This page is intended to serve as a brief guide when eligible entities are challenging the eligibility of locations. For more in-depth guidance, please refer to the Challenge Process Guidebook or contact email@example.com.
To view the full proposal of the BEAD challenge process, click here.
|Specific examples of
|The broadband service identified is not offered at the location, including a unit of a multiple dwelling unit (MDU).
Screenshot of provider webpage.
• A service request was refused within the last 180 days (e.g., an email or letter from provider).
• Lack of suitable infrastructure (e.g., no fiber on pole).
• A letter or email dated within the last 180 days that a provider failed to schedule a service installation or offer an installation date within 10 business days of a request.2
• A letter or email dated within the last 180 days indicating that a provider requested more than the standard installation fee to connect this location or that a provider quoted an amount in excess of the provider’s standard installation charge in order to connect service at the location.
Provider shows that the location subscribes or has subscribed within the past 12 months, e.g., with a copy of a customer bill.
• If the evidence was a screenshot and believed to be in error, a screenshot that shows service availability.
• The provider submits evidence that service is now available as a standard installation, e.g., via a copy of an offer sent to the location.
|Speed (only for non-cellular fixed wireless subscribers)
|The actual speed of the service tier falls below the unserved or underserved thresholds.3
|Speed test by subscriber, showing the insufficient speed and meeting the requirements for speed tests.
|Provider has countervailing speed test evidence showing sufficient speed, e.g., from their own network management system.4
|Latency (only for non-cellular fixed wireless subscribers)
|The round-trip latency of the broadband service exceeds 100 ms.5
|Speed test by subscriber, showing the excessive latency.
|Provider has countervailing speed test evidence showing latency at or below 100 ms, e.g., from their own network management system or the CAF performance measurements.6
|The only service plans marketed to consumers impose an unreasonable capacity allowance (“data cap”) on the consumer.7
• Screenshot of provider webpage.
• Service description provided to consumer.
|Provider has terms of service showing that it does not impose an unreasonable data cap or offers another plan at the location without an unreasonable cap.
|The technology indicated for this location is incorrect.
|Manufacturer and model number of residential gateway that demonstrates the service is delivered via a specific technology.
|Provider has countervailing evidence from its network management system showing an appropriate residential gateway that matches the provided service.
|Business service only
|The location is residential, but the service offered is marketed or available only to businesses.
|Screenshot of provider webpage.
|Provider has documentation that the service listed in the BDC is available at the location and is marketed to consumers.
|The challenger has knowledge that broadband will be deployed at this location by the date established in the deployment obligation.
|Enforceable commitment by service provider (e.g., authorization letter).
|Documentation that the provider has defaulted on the commitment or is otherwise unable to meet the commitment (e.g., is no longer a going concern).
|The challenger has knowledge that broadband will be deployed at this location by December 31, 2025, without an enforceable commitment or a provider is building out broadband offering performance beyond the requirements of an enforceable commitment.
• Construction contracts or similar evidence of ongoing deployment, along with evidence that all necessary permits have been applied for or obtained.
• Contracts or a similar binding agreement between the State or SBO and the provider committing that planned service will meet the BEAD definition and requirements of reliable and qualifying broadband even if not required by its funding source (i.e., a separate federal grant program), including the expected date deployment will be completed, which must be on or before December 31, 2025.
|Documentation showing that the provider is no longer able to meet the commitment (e.g., is no longer a going concern) or that the planned deployment does not meet the required technology or performance requirements.
|Not part of enforceable commitment
|This location is in an area that is subject to an enforceable commitment to less than 100% of locations and the location is not covered by that commitment. (See BEAD NOFO at 36, n. 52).
|Declaration by service provider subject to the enforceable commitment.
|Location is a CAI
|The location should be classified as a CAI.
|Evidence that the location falls within the definitions of CAIs set out in section 1.3.8
|Evidence that the location does not fall within the definitions of CAIsset out in section 1.3 or is no longer in operation.
|Location is not a CAI
|The location is currently labeled as a CAI but is a residence, a non-CAI business, or is no longer in operation.
|Evidence that the location does not fall within the definitions of CAIs set out in section 1.3 or is no longer in operation.
|Evidence that the location falls within the definitions of CAIs set by set out in section 1.3 or is still operational.
|CAI: Qualifying broadband unavailable.9
|The CAI cannot obtain qualifying broadband.
|Evidence that the CAI has tried to acquire qualifying broadband but has been unsuccessful.
|Evidence that qualifying broadband is available to the CAI.
|CAI: Qualifying broadband available.
|The CAI can obtain qualifying broadband.
|Evidence that the CAI can acquire symmetric gigabit service.
|Evidence that qualifying broadband is not available to the CAI
2A standard broadband installation is defined in the Broadband DATA Act (47 U.S.C. § 641(14)) as “[t]he initiation by a provider of fixed broadband internet access service [within 10 business days of a request] in an area in which the provider has not previously offered that service, with no charges or delays attributable to the extension of the network of the provider.”
3Only locations with a subscribed-to service of 100/20 Mbps or above can challenge locations as underserved. Speed challenges that do not change the status of a location do not need to be considered. For example, a challenge that shows that a location only receives 250 Mbps download speed even though the household has subscribed to gigabit service can be disregarded since it will not change the status of the location to unserved or underserved.
4As described in the NOFO, a provider’s countervailing speed test should show that 80 percent of a provider’s download and upload measurements are at or above 80 percent of the required speed. See Performance Measures Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 6528, para. 51. See BEAD NOFO at 65, n. 80, Section IV.C.2.a.
5Performance Measures Order, including provisions for providers in non-contiguous areas (§21).
7An unreasonable capacity allowance is defined as a data cap that falls below the capacity allowance of 600 GB listed in the FCC 2023 Urban Rate Survey (FCC Public Notice DA 22-1338, December 16, 2022). Alternative plans without unreasonable data caps cannot be business-oriented plans not commonly sold to residential locations. A successful challenge may not change the status of the location to unserved or underserved if the same provider offers a service plan without an unreasonable capacity allowance or if another provider offers reliable broadband service at that location.
8For example, eligibility for FCC E-rate or Rural Health Care program funding or registration with an appropriate regulatory agency may constitute such evidence, but GTA may rely on other reliable evidence that is verifiable by a third party.
9“Qualifying broadband” to a CAI is Reliable Broadband Service with (i) a speed of not less than 1 Gbps for downloads and uploads alike and (ii) latency less than or equal to 100 milliseconds.” NOFO, p. 37.