Read Ready.net's own essay on how the BEAD program can be changed without delaying state/territor...

Broadband administrative software company Ready.net, parent company of Broadband.IO has published a well argued essay on the Benton Broadband Institute non-profit’s website authored by @Dustin Loup, Ready.net’s Senior Director, Policy Development and Analysis, urging the Commerce Department and lawmakers to not slow down BEAD with any significant changes.

Loup also shares some interesting data from Ready.net’s work with states. As he writes:

Among the 33 states that have initiated subgrantee selection, several have released preliminary data from Round 1 of their respective application review processes, demonstrating strong participation, competition, high coverage rates, and cost-efficient broadband expansion.

  • Arkansas: Received 814 applications from 43 providers for 98% of the eligible locations, with 82% receiving 2+ bids

  • Indiana: Received 743 applications from 34 providers for 94% of the eligible locations, with 82% receiving 2+ bids

  • Pennsylvania: Received 239 applications for 26 providers for 97% of the eligible locations

  • Wisconsin: Received 425 applications for 95% of the eligible locations

  • Virginia: Received 2000+ applications from 24 providers for 92% of the eligible locations

  • Kansas: Received 200 applications from 23 providers for 96% of the eligible locations

In addition, he offers this as a path forward for the BEAD review being undertaken by new Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick:

To ensure any legislative or administrative changes enhance, rather than disrupt, BEAD implementation, each proposed change should be carefully evaluated. First, assess the direct impact of each change by answering 'Will the proposed change affect':

  1. Plans approved in the Initial Proposal?

  2. Location eligibility? 

  3. Scoring or prioritization during subgrantee selection? 

  4. Gating criteria for applicants or applications? 

If any answer is yes to any of these, the proposed changes must be carefully reviewed to address key risks by asking 'Will the proposed change':

  • Force states to restart or delay their programs?

  • Undermine a fair and consistent subgrantee selection process?

  • Create legal risks for states or the NTIA?

If yes was the answer to any of these risks, the change should either 1) Be avoided entirely to prevent unnecessary delays or 2) Be made optional, allowing states to adopt changes at their discretion without disrupting progress.

Read the full essay here.