A Report Card for Broadband Projects Funded by the American Rescue Plan

Broadband workers

 

Introduction


States and localities find themselves in a historic moment in relation to broadband investment. From the American Rescue Plan Act’s (ARPA) Capital Projects Fund and State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) to the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act’s Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) and Digital Equity programs, there is unprecedented federal funding for broadband infrastructure and adoption appropriated for distribution by state and local governments. How do we ensure this historic investment translates to long-lasting, future-proof infrastructure? How can we ensure robust public participation and transparency in project selection? How can we promote good jobs, safe workplaces, and quality deployment that stands the test of time?

 

ARPA was passed in 2021 by Congress to remedy the economic effects of the Coronavirus pandemic. Congress allocated $350 billion to the SLFRF to provide local governments with the means to address community needs created by or exacerbated by the pandemic. Many states and localities invested some of their SLFRF allocations to deploy last-mile broadband infrastructure. From 2021 through 2023, community leaders worked with experts to design broadband projects to reach unserved and underserved areas and selected telecommunications companies to build and usually operate the network. 

 

Stakeholders like members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) have an interest in ensuring public officials work to ensure that publicly funded infrastructure projects are transparent, equitable, and contribute to creating high-quality career jobs. CWA actively advocated for the incorporation of strong accountability measures for federally funded broadband projects. CWA hopes that the lessons learned in this report can help policymakers better design and oversee future broadband projects, including in the implementation of the state BEAD programs. 

 

This report card evaluates fourteen county-level broadband projects funded through the SLFRF on how well they incorporated transparency, equity, and labor standards within their selection process, with a total available score of 20 points per project. The grading categories were formulated using the Treasury Department's guidance for creating effective broadband projects. A detailed methodology can be found in the appendix to this report. 

 

 

Grading Criteria to Evaluate Projects

 

Transparency Measures: 

Public participation in the county government’s use of SLFRF/ARPA funding (3 points)

Public disclosure of project information (3 points)
 

Equity Measures:
Provider matching contributions (3 points)

Participation in and publicity regarding the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program or alternative subsidy program (2 points)

Type of broadband technology offered (2 points)
 

Labor Standards Measures: 

Use of directly employed workforce or subcontractor accountability (2 points)

Union representation (2 points)

Payment of prevailing wages (1 point)

Local employment opportunities (2 points)
 

Total: 20 points

Summary of Findings from the Grading Process

 

CWA’s evaluation of fourteen ARPA SLFRF-funded projects finds that counties’ performance on our measures of transparency, equity, and high road labor standards ranged widely. The best performing counties are case studies to emulate, while the lower performing projects present cautionary examples for state governments as they deploy billions more funding through the Infrastructure Act’s BEAD program. 

 

While some counties, like Kenton County, Kentucky and Orange County, North Carolina, had excellent transparency and searchable records, others, like Putnam County, West Virginia, and Howard County, Indiana, rarely put records online. In the case of Howard County, no public records before the year 2022 were available online, making it very difficult to find documents from when ARPA was passed in 2021. (The research for this project included public records requests to obtain documents not available online, but we do not expect an average resident would pursue such requests.) 

 

Of the fourteen projects included in this report card, five of them utilized union labor and nine of them were non-union. Union projects not only scored higher for their labor standards, the broadband providers also made significant matching contributions, enabling federal dollars to go further and giving those projects higher points in the Equity category. All of the projects that contracted with union-represented companies committed to deploying fiber. 

 

Most counties using ARPA funds to deploy broadband selected fiber-to-the-home as the best, most resilient technology available. We were only able to identify three fixed wireless projects to evaluate. Those projects scored lower on both the Type of Broadband subcategory and other categories not directly tied to technology, including matching contributions, pledges to adhere to high road labor standard measures, and ACP participation.  

 

Swipe to see more of the table.

 

 

Transparency Measures

Equity Measures

Labor Standard Measures

Total Points

County

Public Participation

Project

Information

Company Contributions

Affordable Connectivity

Type of  Broadband

Directly Employed

Union  Representation

Prevailing Wages

Local Employment

 

Kenton County, Kentucky*

3/3

3/3

3/3

2/2

2/2

2/2

2/2

1/1

2/2

 

20/20

 

Beaver County, Pennsylvania*

1/3

3/3

3/3

2/2

2/2

2/2

2/2

1/1

2/2

18/20

Vanderburgh County, Indiana*

0/3

3/3

3/3

2/2

2/2

1/2

2/2

1/1

1/2

15/20

Onondaga County, New York*

0/3

2/3

2/3

2/2

2/2

2/2

2/2

1/1

2/2

15/20

Johnson County, Indiana

0/3

3/3

3/3

2/2

2/2

1/2

0/2

1/1

1/2

13/20

Orange County, North Carolina

3/3

2/3

3/3

2/2

2/2

0/2

0/2

0/1

1/2

13/20

Oldham County, Kentucky*

0/3

1/3

3/3

2/2

2/2

1/2

2/2

1/1

1/2

13/20

Darlington County, South Carolina

3/3

1/3

3/3

2/2

2/2

0/2

0/2

0/1

1/2

12/20

Florence County, South Carolina

3/3

1/3

3/3

2/2

2/2

0/2

0/2

0/1

0/2

11/20

Howard County, Indiana

0/3

1/3

3/3

2/2

2/2

0/2

0/2

0/1

1/2

9/20

Putnam County, West Virginia

0/3

0/3

2/3

0/2

2/2

0/2

0/2

1/1

1/2

6/20

Gloucester County, Virginia**

3/3

2/3

0/3

1/2

0/2

0/2

0/2

0/1

0/2

6/20

Newton County, Georgia

0/3

1/3

0/3

1/2

0/2

1/2

0/2

0/1

1/2

4/20

Coshocton County, Ohio**

0/3

1/3

0/3

2/2

0/2

0/2

0/2

0/1

0/2

3/20

*Union projects
**We were unable to adequately verify workforce practices for these projects so we have limited information with which to assign points.

Note: Some table column headings were abbreviated.
Affordable Connectivity = FCC's Affordable Connectivity Program or Alternative Subsidy
Directly Employed = Directly Employed Workforce or Subcontractor Accountability
Local Employment = Local Employment Opportunities

Case Studies of Four Projects

The projects in Kenton County, Kentucky (20 points) and  Beaver County, Pennsylvania (18 points) received the two highest scores. The projects in Newton County, Georgia (4 points) and Putnam County, West Virginia (6 points) received the two lowest scores among the projects for which we had complete information1. This section summarizes these four projects and evaluates the integrity of the process through which each county developed its plans for last-mile broadband deployment to underserved areas.

 

 
Kenton County, Kentucky (20 points) 

Kenton County is located in Northern Kentucky and home to nearly 170,000 residents, with significant farmland in the southern portion of the county. The public-private partnership Kenton County inked with Cincinatti Bell in 2021 promised and delivered fiber-to-the-home for 22,000 single family homes in the county and was on its way to completing deployment to 14,000 additional multi-family units within two years2.

Kenton County scored highly in all categories, including its transparency measures. The county scored 3/3 points in the Public Participation category because the project agreement was available online and the county gave frequent updates on the project in public meetings. Detailed meeting minutes were available online, including copies of all the documents county officials discussed. Kenton County also scored 3/3 in Project Information. There were public discussions of the funding for the project, the project’s timeline, and a public map of affected addresses.  

Kenton County also received full points for its equity measures. The county worked with Altafiber, and the telecom company contributed more than 100% of the county’s ARPA contribution, $30 million to the county’s $10.8 million. This gave the project a 3/3 in the Company Contributions subcategory.  Additionally, the project got a 2/2 in the ACP category for its transparency around the program. Altafiber offers ACP and advertises the program on its website. Finally, the county received a 2/2 in the Type of Broadband subcategory. The project installed end-to-end fiber architecture.

Further cementing its commitment to accountability, Kenton County received full points for labor standards. Altafiber is a union-represented company, which means that Altafiber has negotiated with its workers to use a directly employed workforce for a significant share of the work, pay good wages, and provide other benefits. Kenton County scored 2/2  in the subcategory for Directly Employed Workforce or Subcontractor Accountability. This was because Altafiber utilized a union-represented subcontractor for a significant part of the construction work it outsourced. The project also scored 2/2  in the Union Representation subcategory and it scored 1/1 for paying prevailing wages because of the wage provisions in the union contract, which provide for $33 to $38 per hour for tenured technicians. The project scored 2/2 in the Local Employment Opportunities subcategory because it uses an Ohio-based contractor. Further, Kenton County noted that the project prioritized local hires in its report to the Treasury Department. 

 

 
Beaver County, Pennsylvania (18 points)

Beaver County is located in the Greater Pittsburgh area and home to more than 168,000 residents, but facing projected population losses due to aging residents and out-migration. The county described its 2023 partnership with Verizon as “the latest step in a multi-year effort to bring broadband access to unserved and underserved residents through the Connect Beaver County Broadband Program.”3 The project was designed to reach an estimated 1,846 households in 24 Beaver County municipalities along 369 miles of fiber-optic cable where broadband was unavailable or unreliable. As of April 2024, the fiber network was available to more than 200 locations and deployment was on track.4

Beaver County’s project scored highly in every category except for Transparency Measures. In the Public Participation subcategory, the project received a 1/3. The contract was available publicly, but only one meeting publicly discussed the project. This makes it more challenging for community members to understand the project's purpose or provide their input and suggests that public officials have little ongoing oversight of the work. In the Project Information subcategory, Beaver County received 3/3 points. The county has a dedicated webpage for the project, providing a map of the planned work and a tool for households to check if they will receive service, and information on the project’s funding. This website also provides a timeline and project milestones.

Beaver County scored very highly in the Equity Measures category. Verizon, the project’s contractor, contributed more than the county to the project, earning a 3/3 in the company contributions subcategory. Additionally, Verizon offers ACP and publicizes the program on its website, earning the project a 2/2 for its ACP transparency. In the Type of Broadband subcategory, the county scored a 2/2 because Verizon proposed to deploy an all-fiber network.

Beaver County received full points in the Labor Standards Measures category. Verizon, in its response to the county’s Request for Proposals to create a broadband network, promised to directly employ their union workforce for the project. Thus, the project earned a 2/2 for its workforce accountability. The Union Representation subcategory earned the project a 2/2 because Verizon has a contract with CWA. Verizon’s contract with CWA also means that the telecom company has to provide high quality wages to employees, which currently stand at $45.11 per hour (increasing to $46.45 in August 2024) for technicians at the top of the wage scale, giving the project a 1/1 in the Prevailing Wage subcategory. Finally, Verizon promised to employ a workforce that lived and worked in the community in their RFP response. As a result, the project scored 2/2 in the Local Employment Opportunities subcategory.

 

 
Newton County, Georgia (4 points)

New County has about 112,000 residents and is located in the Piedmont region of Georgia, thirty miles north of Atlanta. The county provided $500,000 in ARP funds to Paladin Wireless in 2022 to complete the first phase of a wireless network to eventually cover the entire county. This agreement built on a previous contract award in 2019 for which Paladin was the only bidder.5 Paladin reports having coverage available to 3.6 percent of the county as of December 2023, the most recent data available from the FCC.6

Newton County received one of the lowest scores of all the graded broadband projects. The county scored only one point in the first grading category, Transparency Measures. The project received 0/3 in the Public Participation subcategory. The contract for the project was not available publicly, reducing opportunities for public knowledge and involvement in the project. In the Project Information subcategory, the county earned 1/3. The project timeline was not publicly available, and no map was created for the project or list of affected locations. The only information available about the project was the funding, which was shared in a public meeting and posted online on the county website.

In the Equity Measures category, the project again scored only one point. In the Company Contributions subcategory, the project scored a 0/3 because the provider, Paladin Wireless, did not contribute any funds. This meant the project’s funding came only from the SLFRF, limiting the potential funds available for other eligible investments. The project received a 1/2 in the ACP Transparency subcategory because Paladin Wireless offers ACP but does not advertise it on its website. This makes it more difficult for residents to learn about and sign up for the ACP. Finally, the project built only fixed wireless, with no plan to enable fiber-to-the-home, and therefore received a 0/2 for the Type of Broadband subcategory.

Finally, the project received a low score in the Labor Standards Measures category. For the Directly Employed Workforce subcategory, the project received a 1/2. Paladin did not make any agreement to directly employ their workforce, and there were no labor standards in the contract, but Paladin does have a history of employing a small staff of field technicians. The project earned a 0/2 for union representation because the company does not have a union-represented workforce. Next, the project earned a 0/1 for prevailing wage because the contract had no wage requirement and reports to Treasury indicated no commitment to pay prevailing wages. Finally, the project earned a 1/2 for local employment opportunities. On Paladin’s website, the company says that they employ locally. However, there was no indication that the whole workforce for this project was local, so the project didn’t receive full points in this subcategory.

 

 
Putnam County, West Virginia (6 points)

Putnam County has about 57,000 residents and is located across the Kanawha River from Charleston. The county entered a contract in February 2023 with Mountain State Fiber to deploy a 57-mile fiber-optic network that will serve as a middle mile backbone available for lease to internet service providers. As of June 2024, the Putnam County broadband director confirmed that the project is approximately 15 percent complete and is targeted to be finished by the end of 2024.

Putnam County’s broadband project received a low overall score. The project received no points in the Transparency Measures category. In the first subcategory, Public Participation, the project received a 0/3 because the contract was not available to the public, reducing possible public participation. In the second subcategory, Project Information, the project received a 0/3. Information on funding for the project was only available in an audio recording of a meeting. As a result, the information would be prohibitively difficult to find for residents. According to the Putnam County Broadband Director, there was no map or timeline of the project. An online search found that Putnam County does not mention broadband on its website and the partner company Mountain State Fiber does not have a website.

The project scored slightly higher in Equity Measures. Mountain State Fiber LLC, which is operated by Alpha Technologies, scored 2/3 points in the Company Contributions subcategory. Alpha Technologies is classified as a disadvantaged business. Therefore, although the company didn’t contribute any funds to the project, they brought other beneficial attributes. In the ACP Transparency subcategory, the project scored a 0/2. This project is a middle mile network, so it will not directly serve residents. The county does not plan to require ACP participation by ISPs who lease the network. Finally, the county scored a 2/2 in the Type of Broadband subcategory. The project constructed fiber, which gave it full points.

In the Labor Standards Measures category, Putnam County scored a 0/2 for directly employed workforce. There were multiple subcontractors for this project, and there was no mention of labor standards in any of the public records request responses. The project scored a 0/2 for union representation because Mountain State Fiber is not unionized. However, Alpha Technologies paid prevailing wages, and so the project scored a 1/1 in the Prevailing Wage subcategory. Alpha Technologies quoted compensation costs for their network technicians ranging from $47 to $83 per hour, which likely includes the cost of benefits. The average hourly wage for telecom line installers in the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH metropolitan area was $33.84 in 2023. Finally, the project received a 1/2 in the Local Employment Opportunities subcategory. At least one of the subcontractors was from Missouri, suggesting that not all of the employees were local. However, in the compliance reports to the Treasury, the county mentioned that they were prioritizing local hires in the project. This suggests that at least some of the workers were local.

 

Conclusion and Recommendations

The United States is in the midst of an extensive publicly subsidized broadband buildout to bring essential connectivity to unserved and underserved locations. It is vital to ensure that publicly funded infrastructure projects are transparent, equitable, and contribute to creating high-quality career jobs. Our assessment of fourteen SLFRF projects' conformity to the above criteria shows that program design and implementation practices vary widely. The findings confirmed our concerns that many counties could do more to ensure transparency, equity, and high-road labor practices.
 

  • While some counties had excellent transparency protocols and provided ample opportunity ­­for the public to participate in the process, others limited the public’s ability to participate, and some rarely published records online.
  • Union-represented workforce projects had higher scores on all labor standards measures including payment of prevailing wages and local employment opportunities. Those projects also were more likely to receive high marks for equity and transparency.
  • Projects we analyzed that utilized fixed wireless technology scored lower in multiple categories.

We recommend that states and localities consider the lessons learned from ARPA broadband projects to ensure that future broadband projects are as effective and equitable as possible. In particular, as the BEAD program is poised to make a historic $42 billion investment in broadband networks, assessing ARPA projects can help us best direct future funds.
 

  • States and localities should consider stakeholder involvement and public transparency in program implementation. The BEAD program’s requirements around stakeholder outreach and public disclosure reflect these considerations, and policymakers should adopt similar practices for other future broadband investments as well.
  • Broadband programs should prioritize high-road labor practices by requiring, for example, prevailing wage and incorporating local employment opportunities into a scoring mechanism. The Infrastructure Act’s focus on jobs demonstrates that broadband programs can multiply their boost to local economies when they combine network investment with creation of quality local jobs.7
  • Policymakers should take a long-term view in evaluating which broadband technology to build and consider both the future network costs and the benefits of fiber infrastructure. Fixed wireless may seem more prudent in the short term, but the long-term equipment upgrade costs exceed those of fiber while providing a far less future-proof connection.8

CWA members are experienced broadband technicians, as well as community leaders who believe in digital equity and high speed broadband for all. Our local leaders are eager to collaborate and serve as a resource for states and localities as they invest in broadband infrastructure that will stand the test of time.

For more information on CWA’s broadband policy initiatives, visit  www.BuildBroadbandBetter.org 

 

Appendix: Methodology for Evaluating Broadband Projects

 

Information sources: This report card utilizes public information that counties provided to the U.S. Treasury Department. Some of this information was published by Treasury in SLFRF Quarterly reports, while other elements are published in USA Spending–SLFRF Subaward reports.9 These sources provided basic information about the projects, including a project description, the construction start and end date, the project budget, and a completion status.10 The Treasury reports also indicated whether counties had a community benefits agreement, a project labor agreement, or complied with David Bacon prevailing wage requirements (which were optional for ARPA projects). Finally, the reports revealed the names of providers counties selected to deploy broadband. Treasury does not provide further information online. CWA submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to Treasury for complete information from counties. This request was not fulfilled at the time of publication. 

 

The report card also relied on information from county governments, including public meeting notes and agendas, public announcements, and other public notices that included information related to the broadband project. Local news articles from the locality and published progress reports from telecom providers were also valuable. Finally, CWA submitted public records requests for information that could not be found online or had been removed from county websites. This included original Requests for Proposals from counties, the proposals made by telecom providers for the broadband projects, and copies of contracts.

GRADING CRITERIA

Transparency Measures
 

Public Participation

Project Information

Definitions

When a county or city government decides how to spend SLFRF/ARPA funding, it should hold public meetings and make this decision public. The proposed project should be advertised to the public and the public should have adequate time to comment, ideally multiple weeks before any decision. There should be ongoing public oversight and public meetings. The contract should be available to the public.

The public entity must disclose the grant amount per the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. The entity should also disclose whether partners fund a project, such as other partnering counties, state, or private entities. Additionally, the number and location of households affected by the project should be available so the public understands the scope of the construction. Finally, a timeline for the project should be published to set a reasonable expectation for project completion.

0 Points

There were no public meetings that discussed the broadband project.

OR

The contract is not publicly available.

The project's funding is not disclosed publicly in an announcement by the recipient or provider nor available online in the county's meeting notes or agenda.

 

The number and location of households affected are not disclosed publicly in an announcement by the recipient or provider nor available online in the county's meeting notes or agenda.

 

The timeline is not disclosed publicly in an announcement by the recipient or provider nor available online in the county's meeting notes or agenda.

1 Point

There was only one public meeting that discussed the broadband project.

 

Minutes from the meeting are available online.

 

The contract is available online.

An overview of the funding is available. The timeline and/or household information is not available.

OR

The number of locations affected and the location of households affected is available in an announcement, meeting minutes, or agenda. The funding and/or the timeline is not available.

OR

The timeline for the project is available in an announcement, meeting minutes, or agenda. The timeline includes an estimated time of completion. The funding and/or household information is not available.

2 Points

There was more than one public meeting that discussed the broadband project. Minutes from these meetings are available online. The contract is available online.

However, there is no evidence of ongoing public oversight.

An overview of the funding is available, but a breakdown of funding sources is not provided or not all of the funding is disclosed. This could include funding from a partner. The other two criteria are fulfilled.

OR

The number of locations affected and the location of households affected is available in an announcement, meeting minutes, or agenda, but there is no tool provided by the broadband provider or recipient to see if an individual will have access to the new broadband. The other two criteria are fulfilled.

OR

The timeline for the project is available in an announcement, meeting minutes, or agenda. The timeline includes an estimated time of completion, but there are no milestones listed on the timeline. The other two criteria are fulfilled.

3 Points

There was more than one public meeting that discussed the broadband project.

 

Minutes from these meetings are available online.

 

There is evidence of ongoing public oversight.

 

The contract is available online.

An overview of the funding is available in an announcement, meeting minutes, or agenda, and a breakdown of funding sources is provided online, including how much the provider is contributing (if applicable), how much any partners are contributing, and how much the locality is using from ARPA.

 

The number of locations affected and the location of households affected are disclosed in a public meeting or an online announcement by the recipient or provider. This information is available online. There is a tool provided by the broadband provider or recipient to see if an individual will have access to the new broadband.

 

The timeline for the project is available in an announcement, meeting minutes, or agenda. This includes an estimated time of completion, with the addition of milestones.

 

Equity Measures

 

Company Contributions

FCC's Affordable Connectivity Program or Alternative Transparency

Type of Broadband

Definitions

Many broadband providers have a lot to gain from these projects because they own the finished broadband infrastructure and sign new subscribers. Because of this, they should contribute funds to the project..

It is the broadband provider's responsibility to indicate whether consumers can receive subsidies from ACP or an alternative program.

These projects are building two primary types of broadband networks: fiber-to-the-premise and fixed wireless. Fiber-to-the-premise is the highest-quality broadband technology available and delivers reliable, high-speed service, whereas fixed wireless has numerous limitations, including lower and inconsistent speeds, line-of-sight issues, and costly equipment upgrades.

0 Points

The provider is not contributing funds to the project.

The broadband provider does not participate in ACP or an alternative subsidy program.

The project built fixed wireless broadband networks.

1 Point

The broadband provider contributes funds to the project.

 

Those funds are below 50% of the SLFRFcontribution.

The broadband provider participates in the ACP or alternative subsidy program.

However, the broadband provider does not advertise the program.

The project built both fixed wireless and fiber-to-premise networks, or built fixed wireless with a plan to convert to fiber in the future.

2 Points

The provider is a disadvantaged company, public, or non-profit entity.

OR

The broadband provider contributes funds to the project, which are greater than or equal to 50% of SLFRFcontribution, but less than 100%.

The broadband provider participates in the ACP or alternative subsidy program.

 

The broadband provider publicizes the subsidy program on their website.

The project built fiber-to-the-premise networks.

3 Points

The broadband provider contributes funds to the project.

 

Those funds are greater than or equal to 100% of SLFRF contribution.

N/A

N/A

Labor Standard Measures

 

Directly Employed Workforce or Subcontractor Accountability

Union Representation

Prevailing Wages

Local Employment Opportunities

Definitions

Broadband providers can ensure work is done safely and properly when they directly employ their workforce, rather than subcontracting to other companies.

Union representation strengthens communication and trust between employers and employees. This improves worker productivity by increasing retention and resolving safety issues when they arise. It also leads to higher wages and benefits for workers, creating greater worker satisfaction and economic security.

When states or localities require a prevailing wage, they ensure that their programs do not incentivize providers to cut corners on safety and training, and prevent a race to the bottom on wages.

These projects can potentially create a substantial amount of work hours, creating many jobs in the process. Local communities benefit to a much greater degree from investments that prioritize jobs for local workers because the county’s investment is multiplied through local spending.

0 Points

The project's provider does not use a directly employed workforce for the funded work, or ensure accountability for contracted work standards.

The project does not use a unionized workforce.

The project's workforce does not receive prevailing wages.

The project does not maintain a local workforce.

1 Point

The project's provider does use a directly employed workforce for at least some of the funded work, or ensures accountability for some contracted work standards.

The project uses a unionized workforce for some of the work.

The project's workforce does receive prevailing wages.

The project hires locally for at least some roles.

2 Points

The project's provider uses a directly employed workforce for most of the funded work.

The project uses an entirely unionized workforce.

N/A

The project relies primarily on a local workforce.

 

 

Endnotes

  1. We were unable to gather complete workforce information for the projects undertaken by Coshocton County, OH and Gloucester County, VA but we have included them because they were two of the only projects using fixed wireless technology.
  2. Altafiber, press release, “altafiber nears completion of fiber build to single-family and business addresses in Boone County, Campbell County, and Kenton County,” September 12, 2013; Kenton County Fiscal Court, agenda packet for July 11,2023.
  3. Beaver County, press release, “Beaver County Awards Verizon with Contract to Deliver Broadband Internet Access to Unserved and Underserved Residents,” June 22, 2023. 
  4. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “Broadband Buildout Continues; Beaver County,” March 23, 2024. 
  5. Rockdale Citizen, Newton commissioners OK contract with Paladin Wireless for better broadband access, March 20, 2918.
  6. BestNeighborhood.org, Newton County, GA. 
  7. Information on prioritizing high-road labor standards, including sample language, is available in “Broadband Investments that Go the Distance: Incorporating High Road Labor Standards and Future-Proof Infrastructure into a State or Locality’s Broadband Plan,” available at https://buildbroadbandbetter.org/resources. 
  8. A comparison of the costs of fixed wireless and fiber technology over both the short term and long term is detailed in the report  “Fixed Wireless Technologies and their Suitability for Broadband Delivery,” available at  https://buildbroadbandbetter.org/resources. 
  9. U.S. Department of the Treasury, State and Local Fiscal Relief Fund Public Data. 
  10. U.S. Department of the Treasury, State and Local Fiscal Relief Fund, Project and Expenditure Reports.