Vineland, New Jersey officials say they’ve secured a $3.7 million grant from the state that will help expand fiber and wireless broadband access to the city of 62,000. Local officials are hopeful the grant is just the beginning steps toward dramatic expansion of affordable access.

Vineland’s new grant was made possible by the New Jersey Broadband Infrastructure Deployment Equity (NJBIDE) grant program. NJBIDE will be delivering $40 million in broadband grants via the state’s Capital Projects Fund (CPF), made largely possible by the 2021 federal passage of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).

NJBIDE grants prioritize fiber optic infrastructure of 100 megabytes per second (Mbps) and mandates the provision of at least one low-cost option (not specifically defined by New Jersey) to serve low income communities – something increasingly important in the wake of the federal government’s retreat from efforts to ensure equitable and affordable broadband. (Still early in the process, the city has not yet determined the exact pricing and service tiers the network will offer once construction is complete).

Image

A 2024 city proposal indicates that city leaders want to spend between $35 and $40 million to create a citywide broadband network, starting with a citywide fiber ring. The city paid for a viability study from Bonfire that found that at least 42 percent of the City does not have access to viable, quality, affordable broadband service.

Vineland, New Jersey officials say they’ve secured a $3.7 million grant from the state that will help expand fiber and wireless broadband access to the city of 62,000. Local officials are hopeful the grant is just the beginning steps toward dramatic expansion of affordable access.

Vineland’s new grant was made possible by the New Jersey Broadband Infrastructure Deployment Equity (NJBIDE) grant program. NJBIDE will be delivering $40 million in broadband grants via the state’s Capital Projects Fund (CPF), made largely possible by the 2021 federal passage of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).

NJBIDE grants prioritize fiber optic infrastructure of 100 megabytes per second (Mbps) and mandates the provision of at least one low-cost option (not specifically defined by New Jersey) to serve low income communities – something increasingly important in the wake of the federal government’s retreat from efforts to ensure equitable and affordable broadband. (Still early in the process, the city has not yet determined the exact pricing and service tiers the network will offer once construction is complete).

Image

A 2024 city proposal indicates that city leaders want to spend between $35 and $40 million to create a citywide broadband network, starting with a citywide fiber ring. The city paid for a viability study from Bonfire that found that at least 42 percent of the City does not have access to viable, quality, affordable broadband service.

Vineland, New Jersey officials say they’ve secured a $3.7 million grant from the state that will help expand fiber and wireless broadband access to the city of 62,000. Local officials are hopeful the grant is just the beginning steps toward dramatic expansion of affordable access.

Vineland’s new grant was made possible by the New Jersey Broadband Infrastructure Deployment Equity (NJBIDE) grant program. NJBIDE will be delivering $40 million in broadband grants via the state’s Capital Projects Fund (CPF), made largely possible by the 2021 federal passage of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).

NJBIDE grants prioritize fiber optic infrastructure of 100 megabytes per second (Mbps) and mandates the provision of at least one low-cost option (not specifically defined by New Jersey) to serve low income communities – something increasingly important in the wake of the federal government’s retreat from efforts to ensure equitable and affordable broadband. (Still early in the process, the city has not yet determined the exact pricing and service tiers the network will offer once construction is complete).

Image

A 2024 city proposal indicates that city leaders want to spend between $35 and $40 million to create a citywide broadband network, starting with a citywide fiber ring. The city paid for a viability study from Bonfire that found that at least 42 percent of the City does not have access to viable, quality, affordable broadband service.

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN (Restructuring Policy Notice) addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN (Restructuring Policy Notice) addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN (Restructuring Policy Notice) addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN (Restructuring Policy Notice) addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN (Restructuring Policy Notice) addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN (Restructuring Policy Notice) addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN (Restructuring Policy Notice) addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”