Now that the first round of broadband stimulus funding applications are in, it’s time to take a breather – and time to consider what might lie ahead in the next two rounds. What were the biggest challenges in Round 1? How can we improve the process? Dusting off our crystal balls – what do we anticipate?

We received answers from our own Knight Center of Digital Excellence expert, Chief Technology Officer Mark T. Ansboury, as well as others closely connected to the application process: Drew Clark, founder of BroadbandCensus.com; Craig Settles, writer and technology consultant; and Jim Baller of Baller Herbst Law Group and the U.S. Broadband Coalition. (More information on each individual is available at the end of this article.)

Ansboury: The biggest challenge was taking big ideas and expressing them within the constraints mandated by the application process. Under the somewhat rigid guidelines, it was difficult to convey broad ideas. We were very thorough and made sure that we had accurate data for every question posed – so due diligence required a good deal of time and effort.

Clark: The complexity and bureaucracy of the application form was huge. The application process provided considerable advantages to larger entities and didn’t necessarily encourage individuals bringing forth creative and new ideas. Although the NTIA and RUS have been encouraging businesses and nonprofits to bring forth synergistic solutions to the problems of broadband supply and demand, the application form hewed to the bureaucratic and is likely to favor incumbents.

Settles: A number of communities and alliances began planning their broadband networks a year or more ago, so they have much of the raw data needed for an application. However, the type of questions being asked, the level of details required, the confusing or contradictory requests, all made the 45-day window for completing the NOFA applications much too short. NTIA/RUS should have stuck to its originally stated intent to have a 30-day public comment on the rules and then a 30-to-60-day window for submitting applications.

Baller: We worked on several different kinds of projects, and each posed its own challenges. Among the most significant were: designing proposed target areas in ways that would qualify for funding and still be economically viable; getting strong-minded project partners all on the same page; developing workable approaches to demonstrating that an area was “unserved” or “underserved;” organizing, drafting, and checking the massive amounts of information required, which typically ran into the hundreds of pages for our clients; and coping with the problems that the RUS/NTIA had in processing applications.

Ansboury: We need an open framework for expressing the goals and objectives of projects. We also should have an opportunity to broadly define the benefits of such projects to communities and individuals. While there is the need to have standardized questions and formats – the desire to compare apples to apples should not stifle creativity… or we’ll just end up with the shiniest apple, not the best solution for our communities.

We would also like to see the definition of “broadband” significantly increased. Broadband as it is defined now is serving the least common denominator rather than creating a platform for innovative applications and solutions.

Clark: The NTIA and RUS need to take a more proactive role in helping to coordinate applicants, and to coordinate information about broadband applicants. Additionally, there will be a strong need for a system to verify the numerous (and likely conflicting) claims about broadband availability. These are the claims about the “unserved” or “underserved” nature of particular census blocks within the data-sets that will emerge from the nearly 2,200 applications that we saw in Round 1. Finally, the NTIA and RUS could do a better job of offering suggested contract sizes for applications: How much are they looking to spend on what sorts of last-mile, middle-mile, sustainable broadband and public computer center projects?

Settles: The rules need to be streamlined, eliminating some of the business operations reporting requirements, since community and local-government driven network projects don’t operate on the profit model. If applicants adhere to the requirement to prove the network can be financially sustained, that is sufficient.

Also, raise the speed that defines broadband to at least a minimum of 1.5 Mbps symmetrical, and definitely eliminate “advertised speeds” as any measure for network performance. Only actual speeds received by subscribers, whatever those speeds are that define broadband, should determine broadband coverage or the lack thereof.

Extra points need to be allotted for applicants who articulate the broadband needs of the constituents and stakeholders to be served, and then describe No. 1 – how their area is un- or underserved because current broadband doesn’t meet their needs, and No. 2 – how their proposal will meet the needs stated. To evaluate the merits of any proposal without giving the greatest weight to the needs to be met, the technology to be used, and the speeds it will deliver is a fundamentally flawed process.

Baller: Considering all the challenges that RUS/NTIA had to meet in the first round, I would not judge them too harshly. In Rounds 2 and 3, I would recommend that RUS/NTIA raise the bandwidth requirements in the definition of “broadband” and use minimum actual delivered speeds rather than maximum advertised speeds; give substantial credit for projects that will provide services to “unserved” or “underserved” areas, but do not treat the provision of service to such areas as a precondition to receiving funding for last-mile or middle-infrastructure projects; and make it much easier for applicants to demonstrate that areas are “unserved” or “underserved.” For example, RUS/NTIA could adopt various presumptions or safe harbors based on demographic data, etc. Where there is lots of room for subjectivity, (e.g., estimating the number of jobs that a project will create) applicants that make sound, conservative estimates may be at a disadvantage to applicants who make wild, seat-of-the-pants guesstimates, particularly if reviewers are swamped with work and don’t have time to drill deeply into applications. In such areas, RUS/NTIA should provide better guidance or “rules of thumb” on how such estimates should be made.

In addition, applicants should be given more time to absorb Round 2 NOFAs and guidance materials, while the agencies should be given more time and more resources/reviewers to evaluate applications.

Ansboury: The first round focused largely on rural communities. I expect BTOP, where the larger share of money will be allocated, will be broader and open to the needs of urban communities and at-risk populations of underserved people. I hope for and expect more leeway relating to these populations, as this is where the masses are and where there is the greatest need for revitalization.

Clark: I expect to see far more competition than we saw in Round 1. In the first round, the 2,200 applicants sought $27.6 billion in funding, out of $4.3 billion that is available. These numbers were almost certainly depressed by the complexity and bureaucracy of the application process. If the NTIA and RUS do their job right, more competition in the broadband stimulus funding process will be the result.

Settles: Given that the total dollars requested in Round 1 is seven times the amount of funds available, someone should repeat the “cash for clunkers” scenario and find more money the next round than the anticipated $1.5 billion. There may be as many people waiting in the wings to submit proposals in Round 2 as submitted in the first round.

Baller: I hope that NTIA will do what it repeatedly has said that it was going to do before the Round 1 NOFA was released – treat the stimulus process as a test bed for creative new approaches and partnerships, particularly those that will foster the development of high-capacity next generation networks.

Q: What were your biggest challenges in Round 1 and what do you see in the coming rounds?

Villano: In Round 1, balancing – getting our first NOFA out on the street as quickly as possible versus being responsive to our all of our potential customers. We believe we met both of these goals, are ready to start the review process and get ready for Round 2. We plan to seek input from the public on how we can improve the process for Round 2 as our strategy for multiple NOFAs was to be dynamic and learn from the experience of the preceding NOFA. We want to hear from the public on how we can improve the process.

Drew Clark is the founder and executive director of BroadbandCensus.com, which provides an objective and independent measure of local broadband services in addition to allowing consumers to interact with a growing broadband database and share information about their broadband experiences. Clark is a well-respected telecom, media and technology journalist who has covered the industry for more than 15 years.

Broadband business strategist, marketing expert, author and internationally renowned speaker, Craig Settles helps organizations use broadband technologies to improve government and stakeholders’ operating efficiency, as well as local economic development. His numerous published works and in-depth analyses have established him as a prominent thought leader on appropriate business strategies for municipal broadband network deployments.

Jim Baller is president of the Baller Herbst Law Group and the founder of the U.S. Broadband Coalition, a consortium of organizations working toward the development of a comprehensive national broadband strategy. Among many commendations, The Fiber to the Home Council has recognized Baller as “the nation’s most experienced and knowledgeable attorney on public broadband matters.”

In January 2008, David Villano was named Assistant Administrator of the Telecommunications Program, where he manages the Telecommunications Program’s loan and grant programs, with an annual budget of $873 million and a $4 billion loan portfolio. Previously, he served as Deputy Administrator, Single Family Housing, responsible for administering the direct and guaranteed homeownership programs and several housing grant programs.