Memorandum
To: NewDEAL Leaders
From: Common Sense Media Staff
Date: 7/26/2022
Subject: Examples of Supportive/Problamatic Broadband Legislation ___________________________________________________________________________
This memo is a follow up to questions raised during the recent digital divide panel, below are several examples of bad broadband legislation and good broadband legislation. We’ve included the legislative language itself (italicized), a brief analysis, and links to relevant The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) rules. Common Sense is happy to provide an independent perspective on legislation in your state, connect with us by reaching out to Drew (dgarner@commonsense.org) and Amina (afazlullah@commonsense.org).
Bad Broadband Legislation
The Department shall use money from the grant program only for the exclusive purpose of awarding grants to applicants for projects that are limited to the construction and deployment of broadband service into unserved areas in the State and for the Department's costs to administer the program.
- This legislation would prevent BEAD from building broadband infrastructure in underserved areas. This is bad for two reasons: 1) Underserved areas lack internet service that can reliably support essential online activities, like education, healthcare, and work. As such, they are an explicit priority for BEAD. Without better infrastructure, these areas will soon become the new digital divide. 2) Networks are more financially viable when they contain a mixture of more and less profitable areas. Underserved areas are typically denser and thus more profitable. Removing them from grant consideration can complicate and weaken the business case to build anywhere, including in unserved areas.
The Department shall not, directly or indirectly, award grants to a governmental entity or educational institution or affiliate to own, purchase, construct, operate, or maintain a communications network, or to provide service to any residential or commercial premises.
- This language would block local governments from participating in BEAD. This is a problem for two reasons: 1) BEAD requires states to consider all provider types, including local governments, in their grant programs, and so this language has the potential to make the authorizing state ineligible for BEAD funding; 2) government entities may be the only ones willing to provide good service in areas that are not lucrative enough to draw private investment.
Except as required pursuant to federal law, the commission shall not require the recipient of a grant to do either of the following as a condition of receiving that grant:
Offer a service at a fixed price for more than five years.
Offer a service to all customers at a specified rate.
- This language would limit BEAD’s ability to address one of the largest causes of the digital divide — affordability. BEAD requires publicly funded infrastructure to offer a low-cost service option and to create a middle-class affordability plan. By removing price considerations from the grant process, this legislation: 1) prevents price coordination with the ACP, which limits the state’s ability to bring free service to low-income households; 2) ignores BEAD’s requirement that the low-cost option be available throughout the useful life of the network; and 3) limits the state’s ability to maintain affordability in non-competitive markets.
Duplicative and premature performance audits and oversight processes.
- Be cautious of efforts to add additional oversight to state broadband offices. Most state offices are currently working at max capacity to prepare for BEAD, and additional performance audits and committee review processes risk diverting their attention at a time when it is needed most. BEAD already contains comprehensive oversight and reporting requirements, so consider giving your office time to submit applications and plans before initiating appropriate oversight.
Good Broadband Legislation
The creation of a California Connect Corps for the purposes of promoting digital inclusion and literacy through community outreach to covered populations. The California Connect Corps members providing the services enumerated in this paragraph may include, but are not limited to, covered populations. Members shall receive paid compensation, free IT career training, and supportive services during their term of service.
Digital navigation support to connect individuals with digital resources, including affordable plans for high-speed internet, devices, or skills training.
One-on-one support and tutoring for individuals enrolled in a digital literacy course.
Technical support, including, but not limited to, answering questions about how to use devices and troubleshoot technical issues.
Support for individuals seeking to access or enroll in social services and workforce development resources online.
- This language directs the state’s Digital Equity entity to create a digital navigator program. The program would have three main benefits: 1) it would create paid navigator positions that provide a pathway to in-demand IT careers; 2) it would provide the person-to-person support needed to truly pull people out of the digital divide; and 3) it would help the state boost ACP enrollment, which will bring more federal money into the state and make low-income communities more attractive for ISP deployment.
Beginning in the 2022 school year and in each school year thereafter through the 2025 school year, each school board shall submit an annual report to the Virginia Department of Education and the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development [the state broadband agency] listing each student's 9-1-1 address that does not have broadband access
- This legislation requires schools to add questions about home connectivity to their existing student surveys. Schools already routinely collect data on their students, and adding a few questions can thus be simple to collect granular connectivity data that will allow a community to demonstrate their service needs, which can make them a priority for BEAD.