Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers press DoIT on $70M satellite broadband request and cybersecurity funding for higher education
Summary
The committee probed the Department of Information Technology’s plan for a $70 million satellite‑connectivity program and debated whether federal BEAD plans and small rural ISPs would be sidelined; DoIT’s cyber officials also sought clarity on cybersecurity funding and whether DoIT should distribute higher education cybersecurity dollars.
Lawmakers at the Feb. 4 Appropriations & Finance hearing questioned the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) and the state broadband office about a proposed $70 million executive‑branch special appropriation to deploy satellite connectivity and other near‑term fixes for unserved and underserved locations.
What lawmakers asked: several members, including Representatives Brown, Duncan and Dowd, pressed DoIT and the broadband office to explain how a state‑funded satellite program would interact with the federal BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment) rollout and whether small, local cooperative providers would be displaced by satellite or other technologies. Representative Brown urged the committee to protect rural cooperatives that have invested in local fiber.
How DoIT defended the approach: Drew Lovelace, acting director of the Office of Broadband Access and Expansion, said the request is intended as a short‑term, competitive RFP program that can be used where BEAD or other federal grants cannot reach communities within a four‑to‑five‑year build cycle. He said the office intends to design the RFP to allow multiple technologies — low‑earth orbit satellite, fixed wireless and fiber — to compete and avoid supplanting local middle‑mile or last‑mile fiber projects. Lovelace said the office has been working for more than two years to build a robust statewide map and expects to use lat/long IDs and deconflicted FCC data to identify locations.
Concerns about administration and contracting: DoIT staff and lawmakers also discussed whether DoIT should directly distribute some of the money to higher‑education institutions or act as a procurement and operations hub. Grama Sam, the state chief information security officer, told the committee DoIT prefers to provide a portfolio of services rather than simply disburse funding to other agencies because DoIT cannot vouch for third‑party spending without procurement oversight. Some members pressed DoIT to ensure the language in any appropriation clarifies how higher‑education cybersecurity funds will be administered; analysts said the LFC recommended $15 million for general cybersecurity initiatives while the executive set a $10 million figure with up to $10 million earmarked for higher education institutions (the CHECS program).
Why it matters: Members noted that satellite connectivity can provide immediate improvements in locations that otherwise will wait multiple years for fiber, but satellite is not considered a long‑term, latency‑sensitive substitute for fiber. Lawmakers asked for guardrails to avoid paying twice for service where federal BEAD funds are later used to build fiber.
Next steps and follow‑up: DoIT and the broadband office agreed to return with more detailed RFP language and clarifications about the administration route for higher‑education cybersecurity funding. Members also asked for written answers on whether DoIT has staffing and distribution capacity to manage a large statewide cybersecurity and connectivity rollout.
