The rebuttal period has been extended until May 5, 2024.
For challenges related to location eligibility, only the challenged service provider may rebut the reclassification of a location or area with evidence. If a provider claims gigabit service availability for a CAI or a unit of local government disputes the CAI status of a location, the CAI may rebut. All types of challengers may rebut planned service (P) and enforceable commitment (E) challenges. Providers must regularly check the challenge portal notification method for notifications of submitted and/or rebutted challenges.
If an eligible entity wishes to submit a rebuttal, please submit all required evidence to broadband@gta.ga.gov. For files over 100mb, please contact CVIOG at broadband@itos.uga.edu.
Current Files
| Code | Challenge Type | Description | Permissible rebuttals |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Availability | The broadband service identified is not offered at the location, including a unit of a multiple dwelling unit (MDU). |
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. |
| S | Speed (only for non-cellular fixed wireless subscribers) | The actual speed of the service tier falls below the unserved or underserved thresholds.3 | Provider has countervailing speed test evidence showing sufficient speed, e.g., from their own network management system.4 |
| L | Latency (only for non-cellular fixed wireless subscribers) | The round-trip latency of the broadband service exceeds 100 ms.5 | 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 |
| D | Data cap | The only service plans marketed to consumers impose an unreasonable capacity allowance (“data cap”) on the consumer.7 | 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. |
| T | Technology | The technology indicated for this location is incorrect. | Provider has countervailing evidence from its network management system showing an appropriate residential gateway that matches the provided service. |
| B | Business service only | The location is residential, but the service offered is marketed or available only to businesses. | Provider has documentation that the service listed in the BDC is available at the location and is marketed to consumers. |
| E | Enforceable Commitment | The challenger has knowledge that broadband will be deployed at this location by the date established in the deployment obligation. | 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). |
| P | Planned service | 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. | 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. |
| N | 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). | |
| C | Location is a CAI | The location should be classified as a CAI. | Evidence that the location does not fall within the definitions of CAIsset out in section 1.3 or is no longer in operation. |
| R | 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 falls within the definitions of CAIs set by set out in section 1.3 or is still operational. |
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).
6Ibid
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.