← Priorities Podcast
Priorities Podcast
The digital divide is shrinking, but 'there's still a long way to go'
00:33:46
Lopez and Varn discuss how states are implementin…
Loading summary
Transcript31 lines
- [00:03]
A
Welcome to statescoop's Priorities podcast. I'm Keely Quindlen, a reporter with statescoop. This week I interviewed Jeff Lopez, director of New Mexico's Office of Broadband Access and Expansion, and Jake Varne, an associate manager with Pew Charitable Trust's Broadband Access Initiative, to discuss how states are tackling projects funded by the federal Broadband Equity Access and Deployment, or bead, program. We chat about the myriad of challenges states are currently facing while dealing with the program, including uncertainty, technical debates, and the core challenge of access versus adoption. But first, here's what's happening in state and local government technology news this week, California governor Gavin Newsom has supported John Ohanian, a longtime Health and Human Services data official, as the state's new chief data officer. Ohanian formerly served as senior policy advisor for data exchange at the state's Department of Health Care Services and chief data officer for the California Health and Human Service Agency's center for Data Insights and Innovation. Some of the first Internet connections funded through the $42.45 billion bead program have gone live in Louisiana and Nebraska, signaling a shift from the program's tenuous planning phase to deployment. One federal official called Nebraska's new connection an impressive accomplishment. The Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office has unveiled a website centered around an AI powered chatbot that can answer questions about RUL licenses and permits for a variety of professions and industries. The chatbot, named sam, or State Administration Manager, can clone itself an infinite amount of times when formulating responses to complex queries, one state official claimed. Over the last few years, states have been tasked with deploying an unprecedented wave of federal broadband funding through programs like beat. But at the same time, many state leaders are facing a complicated reality shifting timelines, political uncertainty, rising deployment costs, and open questions about what long term federal support will actually look like. So what happens when states are expected to close the digital divide while the policy landscape keeps moving underneath them? To unpack that, I'm joined by two people who see this from very different vantage points, New Mexico's broadband Director Jeff Lopez and Pew Charitable Trust Jake Varne. We start with Jake, who sets the stage by giving us a quick snapshot of where broadband expansion stands right now
- [02:35]
B
in the U.S. yeah, it's a great question, Keely. The digital divide at the moment is closer to being closed than it's ever been in United States history, But there's still a long way to go. We have a bevy of new federal and state resources at our disposal. There's active projects happening right now that state broadband offices are leading with their state dollars and with federal dollars connecting communities to high speed, affordable Internet access. And they have a new suite of projects about to kick off with the BEAD program. But there are still plenty of communities across the country that do not have adequate service or cannot afford the service that's available to them.
- [03:19]
A
Yeah, absolutely. Jeff, I want to let you react to that like, as, you know, being in the driver's seat for New Mexico's broadband policy. Like, tell me a little bit about how that lands with you.
- [03:31]
C
Yeah, I mean, we have a good amount of resources available either from the Federal Government, the U.S. department of the treasury, from the New Mexico state legislature, and from the US Department of Commerce for getting the job done. The good news is, is that since the bipartisan infrastructure law passed in 2021, New Mexico has improved connectivity. At the time, there's only about 7 in 10 households connected. Now it's 9 in 10 households. And with the funding that's already passed into law and appropriated and obligated to New Mexico, we will get to 100% by the end of this year. We'll have the legally enforceable commitments to connect every single household, every single small business in New Mexico. There's always going to be a small margin. So I won't Talk about the 0.5% or the 0.1% or we'll focus on it as well in this call. But we have a significant number of resources available now to connect everybody in New Mexico and across the country to high speed broadband.
- [04:30]
A
That is just so exciting, and I'm sure you're just as elated to hear that. But, Jeff, I want to stick with you for a second. You know, New Mexico is often cited as one of the more challenging states geographically for these types of projects. So. So what does the like prior, like back it up a couple, you know, years maybe before some of these huge investments and before some of these things have kicked off. What did the digital divide look like on the ground?
- [05:00]
C
Yeah. One of the largest states by area, and it is also one of the smaller states. We have about 2 million people. We have really diverse topography from the Rio Grande Valley going through the center of New Mexico to 13,000 peaks going in the northern part. We have the southern edge of the Rockies. Here we have high plains and deserts and tundra. It's a very beautiful place to visit. It's a great place to grow up. And it's also very challenging for broadband, Whether it is hard rock that you have to use heavy equipment to dig through, or just miles and miles of Open expanse before you get to a small community or a household. So that means that New Mexico is very difficult to connect. We are getting the job done. Like I said, we are up to nine in 10 households connected. But it's that last 10% that's the most difficult, the most rural, and the most expensive. With the final approval of ntia, we now have a pretty good technology solution, whether it's fiber or license fixed wireless. And then the most rural locations will be served by low earth orbit satellite. So we're deploying a lot of solutions to fix a very difficult problem to address a really difficult challenge with broadband access to New Mexico.
- [06:21]
A
Yeah, so it sounds like you guys are kind of leaning on that, like, nice mix of technologies. Jake, I want to go to you for a second. Does that sound typical? Is New Mexico an outlier? How does that compare to the rest of the states in terms of broadband policy and tackling this issue?
- [06:39]
B
Yeah, I mean, New Mexico is certainly unique in many aspects, but there are components that resonate with other states. There are geographic challenges that other states deal with. I have, you know, personally, I have family in rural Montana where just if you go just around the canyon bend, you lose signal access, you lose line of sight to a signal, and all of a sudden you can't connect to those services. So every state has its own geographic challenges, its own provider challenges, to navigate the makeup of who actually provides service in their area and who's been left behind historically by those build outs. I think what really New Mexico we've been excited to see is we at the Pew Charitable Trust have been doing a lot of work tracking state broadband policy. We've been looking at it for the better part of the last decade. We've been seeing states and the state broadband programs be on the forefront of connecting communities and matching them with projects that meet their needs, meet the needs of that community because of the input of those state officials. And as part of that, we've been looking at the state legislation that has been being passed, and we've been excited to see states like New Mexico really in, even in the wake of these massive federal funds, continue to step up and say, we want to make sure that our constituents are being connected and they have the resources they need. And so programs like New Mexico's push to have a low income telephone act to provide affordable service to New Mexicans is. George wanted us to see, and it speaks to how states can be in the driver's seat to solving these challenges.
- [08:23]
A
Yeah, totally. We actually had an episode, I believe, a couple of months ago or maybe a month or two ago now about that exact program, which was super exciting to hear, you know, in absence of the acp, of course. And then Jake, you know, zooming out like on kind of some of these, like, issues you're seeing across the country. Like what particularly, what particular things are you seeing go really well with broadband investment and where are states, like maybe getting states stuck? Are you seeing that? Like, tell me a little bit about like, I guess the like, pros and cons of this process?
- [09:01]
B
Yeah, well, this process is an interesting way to phrase it because we have, it's pretty complicated at the moment. We have states that have a history, like I'm saying, have a history of state investments in these programs that they are, you know, providing funds and policy mechanisms for the state to, on their own, try to meet the needs of their communities. And we have these massive federal programs. We have one that is winding down the capital projects funds that rose out of the response to the COVID 19 pandemic in the American Rescue Plan Act. Those funds, $10 billion of which went to states. Much of that funding going to broadband projects is running until the end of this year, with maybe some extensions going into next year. And so there is a final sprint right now of trying to get those projects finished, which involves dealing with permitting issues and construction and really in the nitty gritty of a deployment project, of getting something attached to a pole or buried and then getting people to sign up for those services. So we have that happening at the same time we've had this years of build up to the $42 billion BEAT program, which has now iterated on itself a few times with the rules changing between administrations and states having to rewrite their plans, providers having to resubmit applications. And the, you know, end result is that we are now at a point where the vast majority of these plans and states have been approved and some states have started to sign contracts and get construction started and even start to sign up customers. But it's a long road between now and that ending and there's going to be a lot of bumps along the way as projects actually start. The work of putting shovels in the ground and getting households connected.
- [10:55]
A
Yeah, absolutely. Jeff, I want to turn to you for a second too and kind of talk about this bigger picture. Jake noted some of the uncertainty that was happening last summer, particularly with the BEAD program. With those program changes and all of that kind of rethinking around the end goal of BEAD emanating from the Trump administration. I Kind of want to hear about, like, how big of a risk that uncertainty was to y' all surrounding this federal support. I mean, you noted that the state is so supportive of all of these efforts, too. But, like, I feel as though state and federal support go hand in hand. And it's interesting to hear, you know, how you might be thinking through this
- [11:41]
C
uncertainty is a significant challenge. We are four and a half years past the bipartisan infrastructure law. A lot of that time was intentional, whether it was making sure we had broadband maps or a nofo, a notice of funding opportunity, that made sense and that could accomplish the goal at the end of the day. But the turnover from federal administrations and the shifting requirements for the program have been difficult to keep up with. I only came on board with the state office a year ago, so almost a year, 11 months last June. So I came in right before we had to submit the final proposal. I was coming over from Congress, so I was at least in tune with what the shifting requirements are. But it's hard. It's hard on staff, it's hard on our project managers. On the final proposal, we have to make significant changes to align with shifting priorities from the federal government. I would say the single most difficult thing is when the guidance, the requirements, is not put down in writing. And sometimes, whether it's high cost curing it can really impact the outcomes of the program. Where you have the intent of bead, where you have competitive bidding for providing service in very rural areas, which is very costly and expensive, and then to go back and sort of revisit the bid and see what else we could do to lower the costs without specific guidance has been difficult for the providers. And it's hard on us, it's hard on the Office of Broadband, But I think it's most difficult on the providers that are willing to participate in this program, because it can be the life or death of that business, whether it's the federal investment or providing customer service in the long run. So I think the shifting requirements and the unwritten requirements have been really challenging.
- [13:28]
B
And I'll add one thing to that, Jeff, too. It's also hard on these communities who, under the past set of rules, they maybe had a direct line of input into which provider they wanted to be able to serve them, which one made most sense for their community. The new rules changed, and all of a sudden now maybe a different provider showing up or the one that they wanted had to back out because it no longer makes sense for them to apply. And so I think it's been really hard for communities to keep up with this and understand the current set of rules and who they're eventually going to be served by with these funds.
- [14:04]
A
Yeah. And then we add in the factor of we don't even have an answer yet on the non deployment funds, which is very interesting. So Jeff, is that something that you're thinking about and like planning differently than say maybe you would have a year ago when you started and came into this role?
- [14:22]
C
Yes, I think the challenge right now is just the wait and see. And there's the promise of funding in the future. We don't exactly know where it's going to go towards or what the requirements are, what the guidelines are. So it crowds out other sources of funding where you have this promise for critical need, whether it's digital opportunity, digital literacy, workforce training, making sure that we have a middle mile and long haul fiber system, the communications backbone that is functional. So without commitments or guidance, we are now relying on a high level of uncertainty. So that doesn't mean I can go to the Mexico legislature and say this is a priority, we need to fund it, we need to get it done. Because there's this crowding out from federal funding. I don't do well in that environment. So I did go to the legislature and ask for affordability. We got a good bipartisan vote both in New Mexico's House and the New Mexico Senate to stand up an affordability program in New Mexico backfilling the Affordable Connectivity program that lapsed in 2024 at the federal level. So I think that's really where I need to focus on where we can find those resources. Today we also deployed a small device donation program in New Mexico with about $300,000 in funding. And we just deployed a digital navigator program for about $300,000. So we are piloting small form programs. We also have $1.9 million from the US Department of Labor for workforce training. So I'm just trying to demonstrate the need and the effectiveness of programs. So hopefully when we get future funding from non deployment, we already have a tried and true solution for meeting these challenges.
- [16:07]
A
Yeah, no, it's so interesting to hear you kind of talk through that like bridge building. Right. But it sounds like it might be a little bit one sided at the moment. Jake, I would love to kind of hear from your perspective in terms of like surveilling kind of all of these different state broadband policies about the strategy, thinking around this uncertainty. Right. Like are we seeing some unification on the approach or are there 50 different strategies out there?
- [16:35]
B
Well, specifically on this non Deployment side too. It's the. Jeff really hit the nail on the head that it's. The uncertainty is almost impossible at this point to plan against. Um, they've really opened the doors on what these funds could be used for. There. There had been kind of a clearly defined set of categories of how these funds could be used and leveraged to make these broadband deployment networks successful. And so with the dollars going out the door on deployment and not sure how the remaining funds are can be spent, we're kind of missing this opportunity to leverage them, to make them successful, to have used them for a workforce development or a permitting efficiency program so that when the dollars for the deployment hit, all of the pieces have been put in place. We'll find out about what's going on with non deployment after the deployment. You know, horses left the barn. So from that standpoint, how each state is kind of navigating what they're planning for and how much time they're willing to spend, you know, punching the air on this is is kind of an open question there. I think what's we are seeing is states continue to push for their priorities with NTIA and continue to reiterate what they see as making sense for their state. And they've been doing that for the better part of, you know, a year plus now going forward outside of non deployment, I wouldn't say we're seeing 50 different strategies of how states are approaching the broadband puzzle, but there are unique components for how states have been able to incorporate, you know, lean on their state policy, leverage these federal dollars and work around the environment that they currently have in terms of connectivity and where the highest needs are for their states. You know, the needs of, of Rhode island and D.C. are not the same as New Mexico and Colorado. And they will require different solutions and they'll require different strategies. But so that I do think there is some commonality between how states are approaching these challenges, but there are fundamentally going to have to be different approaches for the different states.
- [18:50]
A
Yeah, yeah, no, certainly. And you know, in thinking through like some of that approach, right, like where states are at this milestone, this current moment, I'm seeing like, at least from where, you know, I'm, I'm sat as a journalist watching on the sidelines and just kind of taking it all in, there seems to be like a little bit of tension with getting it right and then the getting it out quickly. Right. Like there's been this championing of like speed, like what was the congressional bill speed for bead that was. Everybody's pushing, pushing These projects wanting to get it done. But between those two. Right. Like, how are states, like, thinking through striking the balance between getting it right and getting it done within a timely manner? I guess. Jake, we'll start with you and then Jeff, we can zoom in on the New Mexico approach to that.
- [19:44]
B
Yeah, it's an interesting question. I don't think there is a perfect answer for it. You know, being going as fast as you can versus being as precise as you can, you know, you need a little bit of both. This is an urgent problem and solving it requires precision. Unfortunately, you know, some of the decisions have been taken out of state hands. These are being made at the federal level. We're relying on a fabric of locations for every household and business in America that's run by the FCC and being implemented by a particular mapping vendor. And then the funding for states is at NTIA and the decisions for how a location is eligible for their funds goes back to the FCC map and the providers submit to. So there's a lot of moving pieces for how states can be as precise as possible. And there's not a lot of. Sometimes they do not have the levers at their disposal to change that and the decision has been moved out of their hands at the federal level. But they have been trying. They've been, we have seen over the last, you know, five years now, senspeed has been put together investments at the states to try to better understand where the connectivity is at in their community. So there's thankfully been, you know, I should say, unfortunately, as a byproduct of how long this has taken, there has been a ray of sunshine that states do know better now than ever before the needs of their communities. They have studied this problem for years as they've waited for these funds to come online.
- [21:22]
A
Yeah, absolutely. That, like, extra time, I guess, is definitely the silver lining, Jeff, like. Well, how does that, you know, resonate with you? Is, is that kind of balance a thing or is it more so, like, we want to get it right?
- [21:37]
C
Yeah, getting it right and getting it fast are conflicting priorities. I have a fundamental frustration with the bipartisan infrastructure law where Congress just dedicated $42 billion in this case. There was requirements in the bill, there's requirements in the statute, but it left it up to the agencies and the states to figure it out. And that's it. The $42 billion was designed to get 100% of the job done. I am a big fan of the Universal Service Fund, the Federal Communications Commission program, because it can iterate. You can take in funds Every year. You can distribute funds every year, and then you can change the program. Right now, we've learned a lot over the past four years. We've identified a lot of issues with the BEAT program overall, but it's really not possible to iterate because construction is just getting started now. After four and a half years, states are still struggling to get the money. In some cases they're seeking for approvals, they have to sign grant agreements. So I think there's an inherent conflict with just doing a lump sum and saying, go, get to work, get it done. And a much better model would be to allow iteration, test it out the first year, see how much money you can deploy, what percentage you can get done, and then progress from there. So I think BE will get a lot of the job done. Like I said, we'll get to near 100%. There'll be a little bit of margin there. But we don't know what the connectivity needs are in the future. We don't know what artificial intelligence or quantum networks or whatever is on the laboratory table today will mean for the needs of households in the future. So we're doing a lot of work now. Uh, we're not getting out quickly. It's been a four and a half years, a lot of iterations of, of needs and requirements. But I think we do need a different approach when it comes to making sure everybody has access to the technology they need to be successful. Um, so I think there is a future, there's a problem, there's a future hopeful solution where we can have that iterative model at some point at the federal level.
- [23:39]
B
I think that's exactly right. Jeff hit the nail on the head that especially from a mapping perspective, these are a reflection of a point in time, of what our best, our best work and evidence of where these locations are and the service levels they've had. And we've had to make a point in time decision to award providers funding to then go out and make a grant. But we know that there's going to be errors. We know that a project might drop off, a provider may get sold and change their business model. These things will evolve over time. And we know at the same time the needs of the Internet are going to keep changing and that the digital divide does not stay closed on its own. It has to be held closed. And so it is the prerogative of state broadband offices to take up that charge and continue to get these programs right and then continue to make sure that these communities are served with the services that they need to engage in, in modern life.
- [24:40]
A
Yeah, no, absolutely. Those are both such interesting like perspectives on, on this problem and I appreciate you both for those, you know, really interesting, interesting ideas about it. Something else I want to touch on because it was a huge issue as bead was getting, getting off the ground in like 2023 and 2024 is, you know, the fiverr versus other technologies. And I'm saying other because what I've heard through numerous sources is that fiber really is that, is that gold standard in terms of just the technological benefits of it and of course the longevity. But I want to hear from y' all kind of about the, the perspective on that in terms of like proceeding with a neutrality in mind or more of a fiber heavy long term bet. So I guess Jeff, I'll start with you. I know you guys went with a mix and I know a huge part of the reason for that is because of the geographical challenges. So talk to me a little bit about how now as we're getting into this later stage of bead, how you're thinking through some of those like, more like techno, fundamental technological challenges.
- [25:51]
C
We are a fiber first state. We prefer fiber for many reasons. But also initially we were planning to use all of NTIA's allocation just for that last mile connectivity, all $675 million that NTIA provided to New Mexico. So initially we weren't having any discussion on non deployment, whereas other states had some portion that they already knew was going to be available. With the changing requirements at the federal level, the cost came down. So we have dedicated $380 million out of our $675 million and that has a plan for every single location at that point of time to be served. But there is a give and take, there's a cost benefit. I still believe that fiber is the best value even though it's more expensive, it allows more resiliency, it is more future proof. We know it can provide the speeds necessary for the foreseeable future license. Fixed wireless is our second priority where you can fund some fiber backhaul, stand up the tower and that might facilitate more fiber connectivity in the future for those households. But at least it stands up that tower and they can have that access Today. Low earth orbit satellite meets the need in very rural locations. But it is probably the least resilient. We know that these satellites degrade, I think over a four to five year period that we relaunched. That'll be taken up with the operations and maintenance. But unlike the fixed infrastructure, whether it's wireless or fiber, there's going to be more of a churn. And over the long run, it might be a higher cost. That was something that we weren't allowed to look at. As we did the bidding process for BEAT. I visited Taiwan in 2024, October 2024, and it's their national policy that you have fiber connectivity, wireless connectivity, and satellite connectivity for every single location in Taiwan. It's because they have many risks and dangers and threats, both from typhoons and natural disasters and political stress. But that I think is the best solution where you have resilient, redundant connections for everybody understanding the benefits of fiber, but also the importance of having those alternates available.
- [27:59]
A
Wow, that's. That's something to think about. Trying to connect every location with all three. Um, I don't know if we could handle that. Um, Jake, I would love to hear, you know, kind of about what you're seeing in terms of now that we're at this place with, with bead and deployment and construction. Right. Like, what are you seeing in terms of that? Attitudes, or rather know, just thought processes around the types of technology that are. That are getting this done.
- [28:30]
B
Yeah. So bead obviously had started with a fiber preference in the original rules, and then it was changed to be more technology neutral. And the, the shift in technology responded accordingly. There will still be a very significant number of fiber projects funded by bead. What we have seen from our research at Pew is at state program levels, we have seen that a preference towards more scalable technologies, fiber being chief among them, being able to scale over time and meet higher speed needs is a benefit for the public. That there is a clear alignment with putting public funds into solving these problems and doing so with a network that can evolve over time and not need to be funded again in just a few years when the needs of the Internet changes and that technology is not able to keep up with it. So we have seen that as a best practice for states that having that preference for fiber is useful, but also you cannot there. It does not make sense for every community. It does not for every provider from a cost perspective. And so you don't want to turn a blind eye towards other technologies. And so you want to lean into it where you can and open the door for other. Other technologies where it makes most sense.
- [29:57]
A
Yeah, no, that, that makes so much sense to me. Um, and then I guess like something that would be an important note for us to end on. Right. Is like what success looks like. And I know for the length of this BEAD program, everybody's been kind of very future. Future thinking. Right. In terms of like getting to that point. But I want to like go beyond that a little bit and think about like in five years per se, what does success look like? Um, and, and Jeff, I'd love to start with you and like think about, you know what if you, if you had to turn around in five years from today and be like, oh, this was the moment that we, we did it, it was successful, what would that moment be?
- [30:45]
C
It's multi layered for sure. We have 23 sovereign nations in New Mexico, 23 nations, Pueblos and tribes, and they are some of the hardest to connect and least connected. Today we work with 21 of them directly to provide both that last mile connectivity, but also making sure that they have the infrastructure, that they control the rights of way, and most importantly that they have sovereign control of their data. So what success would look like to me in five years is first making sure every location in New Mexico is connected, that they have some solution that's turned on, they subscribe, and most importantly that they can afford it. But that also means making sure that those locations on tribal land and sovereign territory both understand how to participate and have that control over their data and their information, over the sovereign rights of their information. I would love to do it with the money we have available. But I think success also means making sure that we have a plan for the future. Because I think in five years we're going to be more aware of the next challenge and making sure that we have public resources in place to meet that challenge.
- [31:55]
A
Yeah, absolutely. Jake, what is your definition of success five years from today and go.
- [32:03]
B
Yeah, you know, it's similarly, it's at least twofold for us. We see a fundamental indicator of success is bid being successful. And that to us means that it, the $42 billion is being able to be used to meet state priorities and connect every household and business to a high speed, affordable, reliable connection. So that's one indicator. Is bid successful and are states able to use these funds to meet their priorities on both deployment and non deployment? And the other side of it is on a state landscape. Do states have states put in place the set of policies that they can continue to fund their own priorities and make sure that adoption, affordability and continued deployment is in their control? Are states able to establish these cornerstones and continue to meet these needs, you know, despite or in absence or regardless of what's happening at the federal level?
- [33:01]
A
That was Jeff Lopez, director of the New Mexico Office of Broadband Access and Expansion, and Jake Farn, an associate manager with Pew Charitable Trust Broadband Access Initiative. We are sending our many thanks to them and their organizations for participating in that conversation. You can subscribe to the priorities podcast@prioritiespodcast.com and wherever you get your podcasts. While you're there, be sure to leave a review or a rating on on the podcast page. That small extra step helps more people like you find the show. This podcast is a production of Scoop News Group in Washington, dc. Production work is done by Adam Butler and Carlin Fisher, and until next week, I'm Keely Quindlen. Thanks for listening.