Given the "rush rush" requirements of getting a third of the $7.2 billion in "broadband stimulus" spent by June 2009, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS), at a time when even application forms have yet to be created, not to mention definitions of who may apply and what the quantifiable project eligibility criteria are, some predictions are easy to make.

 

Some entities are entitled, by statute, to apply: Indian tribes and units of state or local government, hospitals and schools, for example. Given an extreme time crunch, and with relatively simple "public interest" hurdles to surmount, what likely avenues will be followed?

 

Dusting off old plans and trying to resurrect them is one obvious tactic. What might that mean? Lots of shelved plans for municipal Wi-Fi networks might reappear, aimed at the NTIA "underserved" population. How are residents of most U.S. cities underserved? Applicants will point to the significant numbers of people who do not yet buy cable, telco or satellite broadband access.

 

These potential users are perhaps not actually un-served: they simply don't buy broadband access already available to them. But project proponents will focus on the demand side of the equation, not the supply side. These potential users are "un-served" in the sense of requiring free or very-low-cost access, perhaps with training on how to use the Internet and computers, as well as access to the actual terminals.

 

That probably is going to lead to many applications for municipal Wi-Fi networks. What probably should happen, along those lines, are applications from public libraries to add more bandwidth, more terminals and conduct classes for people about how to use PCs and the Internet. If you have been to just about any library recently, you can see without much effort that there is significant demand for access to "no additional charge" Internet access from library-based machines. Adding more capacity to improve experience, adding terminals to allow more people to use the machines, and providing training for hesitant users would make sense.

 

But again, what is likely to happen is that proposals to do those sorts of things, already developed but unfunded, will resurface in the first round of applications, simply because there is going to be so little time for brand new proposals to be crafted and fleshed out in sufficient detail by the early part of June, assuming the NTIA and RUS will need at least a month to actually sort through and judge the proposals.

 

The other complication, though, is the requirement for a 20-percent project match. How many local municipalities or states have spare tax dollars laying around that can be used to fulfill the match requirement? Waiver procedures exist, of course, but criteria for waivers also must be developed. If the basic argument for a waiver is that "we don't have any money," why would that not generally be the case for just about every non-profit that wants to apply?

 

And if, on the other hand, a non-profit can show it has the match, and an existing plan, doesn't that mean that most approved projects will simply provide project financing for deployments that were going to happen, anyway?

 

Still, there likely are rational reasons for assuming that truly-rural deployments for the truly "un-served" will emphasize providing physical network access. In most towns, it is likely to be more rational not to focus so much on physical access to homes or businesses, as "lack of access" probably isn't the biggest problem. Rather, inability to afford PCs, the recurring fees, or desire and ability to use the Internet are the key issues. Adding more capacity “to homes” is not the solution, in those cases.

 

Instead, making more terminals available, and training people how to use them, at existing public facilities including libraries, might make more sense. This "limited facilities; training and terminals" approach might mean more money is spent on equipment, software and bigger pipes to some locations, but also that a significant amount of money also is spent on people to do the training.

 

In the following two rounds of grants or loans, there is more time to develop proposals for projects of other sorts. But in a time-compressed first round, we should expect to see proposals for municipal Wi-Fi revived. Whether that makes any more sense than it did two years ago is an issue. But putting more bandwidth, more terminals and providing more training for libraries, where people increasingly expect to be able to use the Internet, might make a lot more sense.