I have to admit, I'm more than a little surprised at how little uproar there's been about NTIA's decision to shift course midstream in round one of the broadband stimulus and not fund any last mile projects.

In the round one NOFA, NTIA talked at length about last mile projects, giving every indication that last mile had at least as good of a chance at getting funding as middle mile.

Yet how many last mile projects have gotten funded? Other than some minor last mile components to middle mile projects, the answer is none. And not one single purely last mile project has been awarded a grant by NTIA.

That's not for a lack of trying, though. I know a ton of projects that applied for NTIA's BTOP Last Mile program. Many saw NTIA as their only hope as they didn't think they could qualify for BIP funding for a variety of programmatic reasons.

Yet after all the applications had come in for round one, NTIA changed its mind. They decided to ignore the first round NOFA and blaze a new trail, one that focused entirely on middle mile and completely ignored last mile projects.

The problem with this isn't that their new trail is necessarily the wrong way to go. I think some compelling arguments have been made that middle mile is a good place for government to focus it's support.

Instead what's troubling is the utter lack of transparency about this decision. It was made behind closed doors, and as far as I know the public was never notified.

Quite frankly, I find how they handled this to be rather disrespectful to first round last mile applicants. A lot of people put a lot of time and energy into applications that because of these decisions were dead on arrival.

Unfortunately, not much can be done to make this right as the second round NTIA NOFA now clearly states their intentions to only fund middle mile, so it's not like last mile BTOP applicants can reapply.

But at a minimum, I think last mile BTOP applicants deserve an apology from Administrator Strickling. While I know the first round NOFA wasn't his fault as it was drafted before he assumed power, it was his decision to abandon it midstream and not tell anyone he was doing so.

By not acknowledging they did this, NTIA is basically saying they don't care about anyone working hard to bring last mile service to the unconnected who saw BTOP as an opportunity to do more for their constituents. It also shows that NTIA doesn't care about respecting the hard work first round last mile applicants put in to applying.

What's so frustrating is that I can't believe that this was done intentionally or maliciously. I know some of the people over at NTIA and they're good people, working hard themselves. More likely is that this is just a detail that slipped through the cracks as they tried to manage an impossible challenge.

But regardless of that, there's still no denying that the decisions they made behind closed doors wasted the time and energy of hundreds of projects, causing thousands and maybe even millions of Americans to become even more disillusioned with the federal government.

Because of this, I think NTIA owes first round last mile BTOP applicants an apology to clear the air, come clean about what they did, so that we can all move on from this with at least some sense that NTIA actually cares about the people it's supposed to be serving.

Posted by Geoff Daily on March 11, 2010 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
More posts about btop ntia policy stimulus

Last night CNN aired a story during the Situation Room highlighting two participants in the first round of the broadband stimulus.

The first was Hiawatha Broadband, a terrific rural broadband deployer in southeastern Minnesota. They interviewed a host of people about how the hardscrabble rural towns Hiawatha was aiming to serve don't have broadband at all, and as a result their public safety is in jeopardy as they have no efficient way to communicate during an emergency. Unfortunately, despite the fact that they're a poster child for the types of communities the broadband stimulus is intended to help, their application was denied.

Then CNN went up to Bretton Woods, NH, where RUS did find a project it deemed worthy of funding, namely building fiber to 400 skiing chalets. I'd been suspicious about this program already, but CNN put an even finer point on it: only 40 of those homes actually have full-time residents.

The piece then finished up with a line from yours truly to the following effect:

"The intent of the stimulus was to connect the unconnected. To give people a primary means for getting online, so they can find jobs, get better educated, access better healthcare. The stimulus is not about getting broadband to skiing chalets as a nice-to-have amenity."

While I said that in an interview before the piece aired, after watching it I'm more convinced then ever that something's screwed up with RUS's priorities.

How is it that they decided it was more important that skiing chalets get fiber over a rural Minnesota town that has no broadband at all?

Making this even more galling is that after the story aired, a colleague of mine who grew up around that area shared that not only is the area RUS decided to subsidize wealthy, but it's surrounded by much more economically challenged communities. So RUS basically gave money so rich people could have better access when they go skiing, while the areas around this enclave are left without any help.

Now, I know it's unfair to blame RUS for not addressing the needs of the communities surrounding Bretton Woods as there may not have been an application submitted for them to fund.

But how can they justify funding a part-time skiing village when so many rural low-income Americans are still without service?

What this highlights is that RUS is a broken system. Their purpose is to be a lender of last resort, providing a source of low-cost capital to fund deployment to areas that can't do it themselves through traditional means.

Instead what RUS has a history of doing is only funding those projects that need the least government support, that are the most able to pay back loans and put up their own money.

This post and that CNN story are not meant to tear down any individual at RUS. But I do hope that together they bring the nation's attention to bear on the fact that there are systemic issues that need to be addressed in RUS if it is going to realize its full potential as a true enabler of rural broadband deployment.

Because when you hear stories like this, and you see how RUS is really only funding private closed monopolies in the first round of the stimulus, you do have to wonder if they're really fulfilling the role that RUS is intended to serve.

Posted by Geoff Daily on March 11, 2010 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)
More posts about bip cnn hiawatha policy rus stimulus

For anyone who's observed or experienced firsthand the first round of the broadband stimulus, the issues with how NTIA and RUS have handled things are rampant.

Here are just a few of the questions that I and many others have about how things have gone to date:

- Why haven't any public last mile projects received funding?
- Why are they disadvantaging applicants for Rd 2 that made it to due diligence in Rd 1?
- Why aren't they providing any real feedback to Rd 1 applicants?
- Why did NTIA change the scoring criteria midstream, rendering many applications dead on arrival?

These are some of the major questions that I would think anyone tasked with overseeing the broadband stimulus would care to ask.

Yesterday the House had its quarterly broadband stimulus oversight hearing. So which of these questions did they decide to address publicly?

Only one. Chairman Boucher and Rep. Welch both inquired about whether Rd 1 applicants were getting enough feedback to know what they did wrong and to identify how they can improve their applications for Rd 2.

Administrators Adelstein and Strickling said yes, they were providing enough feedback, and that was the end of it. No follow up questions from Congress. No pressing NTIA and RUS on the fact that they've been rejecting applicants by form letter and refusing to provide any followup insight into why applications got rejected. No questioning how it can be that while NTIA and RUS feel they're giving adequate feedback, no one who's received that feedback feels like they have a real handle on why they were rejected.

What dominated Congressional comments and questions were concerns over government subsidizing competition, that stimulus funds are being used to fund duplicative networks. No fewer than six Representatives, on both sides of the aisle, expressed concerns about this.

It's hard not to interpret this as Congress caring more about protecting the interests of incumbents than about making sure the program's actually working right.

Some who raised this issue may claim that what they're really doing is protecting the interests of unserved Americans, to make sure stimulus funds stay focused on connecting the unconnected. But that's an absurd suggestion as the economics of broadband deployment are horrible if you're only building to unserved areas. You need networks to reach denser areas to balance out the less dense to have a sustainable network.

The one upshot of this emphasis on government-subsidized competition was being inspired watching Strickling fight back to put the interests of communities over those of corporations. In particular, when he was questioned about how the North Georgia project overlaps with areas served by Windstream, he strongly and eloquently argued that just because Windstream was in North Georgia doesn't mean they were actually serving the community's needs.

That's the crazy thing about Congress's emphasis on government-subsidized competition. They seem to think that if an incumbent says they serve an area than it must be served and doesn't need subsidies. But that's just not the case. A big part of the problem America faces is not just that some people can't get any service, it's that many people can only get service that's inadequate, unreliable, and too expensive.

The question shouldn't be, "Is there service?" It should be, "Is there sufficient service to meet the needs of Americans?"

But I digress, what this post is really about is the appalling behavior of Congress as it shirks its stimulus oversight responsibilities.

I find their behavior unacceptable on multiple levels.

For one, I can't believe they don't know about at least some of these problems. Pretty much everyone who's disgruntled about how the first round of the stimulus went has contacted their Congressional representatives to complain. Many have had their elected officials contact NTIA and RUS directly to try and get more information about why they were rejected, only to be denied. So Congress's inaction can't be explained away by ignorance.

So if they know problems exist, why aren't they addressing them? It makes one wonder if Congress doesn't want to admit that the broadband stimulus has had issues. They'd rather keep things quiet so they can continue touting the benefits of federal investments in their communities without having to get their hands dirty. They'd rather plow forward than have anyone question whether the decisions they've made up until this point are right.

But that brings me to the real reason I find their inaction and seeming disinterest so appalling: they're the only ones who can make sure the many issues with the broadband stimulus are addressed and resolved.

We can't count on NTIA and RUS to do this themselves. They've got too much on their plate to spend time reflecting on the past. And they have nothing to gain by admitting their mistakes.

The only people who can shine a light on these issues and affect real change is Congress. And yet they've decided to shirk this responsibility. They've decided that the illusion of oversight is good enough.

I hate to speak so harshly about an institution I respect tremendously, and I'm greatly appreciative that Congress devoted the energy to make the broadband stimulus possible in the first place. But if they really want the broadband stimulus to be a success, to be a catalyst to push America forward, then they have got to stop this milquetoast oversight.

The American people deserve better.

Posted by Geoff Daily on March 5, 2010 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
More posts about bip btop congress ntia policy rus stimulus

The venerable Charles Benton has just shared an idea with me for how to level the playing field for the broadband stimulus that I think is flat out brilliant.

It addresses the inequities being heaped on anyone unfortunate enough to make it into due diligence of the stimulus Round I.

As things stand right now, many projects that made it into due diligence still haven't heard if they're going to be awarded funding, and many more didn't get their rejection letter until after the funding window for the Round II NOFA opened in mid-February.

What the current system is doing is punishing anyone who made it to due diligence by giving them less time to rework their application than others who were rejected earlier on.

What Charles suggests in the Benton Plan is that all applicants should have the same amount of time to submit their Round II applications. Accomplishing this can be done simply by extending the deadline for applicants that made it to due diligence to 30 days after they received their rejection letter.

This way instead of some applicants only have two weeks when others had a whole month to apply, everyone can have the same chance at success.

Additionally, if they end up extending the deadline for everyone (which is seeming increasingly likely according to some scuttlebutt I'm hearing) then you can give those that made it to due diligence 45 days or however long after they got rejected to reapply.

The Benton Plan makes perfect sense to me as otherwise if we don't do something to level the playing field than we're essentially disadvantaging some of what should be the very best projects given that they made it to due diligence in the first place.

I hope NTIA and RUS are open to considering new ideas like the Benton Plan as ways to resolve these issues of fairness. Only time will tell.

Posted by Geoff Daily on March 2, 2010 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
More posts about benton stimulus

Something dawned on me over the weekend about the broadband stimulus: public last mile projects had zero chance of receiving funding in Round I.

But how could this be? Wasn't the stimulus supposed to prioritize public projects? Wasn't the stimulus supposed to spur last mile deployment?

While that may have been the intent, due to two key decisions made behind closed doors, public last mile broadband stimulus projects never had a chance.

The first decision that ruled out public last mile projects was NTIA's midstream switch to focus all of its resources on middle mile projects. Hundreds of last mile applicants applied to BTOP thinking they had a chance to get funded, when really their efforts were all wasted.

The second decision that ruled out public last mile projects was RUS not doing anything to better accommodate public projects. Pretty much every aspect of their program favors private companies. As evidence of this all of the projects RUS has funded in the stimulus to date have been private entities.

Put these two decisions together and you can see that public last mile broadband stimulus projects were systemically discriminated against.

But what's so frustrating about this isn't that NTIA and RUS decided not to fund public last mile projects, it's that they never told anyone about these decisions.

If they would have just come out and said, "NTIA's only doing middle mile and RUS is only funding private projects," then I and many others would've been upset, but at least we would've known what was going on and public applicants could've saved themselves a lot of hassle.

Instead NTIA and RUS stood by and allowed hundreds of hard-working Americans to spend countless hours, dollars, and effort putting together stimulus applications that were dead on arrival.

Quite frankly, this is unconscionable. Making it worse is I'm not sure if Strickling and Adelstein even realize what they did. They seem to think that everything's going fine with the stimulus, and that they're making all the right decisions.

But how can that be when the results of their efforts are that no public last mile projects will get funded?

No matter how you cut it, NTIA and RUS screwed public last mile projects, and in so doing disrespected and disappointed the very people they're supposed to be inspiring.

Posted by Geoff Daily on March 2, 2010 9:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)
More posts about bip btop ntia rus stimulus

Recently an analogy has sprung to mind describing how the broadband stimulus has run to date that I can't get out of my head. It's that of broadband stimulus applicants as Charlie Browns repeatedly trying to kick the football only to have NTIA and RUS as Lucy move it out of their way at the last second.

There were many ways this process played out with both agencies.

Non-profits and governmental entities thought they actually had a chance at RUS funding, but instead the money's pretty much all going to private for-profit companies.

Public and private providers alike thought that NTIA was going to give out some money to spur last-mile deployment, but they switched midstream and instead have only funded middle mile projects.

There was talk of both NTIA and RUS wanting to work with applicants to make sure the best projects get funded, but instead many great projects were disqualified due to technicalities.

Applicants were encouraged to be creative and that they'd be rewarded for finding ways to leverage multiple funding sources, but instead only the simple projects that applied for one pot of money have gotten funded.

NTIA and RUS have claimed that their goal is to fund the best projects, and yet the rules they implement don't align with best practices for broadband deployment, which may make it hard even for projects that get funding to succeed in the long run.

Over and over again, the broadband stimulus has said one thing but done another, leaving applicants laid out on the ground, dazed, confused, and unsure of what to do next.

And yet here we are again, with the window for Round II funding rapidly closing, these hard-working Americans must decide whether it's worth getting up, dusting themselves off, and giving it another go. Will this be the time that Lucy finally lets them kick it? Or will they futilely end up on the ground in another cloud of dust?

I wish I could confidently say their chances look good, but at this point, NTIA and RUS look like they have a little too much Lucy in them for me to guarantee applicants won't become Charlie Browns all over again.

Posted by Geoff Daily on March 1, 2010 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
More posts about bip btop ntia rus stimulus

I just read this story over on the Hillicon Valley blog about NTIA rejecting Sen. Reid's request that they extend the application deadline for the second round of the stimulus.

I'm now going to attempt to express my feelings about NTIA's dismissal of this idea without swearing. Wish me luck.

To cut right to the chase, I can't help but read NTIA's response to Reid's request as them basically saying that they think saving their own behinds is more important than serving the interests of the American people.

They claim that they can't extend the deadline because they can't afford more delays given the Sept 30th drop-dead date to get money out the door. Well that's unpack that a bit.

For starters, who's fault were all the initial delays? They say they can't afford any more delays as if something outside of their control created those delays, when really they were all self-inflicted. Now because of their mistakes they're punishing hard-working applicants by being rigid with an arbitrary deadline. This is especially egregious given how long they've made us all wait for them at every step of the process.

It's like trying to work with your boss on a project where you're killing yourself and yet you can't get your boss to engage, help out, or provide guidance, then when the deadline nears they start freaking out and taking it out on you by making you work through the weekend so they don't end up looking bad.

Second, if you have the head of the Senate asking you to do something, I don't see how you can respond by saying that you can't because of a law. Isn't it within Sen. Reid's power to explore legislative options to remove that pressure? Why wouldn't NTIA respond instead by saying, "Look, we'd love to extend the deadline but we can't because of the Sept 30th drop-dead date. But if Congress really thinks this is important to give applicants more time than they need to give us at least another month so we can make sure we don't rush our decision making."

This would be like a bad teacher forcing their students to study like crazy for a test then being approached by their principal suggesting there isn't enough time to study right. But even though the principal has the ability to extend that timeline, the teacher is instead too focused on forcing their students to study to try and change the situation for the better.

They apparently (I say apparently as I haven't found the full text of their letter) conclude their remarks with the following statement:

"The information being made available provides adequate information for Round 2 applicants about possible overlaps with Round 1 grants. Accordingly, NTIA denies the pending extension requests."

My first response is that this is patently false. How can NTIA provide adequate coverage information to Round 2 applicants when they haven't even announced all of the Round 1 winners yet? Admittedly this is a relatively small number of projects covering a small amount of area, but if anything that makes it worse as it means they're disadvantaging some applicants and potentially rendering all their work applying worthless if they happen to overlap with a project that does get funded.

Back to the bad teacher analogy, it'd be like giving a test to students in stages, where some students get theirs first and have more time than others, and yet the teacher is saying everything's fine as the times were close enough. On top of this, it's likely that in this case the teacher gave out the tests to the worst students first as they were the ones most obviously not cut out for the first round, whereas they're disadvantaging the best students who were in the review process the longest.

But even worse than this to me is how tone deaf NTIA is to the needs of applicants. It's not just a matter of overlapping service areas, it's about how can Round 1 applicants improve their applications in the second round? NTIA claims they should look at what kinds of projects got funded, and yet we know so little about those projects, at best nothing more than a 2-3 page high level executive summary, and in some cases not even that. We have no idea how the winners scored, how they were specifically structured, and what caused NTIA to pick them over another project.

Then in the form rejection letters that NTIA's been sending out they've had the audacity to strongly encourage rejected applicants to reapply for the second round, and that seems like some kind of a cruel joke.

It's like applicants took NTIA out on a big, fancy date where they had to pay for everything, yet afterward NTIA went home with someone else for no apparent reason, but then had the audacity to send an email three months later encouraging the applicant to ask them out again.

To review, NTIA's been like a bad boss, a bad teacher, and a bad boyfriend all rolled into one. And like those analogies, NTIA refuses to be self critical, to actually consider that maybe it's wrong, and that maybe all the people complaining about their actions are right.

That said, I don't think that the people at NTIA are no good. I think they mean well and want to do right by their country. But then the only logical justification I can imagine for their actions is that they're more worried about not looking bad by missing the Sept. 30th deadline than they are about doing their best to serve America.

What they should be doing is instead of denying these concerns, they should embrace them. They should treat them as legitimate and open a dialog with all interested parties about how best to proceed forward.

Because otherwise it looks from the outside like what's more important to them is doing the stimulus quickly than doing it right, but they need to realize that the opportunity to do it quickly has already passed.

And it's because of this that I can't help but wonder why NTIA hates America. Because if it didn't, if it loved America, it would care about doing the stimulus right over everything else. But as it stands right now, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Posted by Geoff Daily on February 26, 2010 2:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
More posts about ntia policy stimulus

Last week FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski unveiled his "100 Squared" initiative, which sets the goal of America having 100 million households connected to 100Mbps by 2020.

But what does that goal really mean?

Is that 100Mbps symmetrical, with as much capacity to upload as download?

Is that 100Mbps advertised or do providers need to be able to actually deliver it?

Is that a 100Mbps monopoly or a market where consumers have choice?

The answers to these questions define the scope of this initiative's ambitions. They also frame the need for and appropriate structure of any government intervention to help move the market forward.

According to the cable industry, they're already well on their way to offering 100Mbps+ broadband to 95% of America. So if the 100Mbps of "100 Squared" need only be asymmetric and advertised, then the FCC doesn't have to lift a finger to achieve what at first blush sounded like an attempt at an aspirational goal.

On the other hand, if Chairman Genachowski wants to deliver a real "100 Squared" where the 100Mbps is symmetric, so users can contribute as much as they consume, and actual, so users get what they pay for, the only technology today that can reliably and affordably deliver that is fiber to the home. Therefore if a real 100Mbps is the goal, policymaking moving forward should focus on how to incentivize fiber deployment.

Then there's the little matter of competition. Even if the 100Mbps that America aspires to is only asymmetric and advertised, there are no guarantees that DSL will ever be able to deliver 100Mbps to every home in an operator's service area, especially the further away a home is from the central office. And wireless is not a serious competitor at speeds 100Mbps and above.

Because of this, the only way there can be facilities-based competition at 100Mbps is if a new fiber pipe is run alongside the upgraded cable networks. Without fiber, our 100Mbps Nation will mean we've created a cable monopoly.

The question then becomes, will the incumbent telephone companies respond to cable's investment with an exponentially larger investment of their own to upgrade all of their networks to fiber so they can remain competitive?

Already we know Qwest's answer: "100Mbps is a dream. We couldn't afford it," said Qwest CEO Edward Mueller to Reuters.

So Qwest's 14-state footprint will largely be left with a 100Mbps cable monopoly without some new entrant picking up Qwest's slack.

While AT&T has not said it is incapable of achieving this goal, it also hasn't supported it as a goal worth regulating to strive for, leaving the 100Mbps fate of its tens of millions of wireline customers up in the air.

Of the major telephone companies only Verizon has expressed support for a 100Mbps future as their FiOS full fiber network can already support 100Mbps today.

What this all means is that without a proactive approach to spurring the deployment of full fiber networks, upwards of two thirds of America is at risk of having "100 Squared" mean a 100Mbps cable monopoly.

The $64,000 question in all of this uncertainty is how will the FCC back up their Chairman's promise in the national broadband plan? Will they decide that asymmetric, advertised 100Mbps monopolies are good enough and that the market will take care of that on their own? Or will they set the goal of providing Americans with symmetric, actual, and competitive 100Mbps connections?

Assuming they pick the latter (which I and many others sincerely hope they do), the challenge becomes figuring out how to quickly and cost effectively spur full fiber deployment, either by incumbent or new entrants.

There are also many related problems that must be solved, like how do can we decrease the cost of backhaul enough so that 100Mbps service can actually be affordable to consumers? And if the government decides to subsidize 100Mbps deployment, how do we decide who deserves taxpayer support?

But these all have solutions, and what matters most is that we finally have an FCC Chairman who believes America should lead and not lag the world in broadband connectivity, and who realizes what order of magnitude that means our goals need to be set at.

And now within that context, we have the opportunity to focus on figuring out how to spur fiber deployment so that America can achieve a 100Mbps future that's symmetric, actual, and competitive. Because without fiber, the potential of our 100Mbps future will be limited to asymmetric and uneven, advertised but not realized, and communities stuck in perpetual monopolies.

So now I pose the question back to Chairman Genachowski, "What does '100 Squared' really mean to you?"

Posted by Geoff Daily on February 21, 2010 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
More posts about 100squared cable fcc fiber nbs policy

After being so fed up with the broadband stimulus it sometimes hurts, I've decided it's time to start taking some action to rectify what I and many others see as a failing program.

As a first step in this process I've created a petition demanding that NTIA and RUS give the public our broadband stimulus data.

More specifically the petition demands two actions:

1. That NTIA/RUS make public the scores of all projects they've awarded funding.

2. That NTIA/RUS give back the scores privately to all applicants.

The former of these is so we can make sure the selection process is working. The latter is so that first round applicants can know how they can improve for the second round.

If NTIA and RUS have a legitimate excuse as to why they're keeping this data behind closed doors, I'm all ears to hear it as I want to see them succeed as much as anyone.

But in lieu of that the simple reality is that this is our data. We paid for it with our tax dollars, so we have the right to this data.

If you support the need for doing this, please add your name to this petition.

By uniting our voices of discontent we can make our argument stronger and push together to make change happen.

Posted by Geoff Daily on February 18, 2010 9:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
More posts about stimulus

One year ago today, Congress passed the ARRA, appropriating $7.2 billion to NTIA and RUS to stimulate broadband deployment across America.

So how have they done so far? What have they gotten done in a year's time?

Let's pull out the grading card to gauge the stimulus at its mid-term.

The grading criteria will be how well they've done against the following questions:

- How many jobs has the stimulus created?
- How much deployment has been stimulated?
- How quickly has the stimulus worked?
- Are they picking the best projects?
- How have they handled applicants?
- How transparent has the process been?
- How well have they learned from the first round?

Note that I'm grading NTIA and RUS collectively as at least on the surface they've performed similarly.

Jobs - D
The stimulus has not created any deployment jobs to date. In fact one could argue that it actually destroyed jobs as many projects put the brakes on waiting to see if they could get free government money. The stimulus has created some work, but it's primarily been for consultants and lawyers helping applicants navigate the burdensome application process. While the stimulus should start creating jobs this year, it's uncertain when as no one's gotten any money yet.

Deployment - F
The stimulus has not sparked any deployment in 2009, and as mentioned previously it may have actually had a detrimental impact on the pace of deployment.

Speed - F
The whole point of a stimulus is to create movement quickly. We're now one year from the day Congress appropriated $7.2 billion, and not one federal dollar has gone into deployment.

Best Projects - C
While most of the winners announced to date pass the smell test, I question the relative merit of funding fiber to 400 skiing chalets or putting any money into DSL technology, both of which are among the winners so far. This is especially true as I know of a lot of higher quality projects that got rejected on technicalities and others that even though they've made it to due diligence still don't yet know their final fate.

Handling of Applicants - D
I'm really tempted to give them an F here. Most applicants heard nothing from either agency for months after applying, and then were rejected by form letter with no feedback on why they were disqualified. Early on in the process the agencies claimed they were going to work to make sure that good projects weren't disqualified based on technicalities, but then they did exactly that. A bunch of applicants still haven't gotten rejection letters and the window to submit for the second round has already opened, which is insane. The only thing keeping them from failing was that they webcast their public workshops and at least included some kind of an application database even if it's flawed in many ways.

Transparency - F
In what is supposed to be a new era of open government, this is one of the greatest disappointments. Both agencies went silent for months during this process. We have no idea if or how their review processes are working. They're not sharing any of their scoring, even for those projects they're funding. There are projects that got funded that haven't made their executive summaries public, so taxpayers know next to nothing about them. And even still today when you go to either of their respective websites or broadbandusa.gov it isn't immediately apparent who they've funded. While there are many valid excuses for the shortcomings of the review process itself due to the massive number of applications, I don't see how anyone can justify the total opaqueness that the broadband stimulus has been operating under so far.

Learned Lessons - C
Giving credit where credit's due, the second round NOFAs from both agencies are much improved. There's greater clarity and a lot of dead weight got cut out. But have they really learned their lessons? Are they really ready to handle what's going to be an even larger deluge of applications in the second round? Are they going to start being more transparent? Are they going to start treating applicants with the respect they deserve? Already you've got NTIA admitting that they're not even considering the possibility of extending the submission deadline for round two despite the fact that not all round one applicants have received their rejection notices yet. That doesn't bode well, which is why I can't give them better than a passing grade, for now.

That's the thing, though. Just because the stimulus is failing now on almost all fronts doesn't mean that it can't recover and post solid even spectacular marks. Ultimately the grade that matters most is that the best projects are funded and on that they're not failing. They're also learning from at least some of their mistakes. So I for one am still hopeful that the broadband stimulus will be more than just another government folly.

And that hope is what adds the plus to NTIA/RUS's D average.

Overall mid-term grade for the stimulus: D+

Notes: A teacher-parent conference may be needed to discuss how to improve performance.

Posted by Geoff Daily on February 17, 2010 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
More posts about bip btop ntia rus stimulus