Nothing New About Trouble with Definitions at RUS
The RUS’s definition of “remote” in the notice of funds availability has stirred complaints from potential applicants and oversight committees. But this isn’t the first time that the agency has had problems defining the most rural areas.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The notice defines “remote” as 50 miles or more from places with at least 20,000 residents. Only projects serving remote areas are eligible for full grant funding from the RUS. All others would need loans, and some would-be applicants say that would hurt the business cases for projects they hoped would get full grants. For each 50 miles away from areas that are home to 20,000 or more, project proposals get one point from application reviewers, up to five points for 250 miles, increasing the likelihood of RUS funding.
Some say the requirement is too strict. “Do you know how many areas there are like in this country?” asked Charles Wu, executive director of the WiNOG Grants Collective, a not- for-profit group of rural wireless providers working together in pursuit of federal broadband money, referring to areas 250 miles or more from 20,000 people. “There may be one igloo in Alaska that qualifies,” he joked.
At a House subcommittee meeting earlier this month, Agriculture Department Undersecretary Cheryl Cook said the RUS would be clarifying the term soon. Cook was responding to Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., who said none of his state’s 100 counties could apply for a full RUS grant funding under the current definitions. The agency didn’t reply to a request for comment.
This isn’t RUS’ first run-in trying to define the country’s most rural areas. In April, the Agriculture Department’s inspector general took the agency to task in an audit of its older broadband program as not serving the rural communities it was meant to. The Office of the Inspector General said it was concerned that RUS’ broadband stimulus funds “may not meet” the Recovery Act’s goal “of awarding funds to projects that provide service to the most rural residents that do not have access to broadband service.”
Problems began in 2002, after the RUS started providing loans to expand the reach of broadband to areas with less than 20,000 people, as Congress had required. When loans started going to resort towns and suburbs, the agency realized there was an issue and has been working to correct it since. According to the inspector general, it still has work to do.
Trying to provide a perfect definition would be a futile effort, said former RUS administrator Hilda Legg, a Wiley Rein consultant who oversaw the agency’s first broadband program. “It is impossible to find a finite number that satisfies everyone,” she said. Reviewers need leeway in making decisions, Legg said: “There has got to be some degree of flexibility by the agency.” What, she asked, about an unserved community 46.2 miles from a population of 20,000?