Thanks to Ann Higgins for the heads up on proposed changes to the USDA Community Connect Broadband Grant Program. According to TeleCompetitor…
Under proposed changes, funding recipients would be able to use their 15% matching funds toward the operating costs of broadband projects – something they can’t do today—and would be able to use grant funds for larger geographic areas rather than for a single community. In addition, the application process would be streamlined and funding applications would be prioritized based on a variety of factors including:
- Service provided to communities in persistent poverty counties
- Service provided to communities in out-migration communities
- The rurality of the proposed funded service area
- The speed of service provided by the project
- Service to substantially underserved trust areas
- Services provided to persons with disabilities
- Any other socio-economic factors that may be described in the notice of funding availability to differentiate and rank applications
I also read that the program rules might allow some larger geographies to be served rather than a single community. In any case, Minnesota is largely excluded from this program due to our generally more positive demographics. I am not aware of any MN community receiving a grant from this program.
But is there a prospect that local phone/broadband service providers could secure such grants and partner with local government entities to deploy needed infrastructure or higher bandwidth using these rules?
A good question from Ann Higgins. I think that the issue is that Minnesota lacks two things to qualify for this program. First, our average incomes are higher and concentrations of rural poverty are lower than in many other states. Second, we do not have many communities that do not have some form of broadband – DSL, cable modems or fixed wireless. We have many cities where services do not meet the state goal, but the federal goal is only 4 Mb and most cities have that from existing providers. Last funding round, I checked on behalf of a group of rural townships, but the funding had to go to a single community. Their incomes were too high to be competitive.