By Marc McCarty

& Meredith Morrison

The last Blog described the Missouri Office of Broadband Development’s (OBD) proposal to spend up to $1.7 billion for broadband projects that will be funded by the federal government’s Broadband Equity Access Deployment (BEAD) program. We highlighted ways local government and nonprofit organizations (Public Organizations) can play an important role at the outset, by helping to make the list of locations eligible for BEAD funding as accurate as possible, and by initiating contact with internet service providers (ISPs) to express the community’s interest in partnering to “digitally connect” their community.

Three ingredients are essential for communities to digitally connect while holistically benefitting the health, education, and economic advancement of its residents: (1) access to internet service, (2) the skills necessary for service adoption, and (3) a pricing model that makes service affordable. BEAD only directly addresses internet access. Internet adoption and affordability will require Public Organizations to organize and enter into partnerships with existing and new ISPs.

This blog focuses on the challenge to make broadband service affordable; a challenge that has been made much more difficult because of the end of funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).

Why Affordability Matters

Obviously, community residents and businesses cannot reap the benefits of broadband service if they can’t afford it! Like other utilities, broadband service comes with a monthly fee, and all ISPs generally must earn enough in monthly subscription revenue to cover the costs of capital investment, network maintenance, and service operations. In Missouri, most ISPs are “for-profit” companies, in which shareholders/investors must earn a reasonable return on their investments. For this reason, particularly, in hard to reach communities where there are fewer locations per square mile, obtaining a high percentage of paying subscribers can be critical to an ISP’s survival.

Most Missourians are understandably unwilling or unable to pay for high-cost broadband service. Multiple surveys show that a high monthly internet subscription cost is one of the biggest roadblocks to the adoption of broadband. Of course, in part the affordability of broadband service depends on whether potential subscribers feel confident they need and can use fixed broadband, or instead, can continue to rely on their internet-connected mobile phone or public hotspots. The next blog will cover how Public Organizations can address this issue by boosting internet adoption.

Many Missourians face a “would if I could” problem when monthly internet subscription costs compete with basic necessities, such as food, housing, water, and other utilities. Ironically, these households most desperately need broadband service to effectively access government and nonprofit assistance and improve their economic prospects for a better life. Clearly, some targeted program to make broadband affordable to low-income households is needed.

The Affordable Connectivity Program

The Affordable Connectivity Program was enacted along with BEAD as part of the 2021 infrastructure law to address this specific concern. In the two years it has been in place, 23 million households nationwide (nearly 400,000 in Missouri alone) received a $30 per month subsidy for internet service and a one-time discount they could apply to the purchase of a basic computer or tablet. Roughly 1 in 6  households across our state benefited from ACP, and in many rural counties 1 out of every 4 or 5 internet subscribers, received service subsidized by ACP.

The ACP became a victim of its own success. As structured, 42 million households were estimated to be eligible for the ACP benefit. Even though just a little more than half those families eventually applied and began participating in the ACP, the original $14 billion appropriation for the program is almost entirely depleted. The FCC has barred any new subscribers, and the program will end next month. While bipartisan legislation has been introduced to fund the ACP until year end, it is not expected to be enacted, and of course it is only a stopgap measure. In order to truly meet the needs of families, and provide a stable subscriber income base for ISPs, the program needs a permanent funding source, and this need is particularly evident as ISPs attempt to build out broadband in hard to reach unserved and underserved areas using the BEAD program.

Certainly absent a viable alternative, many participating households served by the ACP may be forced to drop service. While the federal government’s Lifeline program can offer some current ACP subscribers discounted broadband at connection speeds up to 25/3 Mbps, that is below the 100/20 Mbps mandated by the BEAD and ARPA programs. Additionally, the qualifying income levels for Lifeline are lower, and other eligibility requirements are more difficult to meet than those imposed by the ACP. Finally, many ISPs are not qualified to offer customers the Lifeline program benefit.

The Subscriber Revenue Gap Created by the End of ACP

Of course, the end of the ACP also creates some significant financial challenges for ISPs. ACP gave ISPs an incentive to build infrastructure in low-income communities, because the program increased their estimated take rate and subscriber revenues.  One study estimated that the loss of the ACP will translate into a decline in subscribers that will raise the cost of bringing broadband to unserved rural communities by 25%!

It is also unclear how ACP’s termination affects the sixty ISPs that were awarded grants as part of Missouri’s  $261 million Broadband Infrastructure Grant Program. These grant came from Missouri’s share of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF). Federal Regulations for the SLFRF program require that grant recipients offer low-income households affordable subscription options, commensurate with ACP’s benefits in areas served by grant-funded broadband infrastructure. While this requirement may soften the blow from the loss of the ACP in these isolated communities, the question remains, how will ISPs afford to implement a “commensurate” ACP benefit on their own?

Taken together, the loss of the ACP seems destined not only to make it harder for lower income households to subscribe for internet service, it also may make it significantly harder for Missouri to achieve the overall goals of the BEAD program – to extend broadband service to all unserved and to as many underserved areas of the state as possible.

How can Public Organizations Help?

In 2022, Governor Parson proposed using state funds to supplement broadband subscription costs for low income households.  However, that legislation ultimately was not enacted, and other than the Lifeline program previously discussed, there is no comprehensive federal or state program that directly subsidizes the monthly cost of broadband for lower income families. However, that does not mean that Public Organizations – particularly local government – are unable to indirectly help ISPs provide affordable broadband service to households that need financial assistance.

The key here is to recognize that ISPs can provide an ACP-type benefit to their customers so long as that cost is subsidized and that subsidy can take the form of either a direct payment to help the customer pay for service or, indirectly, by further reducing the ISP’s cost of building the broadband infrastructure. A BEAD grant can do that in part, but likely not if the ISP’s subsidy needs to be increased by 25%, because the ACP is not available! Yet it makes no sense to increase the government subsidy to the ISP for construction unless the ISP is willing to use the amount saved to provide an affordable broadband connection to its customers, through a program similar to the ACP.

For example, assume that an ISP was able to build and successfully operate a broadband network with a BEAD grant of $2 million, so long as it could rely on ACP-funded subscriber revenues to help pay for the infrastructure and cost of network operations. Based on the Commonsense study, one would conclude that the ISP would need 25% more ($2.5 million) because of the loss of the ACP. In that case Public Organizations might agree to provide the ISP the additional money needed to close the funding gap ($500,000), but only on the condition that the ISP agrees to self-fund an ACP-type benefit for the community in the future.

Unspent Local ARPA Funds

One possible source of the additional money needed, that some local governments may have available is the local government component of ARPA SLFRF money. In addition to money paid directly to the state, Missouri’s 114 Missouri counties and 15 cities received a separate SLFRF award. These local governments have the flexibility to use these funds for many purposes, one of which is “high-speed broadband infrastructure.” All local SLFRF money must be obligated by December 31, 2024 and spent by December 31, 2026. As of September 2023, Missouri’s local governments reported that they had obligated only $1,450,997,654 of the $2,419,661,436 in SLFRF Funds. This means that as of last Fall, just over 40 percent of the money awarded remained available.

Other possible local programs to access local money.

Many communities may already have appropriated their entire ARRA SLFRF award for other permitted purposes. In these cases, there are other options that can be used to provide financial support to ISPs that agree to provide affordable broadband service to lower income households. Again, the overall strategy is the same: use locally generated funds to reduce the ISP’s cost installing broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved locations, in exchange for the ISP’s commitment to provide a targeted low-cost subsidy to qualified low income subscribers.

These options include special financing districts and government sponsored tax-exempt financing.

Special District Financing

Three  types of special financing districts are available to Public Organizations seeking to raise money to support an ISPs broadband infrastructure project. In each case, these special financing districts must support and fund a “public private partnership” (P3) that will provide broadband service within a specific geographic area or “District.” Each type of District may impose various new local taxes or special assessments for that purpose. The three types of districts are (1) a Community Improvement District (CID), (2) a Neighborhood Improvement District (NID) and a Broadband Infrastructure Improvement District (BIID).

The statutes set out the procedure and powers for each of these districts and while they are not identical, they do share some common elements:

• The area served by the District can be specifically tailored to include all or a portion of a city or county, or in the case of CIDs and BIIDs multiple jurisdictions.
• The District may fund a public private partnership that will bring broadband service to one or more unserved or underserved areas (as certified OBD). The statute defines unserved and underserved using similar criteria to that used for BEAD grant funding.
• The District can impose a variety taxes (sales tax, property taxes, or a special property assessment to fund its contribution the P3). However in most cases, voter approval of the affected district residents is required to impose the tax.
• In each case, the P3 agreement must provide that the ISP will own and operate the broadband network infrastructure (not the District).

A significant advantage of Missouri’s special financing district laws is that they are flexible and can be adapted to a variety of situations. Since Districts can impose local taxes and/or assessments that only apply in the District, it is possible to tailored them to include only those areas that need broadband. In this way they could be an ideal source of locally sourced funds to help ISPs close a funding gap and make it economically feasible to provide broadband service to residents of all income levels. This is important both because of the gap created by the loss of the ACP funding and, more generally because all BEAD – funded projects must have at least 25% of the project costs funded from some source other than the BEAD grant.

 

Example of a Special District Financing to Support Broadband Affordability

A community might decide to create a CID to assist in funding broadband infrastructure for 20 unserved farms and homes along a county road. Property owners along that road could petition the County to form and authorize funding for the CID. The District’s objective would be to lower the cost of installing broadband so that the ISP was financially able to provide free or low-cost service to low income families with school age children.

To fund the CID, property owners in the area would agree to impose an annual special assessment (collected along with real property taxes each year) from each property owner in the District. As part of the P3 agreement, the CID would agree that amounts collected each year would reimburse it for part of its cost of funding the broadband project that was not paid for out of the BEAD grant, and that the collected amounts would be applied to fund a monthly broadband service subscription subsidy for lower income families.

Tax-exempt Private Activity Bond Financing

Tax-exempt private activity bond financing may provide another option for Public Organizations that want to reduce an ISPs infrastructure cost, so that a low cost broadband subscription option can be offered to lower income residents. Tax-exempt private activity bonds are a special type of local government debt. Unlike traditional bonds where the local government is the named borrower and responsible for repaying the debt, private activity bonds are usually repaid only from money provided by a private entity (in this case an ISP).

These tax-exempt bonds can only be used in a specific geographic area where 50% or more of the structures are “unserved” (broadband service less than 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload). When completed, the constructed project must provide at least 90% of the previously unserved locations with connection speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload. If these and other requirements are met, interest paid to investors (bond purchasers) is exempt from most federal and all Missouri income tax. Because investors do not pay income tax on the bonds they own, they are willing to accept a lower interest rate than a similar taxable bond or loan. In this way, the ISP benefits because it pays substantially less interest each year on the debt used to finance the project.

 

Example of Tax Exempt Private Activity Bond to Support Broadband Affordability

 

Assume an ISP wished to bring broadband service to all structures in a county, and that the cost of constructing the network was $50 million. The ISP receives a BEAD grant for $35 million, but is responsible for raising the additional $15 million. The County’s residents want the service, but know that a significant number of residents simply cannot afford to pay the monthly subscription cost for broadband service. For a variety of reasons, the county cannot provide financial assistance to the ISP through a new tax or assessment.

Instead, the County might issue $15 million of private activity bonds that the ISP would use to fund the project. The ISP (not the County or any Public Organization) will be solely responsible for repaying the bonds.  The bonds have an interest rate that is 1.5% lower than a taxable borrowing. This means the ISP “saves” $225,000 of interest cost each year the bonds remain outstanding.

As a condition for issuing the bonds, the County requires the ISP to offer lower income subscribers a special low cost broadband plan, which it is able to fund because of the interest expense saved each year. 

Where There’s a Will….

In a perfect world, funding for broadband affordability would not have run out just as funding for broadband access and adoption was becoming available. Of course no one would say that the ACP was a perfect solution. Many would argue that the ACP and Lifeline programs need to be combined and a permanent funding model needs to be put in its place, and there is considerable merit to that position. But allowing ACP to expire without reworking the Lifeline program or providing some other workable alternative is difficult to justify. The unfortunate result for many communities is that they must work creatively with their ISPs to make sure that the broadband infrastructure built is affordable to all members of the community. The alternatives listed here all seem to be feasible, and there are many others (described in a recent “White Paper”) that communities can consider. However, all require a community effort, and some creative thinking. The question for many communities – is whether they are willing to make this effort, or will they instead risk “throwing away their shot” at digital connectivity.