Last month, the Broadband Deployment Board ("Board") awarded a $2.3 million broadband grant to DMEA for the Southeast Crawford and Northeast Delta areas in Application No. 2018-05. TDS now appeals the Board's award of grant money for the Southeast Crawford area because it allegedly "overbuilds" TDS's broadband network.
The Board's decision on TDS's appeal will have tremendous consequences for the citizens of Southeast Crawford: if the Board denies the TDS appeal and upholds the award to DMEA, it means that every household in the grant area will, within a year, have access to symmetrical 1,000 Mbps/1,000 Mbps broadband service. But if the Board grants TDS's appeal and rescinds DMEA's award, it means hundreds of rural Coloradans in Southeast Crawford will remain served with little more than unmet promises of broadband service from TDS.
TDS claims the Board's grant "overbuilds" TDS, because TDS plans to use federal broadband money that was earmarked for a different geographic region to "directly benefit" citizens in Southeast Crawford. This claim is meritless as both a legal and practical matter. TDS also claims it provides—and will provide in the future—broadband service to those same citizens. But as demonstrated by more than two dozen reports from actual TDS customers in Southeast Crawford, this claim also lacks merit. TDS claims that it currently provides service levels to Southeast Crawford that it does not actually provide; there is no reason for the Board to accept TDS's claims about its future performance.
By way of summary, there are several independent reasons this Board should reject TDS's appeal of the grant to DMEA in Application No. 2018-05:
1. DMEA's project does not "overbuild" any TDS location receiving A-CAM funding.
DMEA's application explicitly excluded any addresses receiving A-CAM funding. DMEA engaged a separate independent consultant as part of the appeal process, and that consultant confirmed that no service areas in Application No. 2018-05 overlap with TDS's A-CAM funded areas.
As detailed below, TDS admits that it has not received federal funding for addresses in the DMEA grant areas, but for entirely different areas. Its unsubstantiated attempt to assert that citizens in Southeast Crawford will meaningfully benefit from federal funding going to a different geographic region should be rejected: DMEA's project does not "overbuild" areas receiving federal funding within the plain meaning of C.R.S § 40-15-509.5(10.9)(b). Moreover, there is no statutory or Board policy prohibition on the build out of a new project in an area that is adjacent to an area receiving federal funds.
2. The TDS officer affidavit has no bearing on the Board's ultimate determination that DMEA's application meets the minimum requirements.
TDS's officer affidavit fails both facial and substantive statutory requirements for such affidavits. It refers only generally to several pages of TDS comments and does not state, as required by C.R.S § 40-15-509.5(8)(c), that construction of a broadband network in grant areas receiving federal funding will be complete within the 24-month period.
3. By TDS's own admission, it does not provide broadband service to a majority of the unserved areas.
TDS admits that at least 341 of the 388 households in the grant areas (approximately 88%) receive less than the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speeds required for broadband service.
4. In any event, TDS's reported available speeds are hypothetical, unreliable and unverifiable; TDS's own customers cast serious doubt on its assertions about the service levels it provides now and will provide in the future.
Testimonials from actual TDS customers in the grant areas reveal that, contrary to what TDS claims, many addresses do not receive "available" speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. Attached to this response are multiple reports from TDS customers directly contradicting the speeds TDS claimed in its December 20, 2018 comments it was providing those specific customers. TDS's claims about the service it currently provides—and could provide in the future—merit serious scrutiny. For example:
5. The grant area is unserved and DMEA's subsidiary, Elevate, does not provide broadband service to those unserved areas.
TDS's appeal arguing that Elevate already offers gigabit internet to the entire grant area relied on mapping data that did not accurately reflect available services. OIT has since amended its map to accurately reflect that Elevate does not currently offer internet service within this grant area.
6. TDS's procedural arguments are not a valid basis for appeal.