Cartesian and ACA Connects recently released the 4th version of their estimate for how far the BEAD money will go, finding that we can reach “at least 71 percent of eligible locations” with fiber. I like this study. It’s quite similar to the methodology
Yes, I believe this is significantly undercounting the number of locations that will be served or that have committed funds when BEAD money starts flowing. I've been assuming that all or most of the locations that are being built out with ARPA funding are unserved or underserved or otherwise the projects would not have been approved. For example, this Treasury Department summary of a $540 million dollar California award (100% of their CPF allocation) says that the CA grant program is "designed to provide internet access to areas of the state lacking access to reliable broadband speeds of 25/3 Mbps", and the award will provide reliable broadband to around 127,000 locations [https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/CA-Fact-Sheet-April-2023.pdf]. It also says that's "16% of locations still lacking high-speed internet access in the state." That's huge.
I do expect that prior to BEAD funding projects being approved the NTIA will have all of the information about these commitments, so we should not see any overbuilding in ARPA-funded locations. And, ARPA funding, like BEAD funding, is awarded by the states to the broadband operators, so the states will certainly know where the money is going.
Whether these locations ever show up on the FCC map as committed prior to actual deployment is another question. It may not be until the broadband operator does their biannual BDC filing to report the locations served, and that will be at least a six month lag, and up to ten months, from the time the locations are served until when they show up on the map. For example, if a project was completed earlier this month, those locations would not show up as served on the FCC map until November.
Yes, I believe this is significantly undercounting the number of locations that will be served or that have committed funds when BEAD money starts flowing. I've been assuming that all or most of the locations that are being built out with ARPA funding are unserved or underserved or otherwise the projects would not have been approved. For example, this Treasury Department summary of a $540 million dollar California award (100% of their CPF allocation) says that the CA grant program is "designed to provide internet access to areas of the state lacking access to reliable broadband speeds of 25/3 Mbps", and the award will provide reliable broadband to around 127,000 locations [https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/CA-Fact-Sheet-April-2023.pdf]. It also says that's "16% of locations still lacking high-speed internet access in the state." That's huge.
I do expect that prior to BEAD funding projects being approved the NTIA will have all of the information about these commitments, so we should not see any overbuilding in ARPA-funded locations. And, ARPA funding, like BEAD funding, is awarded by the states to the broadband operators, so the states will certainly know where the money is going.
Whether these locations ever show up on the FCC map as committed prior to actual deployment is another question. It may not be until the broadband operator does their biannual BDC filing to report the locations served, and that will be at least a six month lag, and up to ten months, from the time the locations are served until when they show up on the map. For example, if a project was completed earlier this month, those locations would not show up as served on the FCC map until November.