service within a set period (e.g., 12 months).

Every week we write about the municipalities and the cooperatives that come together to bring high-quality, affordable, locally accountable Internet access to those who need it most. And it seems as if we're at a watershed moment as a nation: community solutions to broadband are poised to have their big day. 

One of the big questions that remains is who Congress and the White House will listen to in the coming weeks and months as national legislation moves through the D.C. crucible: their constituents, many of whom have spent the past year struggling to work and live on too-expensive, too-slow, or nonexistent broadband connections forged by a broken marketplace, or the monopoly ISPs gearing up for the fight of their lives to snuff out even the specter of competition so they can continue to extract profits from cities and towns large and small across the country.

ILSR's Sean Gonsalves and Christopher Mitchell have an essay out in The American Prospect which outlines both the upcoming fight and the future at stake, as the Biden Administration's American Jobs Plan positions itself to return a level of parity to local solutions in expanding broadband access and promote competition.

Read an excerpt below, but check out the whole piece here:

28 million households have only one Internet service provider offering at least the minimum broadband speed. Many of the supposed competitors are phantoms. And the number of households in areas with more than one ISP offering gigabit speed service is paltry. Only two million households have that choice, or maybe many fewer—the FCC doesn’t really know at any granular level.

Today, Internet access has been largely monopolized by a few big cable companies, even as voice and television services have become more competitive. Government officials have generally responded by seeking to remove barriers to competition, rather than embracing more deliberate pro-competition policies to better shape the markets. But that may be coming to an end.

Every week we write about the municipalities and the cooperatives that come together to bring high-quality, affordable, locally accountable Internet access to those who need it most. And it seems as if we're at a watershed moment as a nation: community solutions to broadband are poised to have their big day. 

One of the big questions that remains is who Congress and the White House will listen to in the coming weeks and months as national legislation moves through the D.C. crucible: their constituents, many of whom have spent the past year struggling to work and live on too-expensive, too-slow, or nonexistent broadband connections forged by a broken marketplace, or the monopoly ISPs gearing up for the fight of their lives to snuff out even the specter of competition so they can continue to extract profits from cities and towns large and small across the country.

ILSR's Sean Gonsalves and Christopher Mitchell have an essay out in The American Prospect which outlines both the upcoming fight and the future at stake, as the Biden Administration's American Jobs Plan positions itself to return a level of parity to local solutions in expanding broadband access and promote competition.

Read an excerpt below, but check out the whole piece here:

28 million households have only one Internet service provider offering at least the minimum broadband speed. Many of the supposed competitors are phantoms. And the number of households in areas with more than one ISP offering gigabit speed service is paltry. Only two million households have that choice, or maybe many fewer—the FCC doesn’t really know at any granular level.

Today, Internet access has been largely monopolized by a few big cable companies, even as voice and television services have become more competitive. Government officials have generally responded by seeking to remove barriers to competition, rather than embracing more deliberate pro-competition policies to better shape the markets. But that may be coming to an end.

Every week we write about the municipalities and the cooperatives that come together to bring high-quality, affordable, locally accountable Internet access to those who need it most. And it seems as if we're at a watershed moment as a nation: community solutions to broadband are poised to have their big day. 

One of the big questions that remains is who Congress and the White House will listen to in the coming weeks and months as national legislation moves through the D.C. crucible: their constituents, many of whom have spent the past year struggling to work and live on too-expensive, too-slow, or nonexistent broadband connections forged by a broken marketplace, or the monopoly ISPs gearing up for the fight of their lives to snuff out even the specter of competition so they can continue to extract profits from cities and towns large and small across the country.

ILSR's Sean Gonsalves and Christopher Mitchell have an essay out in The American Prospect which outlines both the upcoming fight and the future at stake, as the Biden Administration's American Jobs Plan positions itself to return a level of parity to local solutions in expanding broadband access and promote competition.

Read an excerpt below, but check out the whole piece here:

28 million households have only one Internet service provider offering at least the minimum broadband speed. Many of the supposed competitors are phantoms. And the number of households in areas with more than one ISP offering gigabit speed service is paltry. Only two million households have that choice, or maybe many fewer—the FCC doesn’t really know at any granular level.

Today, Internet access has been largely monopolized by a few big cable companies, even as voice and television services have become more competitive. Government officials have generally responded by seeking to remove barriers to competition, rather than embracing more deliberate pro-competition policies to better shape the markets. But that may be coming to an end.

Every week we write about the municipalities and the cooperatives that come together to bring high-quality, affordable, locally accountable Internet access to those who need it most. And it seems as if we're at a watershed moment as a nation: community solutions to broadband are poised to have their big day. 

One of the big questions that remains is who Congress and the White House will listen to in the coming weeks and months as national legislation moves through the D.C. crucible: their constituents, many of whom have spent the past year struggling to work and live on too-expensive, too-slow, or nonexistent broadband connections forged by a broken marketplace, or the monopoly ISPs gearing up for the fight of their lives to snuff out even the specter of competition so they can continue to extract profits from cities and towns large and small across the country.

ILSR's Sean Gonsalves and Christopher Mitchell have an essay out in The American Prospect which outlines both the upcoming fight and the future at stake, as the Biden Administration's American Jobs Plan positions itself to return a level of parity to local solutions in expanding broadband access and promote competition.

Read an excerpt below, but check out the whole piece here:

28 million households have only one Internet service provider offering at least the minimum broadband speed. Many of the supposed competitors are phantoms. And the number of households in areas with more than one ISP offering gigabit speed service is paltry. Only two million households have that choice, or maybe many fewer—the FCC doesn’t really know at any granular level.

Today, Internet access has been largely monopolized by a few big cable companies, even as voice and television services have become more competitive. Government officials have generally responded by seeking to remove barriers to competition, rather than embracing more deliberate pro-competition policies to better shape the markets. But that may be coming to an end.

Every week we write about the municipalities and the cooperatives that come together to bring high-quality, affordable, locally accountable Internet access to those who need it most. And it seems as if we're at a watershed moment as a nation: community solutions to broadband are poised to have their big day. 

One of the big questions that remains is who Congress and the White House will listen to in the coming weeks and months as national legislation moves through the D.C. crucible: their constituents, many of whom have spent the past year struggling to work and live on too-expensive, too-slow, or nonexistent broadband connections forged by a broken marketplace, or the monopoly ISPs gearing up for the fight of their lives to snuff out even the specter of competition so they can continue to extract profits from cities and towns large and small across the country.

ILSR's Sean Gonsalves and Christopher Mitchell have an essay out in The American Prospect which outlines both the upcoming fight and the future at stake, as the Biden Administration's American Jobs Plan positions itself to return a level of parity to local solutions in expanding broadband access and promote competition.

Read an excerpt below, but check out the whole piece here:

28 million households have only one Internet service provider offering at least the minimum broadband speed. Many of the supposed competitors are phantoms. And the number of households in areas with more than one ISP offering gigabit speed service is paltry. Only two million households have that choice, or maybe many fewer—the FCC doesn’t really know at any granular level.

Today, Internet access has been largely monopolized by a few big cable companies, even as voice and television services have become more competitive. Government officials have generally responded by seeking to remove barriers to competition, rather than embracing more deliberate pro-competition policies to better shape the markets. But that may be coming to an end.