For many months, states have raced to add locations to the FCC’s National Broadband Map, trying to maximize their allocation of broadband funding from the Infrastructure Bill.
One question: when you say you don't think we'll hear about missing locations once the state allocations happen — what about when states go to make subgrants? My understanding was that they're still bound to allocating funds based on the number/proportion of unserved BSLs in a project area. If that's true, it seems like the CQA fabric (and the completeness of it) stay relevant, but would love to know if there's a different or more definitive answer on that.
Yeah, fair. I do think the Fabric remains relevant. I was just trying to say that I think the focus of the conversation will move trying to remove extraneous locations instead of (quite as much) attention on adding new locations.
But yeah I think you're right that states will need to make grants to existing locations. Obviously the state challenge processes could change whether a location is served or not. But the underlying Fabric is still the foundation
Thanks for this invaluable work. In your "Allocations and BDC Numbers" work sheet, what is the method (and reasoning) behind calculating the "best available" stats?
"Best available" is the method I use to decide if a location is Served, Underserved, or Unserved. For example, if a location has 1000/1000 fiber, and also a 10/1 DSL, it is Served by the fiber, regardless of its DSL offerings. So it is "best available" = 1000/1000 fiber. Whereas a location with just 10/1 DSL and no other offerings is "best available" = 10/1 = Unserved.
Mike, this is tremendous work.
One question: when you say you don't think we'll hear about missing locations once the state allocations happen — what about when states go to make subgrants? My understanding was that they're still bound to allocating funds based on the number/proportion of unserved BSLs in a project area. If that's true, it seems like the CQA fabric (and the completeness of it) stay relevant, but would love to know if there's a different or more definitive answer on that.
Yeah, fair. I do think the Fabric remains relevant. I was just trying to say that I think the focus of the conversation will move trying to remove extraneous locations instead of (quite as much) attention on adding new locations.
But yeah I think you're right that states will need to make grants to existing locations. Obviously the state challenge processes could change whether a location is served or not. But the underlying Fabric is still the foundation
Hi Mike,
Thanks for this invaluable work. In your "Allocations and BDC Numbers" work sheet, what is the method (and reasoning) behind calculating the "best available" stats?
Thanks,
John
Hi John,
"Best available" is the method I use to decide if a location is Served, Underserved, or Unserved. For example, if a location has 1000/1000 fiber, and also a 10/1 DSL, it is Served by the fiber, regardless of its DSL offerings. So it is "best available" = 1000/1000 fiber. Whereas a location with just 10/1 DSL and no other offerings is "best available" = 10/1 = Unserved.
Hope that helps,
Mike
Thanks for explaining, Mike! We are also processing/aggregating data from the National Broadband Map and using your numbers to validate our pipeline.