.

Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants
and Loans: Applications and Awards
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
September 9, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41164
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Summary
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) provided $7.2 billion
primarily for broadband grant and loan programs to be administered by two separate agencies: the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of
Commerce (DOC) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA). The NTIA grant program is called the Broadband Technology Opportunity Program
(BTOP). The RUS broadband grant and loan program is called the Broadband Initiatives Program
(BIP).
There are two rounds of ARRA broadband funding. The first round award announcements have
concluded, and the announcement of second round awards began on July 2, 2010. As of
September 9, 2010, 441 BTOP and BIP awards have been announced totaling $6.2 billion ($5.1
billion in grants, $1.1 billion in loans). Of this total, $3.1 billion has been awarded by BTOP, and
$3.1 billion has been awarded by BIP. Additional BTOP and BIP awards will be announced
through September 30, 2010.
This report focuses on the distribution of ARRA broadband funding with respect to project
category, program, technology deployed, state-by-state distribution, and other factors. Based on
first round applications and awards data, the following observations can be made:
• The amount of funding awarded in the first round was about 57% of the available
funding levels published in the first round Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA).
• Of all broadband infrastructure projects awarded in the first round, middle mile
projects received more funding than last mile projects (53% vs. 47% of total
funding for infrastructure).
• Of all first round broadband infrastructure funding, most (70%) was awarded to
projects serving predominantly rural areas. However, a breakdown of the project
categories awards data shows that while all last mile projects have been rural, the
majority of middle mile funding has been awarded to projects serving nonrural
areas.
• Nonremote last mile rural projects were funded more heavily than remote area
last mile rural projects.
• Public notice responses were filed by existing service providers for 71% of all
funded first round infrastructure projects. Public notice responses were filed for
89% of all middle mile projects and 70% of last mile nonremote projects. By
contrast, one out of the 13 (8%) last mile remote area applications received a
public notice response from an existing service provider.
Congress will likely continue to monitor how the stimulus broadband grants and loans are being
distributed. To the extent that Congress may consider whether certain broadband grant and loan
programs should be expanded, the funding patterns and trends that emerge during rounds one and
two could provide insights into whether such programs should be expanded, and if so, how these
or similar programs might be fashioned within the context of a national broadband policy.
Congressional Research Service

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Round One Applications ............................................................................................................. 1
Rural vs. Nonrural Applications ............................................................................................ 4
Remote vs. Nonremote Projects............................................................................................. 5
Grants vs. Loans ................................................................................................................... 5
Round One Awards ..................................................................................................................... 6
Breakdown by Project Category and Program ....................................................................... 6
Rural vs. Nonrural Awards .................................................................................................... 8
Type of Technology............................................................................................................... 9
Public Notice Responses From Existing Service Providers .................................................... 9
State-by-State Breakdowns.................................................................................................. 10
Round Two ............................................................................................................................... 10
Applications........................................................................................................................ 11
Awards................................................................................................................................ 12
Total Awards First and Second Round Combined ...................................................................... 12
Discussion and Concluding Observations .................................................................................. 12

Tables
Table 1. Numbers of First Round Applications and Funds Requested by Project Category ........... 2
Table 2. Percentage of First Round Applications and Funds Requested by Project
Category .................................................................................................................................. 3
Table 3. Number of First Round Applications Submitted by Project Category and
Program ................................................................................................................................... 3
Table 4. First Round Funding Requested by Project Category and Program ................................. 4
Table 5. First Round Awards by Project Category ........................................................................ 7
Table 6. Percentage of First Round Awards by Project Category .................................................. 7
Table 7. Funding Awarded by Project Category and Program....................................................... 8
Table 8. Awarded Rural Projects as a Percentage of Total Infrastructure Projects ......................... 9
Table 9. Infrastructure Projects by Type of Technology................................................................ 9
Table 10. Public Notice Responses Filed by Existing Service Providers..................................... 10
Table A-1. State-by-State Distribution of Round One BTOP and BIP Broadband Grants
and Loans .............................................................................................................................. 14
Table A-2. State-by-State Distribution of Round One BTOP Funding ........................................ 15
Table A-3. State-by-State Distribution of Round One BIP Funding ............................................ 17
Table A-4. First Round Projects with Multistate Service Areas .................................................. 18

Congressional Research Service

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Appendixes
Appendix. ................................................................................................................................. 14

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Introduction
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) provided $7.2 billion
primarily for broadband grant and loan programs to be administered by two separate agencies: the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of
Commerce (DOC) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA).
The ARRA directed broadband grant and loan funding in the following way:
• $4.35 billion1 to NTIA/DOC for a competitive broadband grant program
including broadband infrastructure grants, competitive grants for expanding
public computer capacity, and grants to encourage sustainable adoption of
broadband service. The NTIA grant program is called the Broadband Technology
Opportunity Program (BTOP).
• $2.5 billion to RUS/USDA for broadband grants, loans, and loan/grant
combinations. The law states that 75% of the area to be served by an eligible
project must be a rural area. A rural area is defined as any area not located within
a city, town, or incorporated area that has a population of greater than 20,000
inhabitants; or not located within an urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a
city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants. The RUS
broadband grant and loan program is called the Broadband Initiatives Program
(BIP).
There are two rounds of ARRA broadband funding. The first funding round was announced with
the release of a Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) on July 1, 2009. The second funding round
NOFAs were released on January 15, 2010. The announcement of second round awards began on
July 2, 2010. The ARRA mandates that all funding must be obligated and awarded by September
30, 2010.
This report focuses on the distribution of ARRA broadband funding.2 The following presents and
analyzes first round applications and awards data as of April 28, 2010.
Round One Applications
On September 9, 2009, NTIA and RUS released data on applications received during the first
round application period. In total, over 2,200 applications requested nearly $28 billion in funding
for proposed projects reaching all 50 states, five territories, and the District of Columbia. The
total amount of federal funding requested was seven times the amount available in the first
funding round.

1 Additionally, the ARRA directed $350 million to NTIA for funding broadband data gathering and implementation of
the State Broadband Data and Development Grant program. A portion of this money was also allocated to the Federal
Communications Commission for the purpose of preparing a National Broadband Plan. Both the state data grant
program and the development of the National Broadband Plan are separate activities and are not discussed in this
report.
2 For a comprehensive discussion of the ARRA broadband programs, see CRS Report R40436, Broadband
Infrastructure Programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by Lennard G. Kruger.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Broadband grants and loans fall into several first round project categories. For BTOP, projects can
be:
• last mile, defined as any broadband infrastructure project the predominant
purpose of which is to provide broadband service to end users;
• middle mile, defined as a broadband infrastructure project that does not
predominantly provide broadband service to end users and may include
interoffice transport, backhaul, Internet connectivity, or special access (up to $1.2
billion in grants available for infrastructure consisting of last mile and middle
mile projects);
• public computer centers, which provide broadband access to the general public or
a specific vulnerable population (up to $50 million in grants available); or
• sustainable broadband adoption, which demonstrate a sustainable increase in
demand for and subscribership to broadband services (up to $150 million in
grants available).
For BIP, projects can be:
• last mile remote area, where “remote area” is a rural unserved area at least 50
miles from a nonrural area (up to $400 million in grants available);
• last mile nonremote area (up to $800 million in loans and loan/grant
combinations available); or
• middle mile (up to $800 million in loans and loan/grant combinations available).
Tables 1 through 4 provide a breakdown of applications data with respect to program and project
category.3
Table 1. Numbers of First Round Applications and Funds Requested by Project
Category
Funds
Funds
Requested,
Funds
Requested,
Number of
grants,
Requested,
grants plus

Applications
$billions
loans, $billions loans, $billions
Last Mile (BTOP Only)
114
1.78
N/Aa 1.78


Last Mile Non-remote area
646
4.76
3.94
8.70
Last Mile Remote Areab
406
2.59 1.25 3.84
Middle
Mile
372
7.84 1.31 9.15
Public Computer Centers
362
1.91
N/A
1.91
Sustainable Broadband Adoption
329
2.49
N/A
2.49
Total
2229 21.37 6.5 27.87
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Broadband USA Applications Database.
a. Not applicable.

3 A searchable database is available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/applications/search.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

b. Remote area applications are self-identified by applicants. The actual number of applications legitimately
qualifying as “remote area” was less, as determined by RUS.

Table 2. Percentage of First Round Applications and Funds Requested by Project
Category
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
grant funding
loan funding
total funding

applications
requested
requested
requested
Last Mile (BTOP Only)
5%
8%
N/Aa 6%
Last Mile Non-remote area
29%
22%
61%
31%
Last Mile Remote Area
18%
12%
19%
14%
Middle Mile
17%
37%
20%
33%
Public Computer Centers
16%
9%
N/A
7%
Sustainable Broadband Adoption
15%
12%
N/A
9%
Total 100%
100%
100%
100%
Source: Compiled and calculated by CRS from the Broadband USA Applications Database.
a. Not applicable.
Table 3. Number of First Round Applications Submitted by Project Category and
Program

BIP only
BIP/BTOP
BTOP only
Totals
Last Mile (BTOP Only)
N/Aa N/A 114 114
Last Mile Non-remote area
134
512
N/A
646
Last Mile Remote Area
224
182
N/A
406
Middle Mile
56
166
150
372
Public Computer Centers
N/A
N/A
362
362
Sustainable Broadband Adoption
N/A
N/A
329
329
Totals 414
860
841
2229
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Broadband USA Applications Database.
a. Not applicable.

Congressional Research Service
3

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Table 4. First Round Funding Requested by Project Category and Program
$billions

BIP only
BIP/BTOP
BTOP only

Grants Loans Subtotal Grants Loans Subtotal Grants
Loans
Subtotal
Last Mile
N/Aa N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.78
N/A
1.78
(BTOP
Only)
Last Mile
1.00 1.89
2.89 3.76 2.04 5.81 N/A
N/A
N/A
Non-
remote
area
Last Mile
0.78 0.59
1.38 1.81 0.65 2.46 N/A
N/A
N/A
Remote
Area
Middle
0.23 0.48
0.71 3.89 0.84 4.73 3.71
N/A
3.71
Mile
Public
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.91
N/A
1.91
Computer
Centers
Sustainable
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.49
N/A
2.49
Broadband
Adoption
Totals 2.01 2.96
4.98 9.46 3.53 13.0 9.89
N/A
9.89
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Broadband USA Applications Database.
a. Not applicable.

Rural vs. Nonrural Applications
Broadband infrastructure projects proposing to serve areas which are at least 75% rural4 were
required to be submitted to RUS/BIP. Broadband infrastructure projects include last mile and
middle mile projects. If applicants chose, they could simultaneously submit an application to
NTIA/BTOP, and NTIA had the option of making awards to those applications if RUS
determined not to fund them. Therefore, broadband infrastructure applications submitted to BIP-
only or to both BIP and BTOP can be classified as “rural,” while broadband infrastructure
applications submitted to BTOP-only can be classified as “nonrural.” Applications submitted to
BTOP/NTIA for broadband sustainable adoption grants and public computer centers grants
address both rural and nonrural areas. However, based on the information available in the
Broadband USA applications database, it is not possible to separate out “rural” from “nonrural”
applications for adoption and computer center grants.

4 Defined by RUS as any area, as confirmed by the latest decennial census of the Bureau of the Census, which is not
located within: (1) a city, town, or incorporated area that has a population of greater than 20,000 inhabitants; or (2) an
urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants. For
purposes of the definition of rural area, an urbanized area means a densely populated territory as defined in the latest
decennial census of the U.S. Census Bureau.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Based on the Broadband USA applications database, the following percentage breakdowns can be
derived:
• Of all broadband infrastructure applications (both last and middle mile), rural
applications accounted for 82.8% of applications, 76.6% of the total money
requested, and 67.6% of the total grant money requested for infrastructure.
• Of all last mile broadband infrastructure applications, rural applications
accounted for 91.0% of applications, 87.6% of the total money requested, and
80.5% of the total grant money requested for infrastructure.
• Of all middle mile broadband infrastructure applications, rural applications
accounted for 59.7% of applications, 59.4% of total money requested, and 52.6%
of total grant money requested for infrastructure.
Remote vs. Nonremote Projects
Under BIP, a full grant award (as opposed to a grant/loan combination or a loan) was available
only for projects proposing to serve a “remote area.” A remote area was defined as a rural
unserved area at least 50 miles from a non-rural area. A categorization of “remote” only applied
to a portion of last mile rural broadband infrastructure project applications that applied to BIP or
to BIP/BTOP. Thus all of the Last-Mile BTOP-only applications are “nonremote” because all
BTOP-only broadband infrastructure applications are by definition nonrural. Additionally, the
remote/nonremote categories do not apply to middle mile projects.
Based on the Broadband USA applications database, the following percentage breakdowns can be
derived:
• Of all last mile infrastructure applications submitted to RUS (either BIP-only or
BIP/BTOP), remote area applications accounted for 38.6% of applications,
30.6% of total money requested, 35.2% of grant money requested, and 24.0% of
loan money requested.
• Of all last mile infrastructure applications submitted to RUS and NTIA (BIP-
only, BIP/BTOP, and BTOP-only), remote area applications accounted for 34.8%
of applications, 26.8% of total money requested, and 28.3% of grant money
requested.
Grants vs. Loans
Only grants were available from BTOP, whereas grants and loans were available from BIP. Based
on the Broadband USA applications database, the following percentage breakdowns can be
derived:
• Of all broadband infrastructure applications, 72% of funds requested was for
grant funding.
• Of all broadband stimulus applications, 77% of funds requested was for grant
funding.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Round One Awards
The total amount available in the first funding round was set at $4 billion, consisting of up to $2.4
billion under the RUS Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP), and up to $1.6 billion under the
NTIA Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). Initially NTIA and RUS had
expected to begin announcing awards in November 2009. However, because of the volume and
complexity of the applications received, award announcements began in mid-December.
The first round award announcements are complete. NTIA and RUS announced awards for 150
projects, totaling $2.275 billion in federal funding. This includes 82 BTOP projects (totaling
$1.206 billion) and 68 BIP projects (totaling $1.069 billion).
The following is a breakdown and analysis of awards data by project category and program, rural
versus nonrural project areas, broadband technology deployed, whether public notice responses
were filed by existing service providers, and state-by-state distribution of funding. Awards data
are derived from NTIA and RUS press releases, BTOP project information,5 and the Broadband
USA applications database.6
Breakdown by Project Category and Program
Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7 provide breakdowns of awards data by project category and
program. As the tables show, the majority of first round infrastructure funding has gone to middle
mile projects (53%), with last mile projects (remote and nonremote area) accounting for 47%. By
contrast, the applications data show that of all infrastructure funding requested (see Table 1
above), middle mile projects accounted for 39%, while last mile projects accounted for 61%.
BTOP infrastructure grants have been exclusively targeted towards middle mile projects. To date
middle mile projects have accounted for 79% of all BTOP award funding. In the first round,
BTOP funded eight last mile projects (nonremote last mile projects initially submitted to BIP).
By contrast, BIP grants and loans have been predominantly oriented towards last mile projects.
There are 62 last mile (remote and nonremote) funded BIP projects, versus only 6 middle mile
funded BIP projects. While the first round NOFA specified “up to $800 million” for BIP middle
mile projects, to date, RUS has awarded only $167 million for middle mile. Of the BIP last mile
projects, nonremote area projects are significantly more heavily funded (49 projects accounting
for 82% of last mile project funding) than remote area projects (13 projects accounting for 18% of
last mile project funding).
Finally, there is funding for the two non-infrastructure BTOP project categories: public computer
centers and sustainable broadband adoption. The public computer centers category has received
$57 million, which slightly exceeds the NOFA level of “up to $50 million.”7 By contrast, funding
for sustainable broadband adoption stands at $110 million, less than the NOFA level of “up to
$150 million.” The ARRA requires not less than $200 million for public computer centers and not

5 Available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/projects.html.
6 Available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/applications/search.cfm.
7 Both NTIA and RUS have the discretion to divert funding between categories, as long as they conform with the
ARRA statute.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

less than $250 million for sustainable broadband adoption. Thus, it seems likely that significantly
more funding will be provided for public computer centers and sustainable broadband adoption in
the second funding round.
Table 5. First Round Awards by Project Category
Federal Funds
Federal Funds Federal Funds
Awarded,
Awarded,
Awarded,
grants plus
Number of
grants,
loans,
loans,

Projects
$millions
$millions
$millions NOFA
Level
Last Mile (BTOP
0 0
0
0
up to $2 billion
Only)
for BTOP last
and middle mile
Middle Mile
47
1030.47
86.85
1117.32
and BIP middle
mile
Last Mile Non-
57
434.40 395.19 829.60
up
to
$800
remote area
million
Last Mile Remote
13
149.92
11.21
161.13
up to $400
Area
million
Public Computer
20
57.25
0
57.25
up to $50
Centers
million
Sustainable
13
109.88
0
109.88
up to $150
Broadband
million
Adoption
Total
150
1781.92
493.25
2275.18
up to $3.4
billion
Source: Compiled and calculated by CRS from NTIA and RUS press releases, BTOP project information, and
the Broadband USA Applications Database. Data current as of April 28, 2010.

Table 6. Percentage of First Round Awards by Project Category
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
grant funding
loan funding
total funding

funded projects
awarded
awarded
awarded
Last Mile (BTOP
0% 0%
N/Aa 0%
Only)
Middle Mile
31%
58%
18%
49%
Last Mile Non-
38% 24% 80% 36%
remote area
Last Mile Remote
9% 8% 2% 7%
Area
Public Computer
13% 3%
N/A 2%
Centers
Sustainable
9% 6%
N/A 5%
Broadband
Adoption
Total 100%
100%
100%
100%
Congressional Research Service
7

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Source: Compiled and calculated by CRS from NTIA and RUS press releases, BTOP project information, and
the Broadband USA Applications Database. Data current as of April 28, 2010.
a. Not applicable.
Table 7. Funding Awarded by Project Category and Program
$millions
RUS/BIP
NTIA/BTOP
Grants
Loans
Subtotal
Grants
Loans
Subtotal
Last Mile
N/A
N/A 0
N/A 0
(BTOP
N/Aa
Only)
Last Mile
345.27 395.19 740.46 89.13
N/A 89.13
Non-
remote
area
Last Mile
149.92
11.21
161.13 0
N/A 0
Remote
Area
Middle
80.61 86.85 167.46 949.86
N/A 949.86
Mile
Public
N/A N/A N/A 57.25
N/A 57.25
Computer
Centers
Sustainable
N/A N/A N/A
109.88
N/A
109.88
Broadband
Adoption
Totals
575.8 493.25 1069.05 1206.12
N/A 1206.12
Source: Compiled and calculated by CRS from NTIA and RUS press releases, BTOP project information, and
the Broadband USA Applications Database. Data current as of April 28, 2010.
a. Not applicable.
Rural vs. Nonrural Awards
As discussed in the section above on rural versus nonrural applications, broadband infrastructure
applications submitted to BIP-only or to both BIP and BTOP can be classified as “rural,”8 while
broadband infrastructure applications submitted to BTOP-only can be classified as “nonrural.”
Table 8 shows the number of projects and funds awarded for all infrastructure projects, BIP
projects, and BIP-BTOP projects. Based on the classification of BIP and BIP-BTOP projects as
“rural,” the data show that 81% of all funded infrastructure projects are “rural,” and that 70% of
infrastructure federal funding has been awarded to rural projects. To date, all funded last mile
projects were submitted to BIP (and are therefore rural). On the other hand, 44% of funded
middle mile projects can be classified as nonrural (submitted to BTOP only), and 55% of middle
mile federal funding has been awarded to nonrural projects.

8 According to the first round NOFA, all infrastructure projects proposing to serve an area at least 75% rural were
required to submit to BIP or to BIP and BTOP jointly. All applications proposing to serve an area less than 75% rural
were required to submit to BTOP only.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Table 8. Awarded Rural Projects as a Percentage of Total Infrastructure Projects
Funds Awarded
Number
of
Projects
($millions)
Total infrastructure
117
2100.01
BIP projects
68
1069.05
BTOP projects that were initially
27 392.76
submitted to BIP
Rural projects as a percentage of
81.27% 69.6%
total infrastructure projects
Source: Compiled and calculated by CRS from NTIA and RUS press releases, BTOP project information, and
the Broadband USA Applications Database. Data current as of April 28, 2010.
Type of Technology
Broadband deployment can encompass a number of different types of technologies, including
fiber, wireless, cable modem, DSL, satellite, and others. Table 9 shows that of all infrastructure
projects funded, about two-thirds are fiber projects, which is not surprising given the high number
of middle mile projects funded in the first round. Additionally, given that most of the projects
involving multiple technologies involve a deployment of both fiber and wireless technologies, it
would be accurate to state that projects involving fiber account for about three-quarters of all
infrastructure projects. Of last mile project technologies, 34 are fiber, 9 are multiple, 14 are
wireless, 7 are DSL, 2 are cable modem, and 4 are unable to be determined from the public
information that was released.
Table 9. Infrastructure Projects by Type of Technology
Number of
Percentage of total
awarded
infrastructure
Technology
projects
projects
Fiber 73
62%
Wireless 16
14%
DSL 7
6%
Cable modem
2
2%
Multiplea 15
13%
Source: Compiled and calculated by CRS from NTIA and RUS press releases, BTOP project information, and
the Broadband USA Applications Database. Data current as of April 28, 2010.
a. Primarily combinations of fiber + wireless broadband technologies.
Public Notice Responses From Existing Service Providers
After the first round applications were received, RUS and NTIA posted a 30-day public notice for
the proposed service area of each broadband infrastructure application. Existing service providers
were given an opportunity to respond to the public notice and indicate if they were already
providing broadband service in the proposed area, and if they believed that the proposed project
area did not meet the threshold of being unserved or underserved. Based on their assessment of
Congressional Research Service
9

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

the public notice response from the existing service provider, the agencies could either reclassify
the application from “unserved” to “underserved,” reject the application, or continue to consider
the application as it was submitted.
Table 10 shows the numbers of funded infrastructure projects for which public notice responses
were and were not filed. While the presence of a filed response likely indicates that an existing
service provider is providing some level of broadband service somewhere within the proposed
service area, it does not necessarily mean that the area is not unserved or underserved, or that the
existing service provider is providing adequate broadband service in terms of such factors as
coverage, price, or speed. On the other hand, the lack of a public notice response does not
necessarily indicate the absence of an existing service provider within the proposed service area;
rather an existing service provider might simply have declined to file a public notice response
within the 30-day period.
With these caveats in mind, the public notice response data in Table 10 indicate that public notice
responses were filed by existing service providers for 71% of all funded infrastructure projects.
Public notice responses were filed for 89% of all middle mile projects and 70% of last mile
nonremote projects. By contrast, one out of the 13 (8%) of last mile remote area applications
received a public notice response from an existing service provider.
Table 10. Public Notice Responses Filed by Existing Service Providers
Public Notice
Public Notice
Response Filed
Response Not Filed

(number of projects)
(number of projects)
Last Mile Remote Area Projects
1
12
Last Mile Nonremote Area Projects
40
17
Middle Mile Projects
42
5
Total Infrastructure Projects
83
34
Source: Compiled and calculated by CRS from NTIA and RUS press releases, BTOP project information, and
the Broadband USA Applications Database. Data current as of April 28, 2010.
State-by-State Breakdowns
The ARRA (P.L. 111-5) requires the NTIA to award not less than one grant in each state, to the
extent practical. Table A-1 in the Appendix shows a state-by-state breakdown of the distribution
of round one grant and loan funding. Table A-2 shows a state-by-state breakdown of round one
BTOP funding, and Table A-3 shows a state-by-state breakdown of round one BIP funding. To
date, twelve of the funded projects involve a service area covering more than one state. In these
cases, the award has been categorized with the principal recipient state, either as identified by
RUS or NTIA, or based on the location of the applying organization. Table A-4 shows awarded
projects with service areas covering more than one state.
Round Two
On January 15, 2010, NTIA and RUS released NOFAs announcing the second and final round of
ARRA broadband funding. A total of $4.8 billion is being made available, consisting of $2.6
Congressional Research Service
10

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

billion for BTOP and $2.2 billion for BIP. Based on the agencies’ experiences with the first round,
and drawing on public comments collected from a November 16, 2009, Joint Request for
Information (RFI),9 both NTIA and RUS have streamlined the application process and have made
significant changes to how the second round of BTOP and BIP will be structured and conducted.
Highlights include the following:
• Unlike the first round, each agency has its own separate NOFA, and applicants
have the option of applying to either BTOP or BIP, but not to both.
• NTIA/BTOP will primarily focus on middle mile broadband infrastructure
projects, while RUS/BIP will focus primarily on last mile projects.
• BTOP is reorienting its infrastructure program towards Comprehensive
Community Infrastructure (CCI) grants, which will support middle mile projects
serving anchor institutions such as community colleges, libraries, hospitals,
universities, and public safety institutions.
• BIP has eliminated the “Remote Last Mile” project category, and will offer a
standard grant/loan combination (75% grant/25% loan) for all last mile and
middle mile projects (unless waivers are sought).
• The first round requirement that eligible infrastructure projects must cover
“unserved” or “underserved” areas is eliminated. In the second round, BIP
projects must cover an area that is at least 75% rural and that does not have High
Speed Access broadband service at the rate of 5 Mbps (upstream and downstream
combined) in at least 50% of its area. Eligible BTOP projects require only an
applicant that is an eligible entity, a fully completed application, and a nonfederal
match of 20% or more. However, during the application evaluation, factors such
as unserved and underserved areas, remoteness, and delivered speed will be
considered.
• BIP has added three new grant programs: Satellite Projects, Rural Library
Broadband, and Technical Assistance. RUS will publish a separate Request for
Proposals for each of these programs.
Applications
On April 7, 2010, NTIA announced that it had received 867 applications for second round
funding, totaling $11 billion in requested federal funding. The applications broke down as
follows: 355 applications requesting a total of $8.4 billion for Comprehensive Community
Infrastructure, 251 applications requesting $1.7 billion for Sustainable Broadband Adoption, and
261 applications requesting $0.922 billion for Public Computer Centers.10
On April 16, 2010, RUS announced it had received a total of 776 applications requesting nearly
$11.2 billion in federal funds. Of that total, RUS received 30 middle mile applications requesting
a total of $845.88 million.

9 Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service and Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, “Broadband Initiatives Program and Broadband Technology Opportunities Program,” 74
Federal Register 58940-58944, November 16, 2009.
10 NTIA, “Commerce Announced Continued Demand for Funding to Bring Broadband to More Americans,” April 7,
2010, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2010/BTOP_Round2Applications_04072010.html.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Combined, NTIA and RUS received 1643 applications in the second round, requesting a total of
$22.2 billion in federal funds. This is 26% less than the number of applications received by both
agencies in the first round, and 21% less than the amount of federal funding requested in the first
round.
Awards
The first wave of second round awards was announced on July 2, 2010; subsequent awards are
being announced through September 30, 2010. As of September 9, 2010, $3.95 billion has been
awarded in the second round (both BTOP and BIP), consisting of $3.32 billion in grants and
$0.624 billion in loans. Second round BIP awards, as of September 9, 2010, stand at $2.04
billion; second round BTOP awards stand at $1.91 billion.
Total Awards First and Second Round Combined
As of September 9, 2010, 441 BTOP and BIP awards have been announced totaling $6.2 billion
($5.1 billion in grants, $1.1 billion in loans). Of this total, $3.1 billion has been awarded by
BTOP, and $3.1 billion has been awarded by BIP. Additional BTOP and BIP awards will be
announced through September 30, 2010.
Discussion and Concluding Observations
Based on the data presented above, the following observations can be made with respect to the
first round awards:
• The amount of funding awarded in the first round was about 57% of the available
funding levels published in the first round NOFA. While NTIA and RUS have the
authority and discretion to shift money from the first to the second round, the
shortfall suggests that significantly more money will likely be awarded in the
second round. It also indicates that more money than was anticipated will likely
be awarded under the second round criteria, which feature significant differences
from the first round including: no requirement that eligible project service areas
meet the first round definitions of “unserved” or “underserved,” no last mile
remote area grant set-asides, and the orientation of BTOP toward Comprehensive
Community Infrastructure middle mile projects.
• Of all broadband infrastructure projects awarded, middle mile projects received
more funding than last mile projects (53% vs. 47% of total funding for
infrastructure). While the first round NOFA announced the intention of BTOP
and BIP to fund both last and middle mile projects, and while applications were
received by both agencies for last and middle mile projects, the awards data
indicate that NTIA/BTOP has almost exclusively awarded grants to middle mile
projects, while RUS/BIP has largely awarded funding to last mile projects. This
can perhaps be viewed as a foreshadowing of the direction both agencies chose in
the second round NOFAs (e.g., BTOP’s focus on middle mile and BIP’s focus on
last mile broadband infrastructure projects).
Congressional Research Service
12

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

• Of all broadband infrastructure funding, most (70%) was awarded to projects
serving predominantly rural areas. However, a breakdown of the project
categories awards data show that while all last mile projects have been rural, the
majority of middle mile funding has been awarded to projects serving nonrural
areas (as they are defined in the NOFA).
• Nonremote last mile rural projects were funded more heavily than remote area
last mile rural projects. As set forth in the first round NOFA, only last mile
remote area projects were eligible for full grants, and “remote area” was defined
as an area at least 50 miles from a nonrural area. RUS encountered heavy
criticism of this definition because many areas, particularly in the eastern half of
the United States, were excluded. Total funding awarded for remote area last mile
projects was significantly less than the amount set aside by the first round NOFA.
This was perhaps due to the low number of eligible project applications received
in the remote area category (due to the restrictive definition of “remote”). In the
second round the remote and nonremote distinction has been eliminated as an
eligibility criteria. Without a specific “carve-out” for last mile remote areas,
Congress may wish to closely monitor RUS and NTIA to ensure that remote and
completely unserved areas of the country are receiving a significant share of last
mile broadband infrastructure funding.
• Another issue that has arisen in the first round and is likely to persist in the
second round is the debate over funding broadband infrastructure projects with
service areas already being served to some extent by existing providers. The
awards data show that almost all middle mile project applications received public
notice responses from existing providers. This is not surprising, given that middle
mile projects cover very large areas where there is likely to be at least some
existing providers. The awards data also show much more public notice
responses for nonremote last mile projects than for remote area projects. Again,
this is not surprising, given that remote areas tend to be more sparsely populated,
less economically desirable to service providers, and thus less likely to have any
existing broadband service.
Congress will likely continue to monitor how the stimulus broadband grants and loans are being
distributed, particularly with respect to the types of projects funded, the types of areas and
communities served, and how the awards break down on a state-by-state basis. In the longer term,
the FCC’s National Broadband Plan has recommended a significant expansion of federal funding
for broadband deployment in unserved areas.11 To the extent that Congress may consider whether
broadband grant and loan programs should be expanded, the funding patterns and trends that
emerge during rounds one and two could provide insights into whether such programs should be
expanded, and if so, how these or similar programs might be fashioned within the context of a
national broadband policy.

11 The National Broadband Plan recommends expanding combination grant-loan programs at RUS, expanding the RUS
Community Connect grant program, establishing a Tribal Broadband Fund, and significantly reorienting the FCC’s
Universal Service Fund program to support broadband. See Federal Communications Commission, Connecting
America: The National Broadband Plan, March 2010, pp. 140-152.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Appendix.
Table A-1. State-by-State Distribution of Round One BTOP and BIP Broadband
Grants and Loans
Grants +
Loans

Number of Awards Grants (millions$) Loans (millions$)
(millions$)
TX 6
91.294
92.516 183.810
LA 6
115.336
28.403 143.739
WV 5
137.306
1.475 138.781
PA 2
128.444
0
128.444
AK 5
74.770
49.472 124.242
KS 5
60.466
60.621 121.087
WA 4
113.828
0
113.828
AS 1
81.034
10.000 91.034
IN 4
45.092 43.424 88.516
KY 2
38.816
39.843 78.659
NY 4
75.683
1.100 76.783
OK 6
63.161
10.037 73.198
MN 6
39.697
31.939
71.636
IL 4
50.011 14.230 64.241
TN 3
35.396
24.964 60.360
VA 6
52.121
8.062 60.183
GA 4
52.506
4.096 56.602
MI 4
46.949
4.165 51.114
CA 8
35.288
4.667 39.955
PR
2
38.731
0
38.731
NM 7
31.432
7.102
38.534
OH 6
30.707
6.374
37.081
FL 3
35.681
0
35.681
MA 4
35.451
0
35.451
AZ 2
33.490
0
33.490
ND 5
17.461
15.239 32.700
NC 3
29.476
0
29.476
MO 2
14.689
14.689
29.378
DC 1
28.500
0
28.500
WI 2
28.084
0
28.084
ME 1
25.400
0
25.400
Congressional Research Service
14

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Grants +
Loans

Number of Awards Grants (millions$) Loans (millions$)
(millions$)
SD 1
20.600
0
20.600
ID 5
12.816
6.143 18.959
UT 1
13.401
0
13.401
IA 4
3.316
7.171 10.487
OR 4
9.509
0.936 10.445
MS 1
4.135
4.304
8.439
GU 1
8.039
0
8.039
SC 1
5.903
0
5.903
CO 2
3.660
2.168
5.828
NV 1
4.681
0
4.681
AL 1
3.892
0
3.892
VT 1
2.525
0
2.525
RI 1
1.245
0
1.245
NH 1
0.985
0
0.985
MD 1
0.932
0
0.932
HI 1
0
0.106 0.106
Total
150
1781.939
493.246
2275.185
Source: Compiled and calculated by CRS from NTIA and RUS press releases, BTOP project information, and
the Broadband USA Applications Database. Data current as of April 28, 2010.
Notes: Twelve BTOP and BIP projects involve a service area covering more than one state. In these cases, the
award has been categorized with the principal recipient state, either as identified by RUS or NTIA, or based on
the location of the applying organization. Table A-4 shows awarded projects with service areas covering more
than one state.

Table A-2. State-by-State Distribution of Round One BTOP Funding

Number of Awards
Funding Awarded ($millions)
WV 4
135.889
PA 2
128.444
WA 4
113.828
LA 3
90.773
NY 3
71.383
GA 3
48.410
VA 5
44.059
IL 3
41.473
IN 2
39.397
PR
2
38.731
Congressional Research Service
15

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards


Number of Awards
Funding Awarded ($millions)
OK 2
38.119
FL 3
35.681
MA 4
35.451
MI 2
34.184
AZ 2
33.490
CA 6
30.621
NC 3
29.476
DC 1
28.500
WI 2
28.084
ME 1
25.400
OH 2
24.838
SD 1
20.600
UT 1
13.401
NM 3
12.928
TN 2
10.681
OR 1
8.325
GU 1
8.039
MN 2
7.758
ID 4
6.673
SC 1
5.903
NV 1
4.681
TX 1
4.678
VT 1
2.525
RI 1
1.245
KS 1
0.998
MD 1
0.932
KY 1
0.535
Total 82
1206.133
Source: Compiled and calculated by CRS from NTIA and RUS press releases, BTOP project information, and
the Broadband USA Applications Database. Data current as of April 28, 2010.
Notes: Nine BTOP projects involve a service area covering more than one state. In these cases, the award has
been categorized with the principal recipient state, either as identified by NTIA, or based on the location of the
applying organization. Table A-4 shows awarded projects with service areas covering more than one state.

Congressional Research Service
16

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Table A-3. State-by-State Distribution of Round One BIP Funding

Number of Awards
Funding Awarded ($millions)
TX 5
179.132
AK 5
124.242
KS 4
120.089
AS 1
91.034
KY 1
78.124
MN 4
63.878
LA 3
52.966
TN 1
49.679
IN 2
49.119
OK 4
35.078
ND 5
32.700
MO 2
29.378
NM 4
25.606
IL 1
22.768
MI 2
16.930
VA 1
16.124
ID 1
12.286
OH 4
12.243
IA 4
10.487
CA 2
9.334
MS 1
8.439
GA 1
8.192
CO 2
5.828
NY 1
5.400
AL 1
3.892
WV 1
2.892
OR 3
2.120
NH 1
0.985
HI 1
0.106
Total 68
1069.051
Source: Compiled and calculated by CRS from NTIA and RUS press releases, BTOP project information, and
the Broadband USA Applications Database. Data current as of April 28, 2010.
Notes: Three BIP projects involve a service area covering more than one state. In these cases, the award has
been categorized with the principal recipient state, either as identified by RUS, or based on the location of the
applying organization. Table A-4 shows awarded projects with service areas covering more than one state.

Congressional Research Service
17

---

.
Distribution of Broadband Stimulus Grants and Loans: Applications and Awards

Table A-4. First Round Projects with Multistate Service Areas
Awardee
Program
Type of Project
Award ($millions)
States
ION Hold Co.
BTOP
middle mile
39.7
NY, PA, VT
ENMR Telephone
BTOP
middle mile
11.25
NM, TX
Cooperative
Zito Media
BTOP
middle mile
6.137
OH, PA
Communications
Navajo Tribal Utility
BTOP
middle mile
32.19
AZ, NM, UT
Authority
Island Telephone &
BTOP middle
mile
8.039
GU,
MP
Engineering
Mission Economic
BTOP public
computer 3.724
CA, AZ, CO, ID,
Development
centers
MD, MN, MO, NM,
Agency
PA, TX
OneCommunity BTOP
sustainable
18.70
OH, FL, KY, MI, MS
broadband adoption
One Economy
BTOP
sustainable
28.5
31 states and the
broadband adoption
District of Columbia
Allegiance
BTOP
nonremote last mile
28.619
AR, KS, OK, TX
Communications
Peetz Cooperative
BIP
remote last mile
1.5
CO, NE
Telephone Co.
Reservation
BIP
nonremote last mile
21.9
ND, MT
Telephone
Cooperative
Totah
BIP
nonremote last mile
8.51
OK, KS
Communications
Source: Compiled by CRS from NTIA and RUS press releases, BTOP project information, and the Broadband
USA Applications Database. Data current as of April 28, 2010.

Author Contact Information

Lennard G. Kruger

Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070


Congressional Research Service
18

---