In the second installment of ITIF’s Access America series, Jess discusses the challenges and opportunities of BEAD for the state of Michigan with Jessica Randall of Michigan’s broadband office.

Mentioned in This Episode

▪ Michigan High-Speed Internet Office, “Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program” (Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, 2023).

▪ National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, May 2022).

Auto-Transcript

Jessica Dine:

Hi, and thanks for joining. I’m Jessica Dine, a Policy Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which is a think tank focused on the intersection of technology and public policy. This is Access America. It’s a webinar series where we break down some aspects of one of the most relevant pieces of broadband policy today, the BEAD program. Now, some brief background for those who don’t know the BEAD, the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, is a $42.45 billion program led by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration or NTIA, whose goal it is to expand digital access to everyone in all US states and territories. Right now, BEAD is in the early stage of implementation. So states are currently submitting written plans detailing how they intend to spend the funds they’re allocated. And then once those plans are approved by NTIA, they can start selecting internet service providers or ISPs, the ones who will actually be doing the build out as subgrantees.

These plans that states are submitting their initial proposals must address the criteria laid out by NTIA as requirements for receiving their allocated BEAD funds. These criteria range from the types of network states are going, to fund to their process for selecting subgrantees, to a number of other programmatic requirements. And we’ve touched on a few of those in previous episodes. Now, today’s episode is going to be something of a departure from previous ones. Instead of talking about any one specific requirement, I have on here a guest who can sort of speak to the entire program from the perspective of an actual state broadband office. So today with us is Jessica Randall, who is Infrastructure and Data Director of the Michigan High Speed Internet Office. Jessica, I’m really glad you could join us.

Jessica Randall:

Thanks. I’m really excited to be here and to talk a little bit more about how Michigan is moving forward with implementation of our BEAD program.

Jessica Dine:

Yeah. Definitely. I think this is going to be really helpful because I’ve done a lot of research into BEAD and I’ve spoken to a lot of other people who’ve done a lot of research, but really nothing beats the perspective of someone who’s actually involved and currently immersed in the program. I also think I’ve looked at Michigan State Plan and I think they did a great job of intertwining BEAD’s deployment mandate with broader inclusion and equity concerns. So I’m really excited to talk especially about that aspect.

Jessica Randall:

Yeah. It’s something that we’re really proud of. We think obviously that building out the infrastructure is tremendously important, but the ultimate goal of the program and honestly the ultimate mission of our office is not really just about deploying infrastructure, but it’s about empowering people to use technology to improve their lives. So digital inclusion and adoption are absolutely critical in ensuring the ultimate success of the work that we’ll do.

Jessica Dine:

Yeah. Perfect. I think we’re completely aligned on that. If you’re ready, I’d like to jump into some specific questions. So about this initial proposal, as you know, I’ve read it, I’ve actually read all of the states, and I thought Michigan’s was really good. There were a few specific things that jumped out at me that I’d love to talk about. First, I would like to talk about the Michigan subgrantee selection process, the criteria that play into that process, which for people who don’t know, is basically the rubric that states come up with that they then refer to when they’re selecting among the pool of ISPs who have applied for a BEAD grant, and then they select the ones who score the highest on the rubric and then they’re the ones who deploy for BEAD.

So there are a few things that Michigan had in that rubric that I was excited to see and I would love to talk about. The first one is that I noticed you had a section where you’d award points for ISPs who were proposing to participate in the program, who had completed some type of community outreach and had some sort of evidence to show of that. So can you sort of explain what that is and what types of problems you think that was working to address it and where the idea for that came from?

Jessica Randall:

Yeah. Absolutely. So we operate largely on the mantra, and we have said it over and over at every public meeting we’ve hosted, which has been a lot of them, that communities know communities best. And we think it’s important that communities therefore have a say in how they get connected. Many communities around our state have great relationships with internet service providers who have built out infrastructure that serves their residents or constituents. Others unfortunately have not had that experience. They’ve had a history of broken promises or they feel like service was promised in one way and not delivered in that same way. And so on of the things that we will take a look at on scoring is evidence, exactly as you said, of community organization and local support. And the criteria I think is relatively simple. If an applicant can produce as part of their application, letters of support or maybe it’s resolutions of support or something from the local leaders ... We have 1,856 local units of government in Michigan that ranges from cities, villages, townships, counties. So if those applicants can produce letters of support, then that’s going to be rewarded in the scoring process.

Now, local units of government could provide multiple letters or resolutions of support or they could choose if they believe that multiple projects would meet the needs of the residents or they could choose to provide no letters of support at all. It’s really important to note as well that we think a lot about the sovereignty of tribal nations that share geography with the state of Michigan and we certainly will be looking to see that required support. Of course, they have to consent for any deployment on tribal land, but we would like to see something further than that actual support for the project while we look at scoring, because it would be possible to consent to a project, but not necessarily support it. We also would look for or additional support from nonprofit organizations or community anchor institutions that actually exist in that community, even if they aren’t or outside of the actual formal local government. So if an organization that works with one of BEAD’s covered populations has a firm opinion that one project is really well-designed and would meet the needs of that community, then that support can be taken into consideration through scoring.

Jessica Dine:

That’s really interesting. That’s kind of what it sounds like. So it’s about having this little extra bit that tries to help match the projects that are best suited for certain communities with those communities. And then it also probably just helps with that initial relationship building, which is then so important. And as you said, so this is about local governments. Local government ordinances or requirements can play a lot in how the actual deployment goes. So it has to be a good thing to initiate that relationship upfront at least a little bit and have both parties agree to work together.

Jessica Randall:

Right. 100%. Once we move past the actual sub-grant application and sub-grant award process, the BEAD program is really going to move very, very quickly. This is a short timeline for a lot of construction that has to happen around our state. One of the places that we anticipate could become a hangup would be permitting or coordination type processes. And so I do think that the formal reward of local support in the scoring process will help us find those projects that are likely to have a good relationship in the community, and hopefully that will facilitate a smooth process through moving through those permitting requirements. They’re incredibly important. We want the local government to meet all of the standards and regulatory protections, but we do want to make sure that that happens as efficiently as it can.

Jessica Dine:

Yeah. No, that makes a lot of sense. The proactive approach is huge. It maybe is one of the most important things that you can do to succeed in this program. I would like to move to another part of your subgrantee selection criteria, which was basically something that I saw that Michigan did that was much less common. I only saw a handful of states in total do this. And it was that you awarded a few points or you don’t have the potential for points being awarded to project applicants who promised or articulated some type of digital inclusion activity, something other than deployment that they were obviously coming on board to do something other than that, which could be bolstering digital literacy or adoption or just anything on deployment. They had the potential to gain some points and maybe be a project winner because they added that in. So like I said, that is a pretty unusual thing. I really love to see it because it so matches up with the try to address non-deployment and adoption and all of these various concerns simultaneously. So can you talk about where that came from?

Jessica Randall:

Yeah. 100%.

Jessica Dine:

And also [inaudible 00:08:41] that looking like?

Jessica Randall:

Yeah. Absolutely. So I will say that my first incredibly honest reaction is that I’m a little bit surprised that you’re surprised and only because I think that it’s something that I would’ve expected a lot of states really honestly to pick up on, making sure not just that we build it, but that we encourage people to take advantage of it. It’s not actually a new idea for us in the state of Michigan. We’ve had a couple of broadband grant programs that recede our BEAD program. One was what we call the Connecting Michigan communities or CMIC program. That program was entirely state funds. It supported 37 projects and made about $31.3 million in grant awards. And that project counted for digital inclusion scoring right from the beginning. We were looking for things like affordability, a lack of data caps, the ability for someone who qualified for Lifeline to use that credit toward their cost of service. We were looking to see if an applicant was going to offer training or help raise awareness of the new infrastructure, and we also rewarded applications for that program that included economically distressed communities as kind of formally defined through a state program.

Similarly, [inaudible 00:10:12] administers ... We call it the realizing opportunities with Broadband Information Networks or the ROBIN Grant program. That’s Michigan’s Coronavirus Capital Funds Project program. And that also has rewarded digital inclusion work. It was actually about 20% of a potential score for that grant program. Again, we were looking for low cost service, a manageable monthly cost of service, projects in federal opportunity zones and training and awareness and lack of data caps. And so to us, it made a lot of sense to carry that model forward and look for that kind of activity in scoring the BEAD applications.

We’re going to look for applicants to talk to us about what plans they may have focused on affordability, focused on digital skill development, and then focused on devices and anything else. So the way they’ll be able to secure maximum points in that category is to have a plan for at least one activity in each of those three broad categories. Beyond that, we’re not really defining it. Again, with that idea that communities know communities best, we know that what makes sense maybe in Grand Rapids, Michigan isn’t going to make sense in Cadillac, Michigan, and isn’t going to make sense in Marquette, Michigan. And we don’t want to pre-define the specifics of what those broad category activities might be.

Jessica Dine:

That makes a lot of sense. I have to say I’m particularly curious to see what the digital literacy bolstering things might be, device acquisition I think might be more run-of-the-mill. We can sort of anticipate what that’ll look like, but I know digital literacy is an area that has gotten a lot of well-deserved attention, but somehow not enough. And there are so many different ways to approach it. So I’m curious to see which applicants you end up choosing. I think we only have a few minutes left. So I’d really like to move on to one other topic that I really wanted to talk about with you, and that’s the Community Meeting in a Box program. And that is something that I’ve seen across a few states and I just am fairly unfamiliar with it. So could you explain what that is?

Jessica Randall:

Yeah. 100%. So when we embarked on the process of developing Michigan’s BEAD program and similarly our Digital Equity Act programs, we really adopted this mantra of we want to listen first, plan second. And so we began a series of engagements. We ultimately hosted 43 different on the ground, hosted by my high staff meetings in communities all over the state to talk about what people’s concerns were, what their hopes were, where they wanted to see those plans go. We also hosted a series of virtual round tables that were meant more for larger stakeholder organizations for internet service providers, for people who might have that more statewide perspective to join us in that format. The Community Meeting in a Box was meant for folks who didn’t have the opportunity to participate in either of those formats still to share their views, their hopes, their aspirations, their concerns with us.

So what we did is literally physically put into a box every material that we would’ve taken to one of those on the ground community meetings from the pens to the name tags and sharpies to the script and the PowerPoint deck. So that was meant for folks to be able to take all that same input, all that same information. And all we asked in return was that they dropped their surveys from the individuals who participated in that meeting so that we could get that information back into a prepaid envelope that we included in that box and then send it back to us so that we could take that information and make use of it.

Jessica Dine:

So was this box material sent to every community? Was it sent on request to those who wouldn’t have been able to make the other meetings?

Jessica Randall:

Yeah. It was sent on request. We worked with a number of statewide organizations to push out that opportunity and try to raise awareness of that opportunity. We had 45 different requests for boxes. So it was everything from a neighborhood organization to a church, to some ... I can’t remember right now which community it was, but somebody had a broadband task force that wasn’t able to participate in specifically the meeting in their region. And so they met individually and shared their thoughts with us.

Jessica Dine:

That’s really cool. No. Local implementation is something that NTIA did a good job of pushing and sort of almost mandating through the BEAD program, and a lot of states have also been very good at that, but I love this approach. It’s really going all the way and then putting the communities themselves in the driver’s seat when they need to be.

Jessica Randall:

Yeah.

Jessica Dine:

I think I could keep talking about this, but I think we’re going to have to stop here. Thank you so much, Jessica. This has been great. For our viewers, if you liked what you heard today, please feel free to check back on ITIF’s Access America page, where we’ll be regularly putting out episodes honing in on specific elements of BEAD. Until then, thanks and have a nice day.