Expert Opinion
Geoff Mulligan: A ‘Dumb’ Way to Build Smart Cities

In every corner of the country and around the world, leaders are trying to make their cities “smarter.” These projects are often in response to specific and on-going demands — such as parking, overcrowding, noise, and pollution — while others have started to address broader goals — such as reduction of energy consumption, improvement of traffic flow, or sustainability. But as is often the case with grand ideas, many are taking the wrong approach. It’s simply impossible, in one sweep, to build a Smart City. Just as the internet and the web didn’t spring forth fully formed, as if from some “master plan,” Smart Cities must be built as organic, independent, and yet connected pieces. As Stewart Brand cogently argued, even buildings have to learn in steps.
A Smart City roadmap is invaluable, laying out a direction to help set expectations. However, it shouldn’t define specific cross-system technologies and implementation details, nor plan for all projects to launch or complete simultaneously. They must instead be created as separate solutions for each problem, then stitched together by open standards and open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and each built as an independent service. That’s how they must grow if we want them to succeed — learning by iteration.
Today’s problem
In the rush to “capture the market,” companies are selling “complete visions” — though incomplete solutions – of how their systems can solve the ills that plague the modern city. City planners, managers, and officials get sold the idea that these companies have some kind of silver bullet that, in a single solution, integrates all city functions and enhances their capabilities, thus making them work together efficiently. But this belies the true nature of the problem: none of us are smart enough to fully appreciate or understand the complexity of managing all the functions that go into making a city work. The sheer diversity of the systems ensures that no single technology can be applied as “the” solution. In addition, the timeframe for implementing these disparate programs can vary widely, meaning that technology selected at the start of one project will likely be obsolete by the start of another.
Worse yet, these companies are also selling and deploying products that are based on closed, proprietary systems. They include proprietary radios, single-purpose hardware, proprietary software and protocols, and closed web applications and portals. These designs constrain innovation and interfere with interoperability between newer and older systems, often saddling the new with the constraints of the past. This is like the Trojan Horse — a solution that requires all future systems to use these proprietary systems and thereby locking the city into that particular vendor for the rest of their days, limiting design and technology choices and stifling innovation and adoption of newer technology.
It’s not all gloom and doom. With the application of open systems and implementation of a service-oriented architecture, future technology can be built that’ll integrate more seamlessly with previous technology investments.
Choose a different path
We’ve learned from the lean-agile community to build success in small, incremental steps rather than one grand leap. But with the different needs, design patterns, and timeframes, how is it possible to accomplish building a Smart City in small steps? It’s done by leveraging the nature of the internet itself, complete with open standards and open APIs. By decoupling every system and eliminating hidden interfaces, we can relieve the pressures of time and technology interdependencies, thereby allowing greater innovation in each separate project while “future proofing” the design decisions.
We use different materials and architecture to construct buildings with differing purposes (hospitals vs. homes vs. high-rises), but there’s a consistency even within these varying buildings for standard electrical and plumbing connections. Smart City projects can adopt this same design pattern. This means that for a parking project, the city can pick the most appropriate communication technology but require that the system be built on open standard protocols that underlie the internet (for example, HTTP, IP, TCP, and MQTT), use data formats such as JSON or XML, and have open APIs.
Greater than the sum of the parts
Instead of a complete Smart City that’s decades in the making, city managers can instead look for “low-hanging fruit” or “greatest pain point” and more quickly build a point solution, knowing that it can simply be connected to any future systems in a scalable and secure manner. A smart parking system for city streets or a parking garage built using LoRa today can be connected to a city traffic management system built using NBIoT next year, as long as both use open APIs and avoid closed, proprietary solutions including “walled garden” cloud solutions.
The next city improvement project — a smart street light system, for example — might require a completely different communication technology from the previous parking system. Streetlights are up high and more distributed than parking meters or parking spaces in a garage. Streetlights have power, whereas a parking sensor will likely be battery-operated. These different requirements would necessitate the use of different communication technologies, but both systems can be interconnected through common protocols and APIs. Through open APIs, this interconnectivity doesn’t need to be designed in from the beginning but can be added after each of the separate systems is installed.
For example, the streetlight system that’s installed today could be connected to traffic flow sensors installed tomorrow. The two systems may use completely different communication technology and set of protocols. This new combination — streetlight and traffic flow sensors connected through open APIs — could offer an innovative solution for reducing streetlight energy usage by dimming lights when there are no cars, but increasing the brightness prior to the cars arrival based on messages from the traffic flow system.
The use and adherence to open APIs and microservices brings another benefit — decoupled velocity. This means that even concurrent projects can be built at different speeds and rolled out at different times and yet combined when each is completed and functional. As in the example above, the smart streetlight project might end up taking longer to deploy because of the sheer number of devices. Where as the traffic flow sensors might be installed sooner. Open APIs release each system from timing interdependencies and implementation speed.
Vendor lock-in and future-proofing
Another benefit of open standards and APIs is the elimination of vendor lock-in, which is when a vendor wins all future business because they alone are holding the keys to the design and the data. Vendor lock-in squelches innovation: you’re only as innovative as the vendor wants to be or lets you be. If a city needs a design or solution that isn’t in the vendor’s current portfolio, the city’s choices become wait, pay more to have the vendor add it to their roadmap, or go outside the ecosystem and use some sort of gateway (but gateways are evil, see below) to translate protocols and data and interconnect the systems.
Instead, open standards and APIs bring the ability to incorporate and evolve with newer technologies and systems. But, much like vendor lock-in, you can run afoul of technology lock-in. Imagine having built a Smart City project requiring the use of videotape and now not being able to adopt streaming technologies because they’re incompatible. Technology changes rapidly; in just a few years, we’ve moved from 2G to 3G and now to 5G in the cellular environment. By using open standards to decouple the higher-layer protocols from the lower layers, technology can evolve and systems using older tech can easily interconnect. In this way a system deployed using 4G today can interoperate with 5G systems tomorrow and 6G and 7G systems in a few years.
The underpinnings of innovation
Avoiding vendor and technology lock-in is critical to allow for innovation. Nothing will be more detrimental to a city’s infrastructure and future than to be bound to a vendor and have to ask for permission to enhance or extend the systems’ functionality. As new technology comes to the market and new services are brought out to solve other city issues, the ability to quickly test and connect them to existing solutions is the necessary for offering evolving solutions and bringing more opportunities for innovation and cost reductions. When you embark on your next project, ask your vendors — “do you use open standard protocols?” and “how are your APIs and data published?”
Avoid these traps — the ‘evil’ gateway and ‘private clouds’
One tool that many vendors attempt to leverage to show openness and interoperability is the “gateway.” They claim that they provide, or can build, a gateway to connect to other systems. Gateways are a never-ending trap on so many levels:
- they’re a single point of failure;
- they’re a single point of attack for hackers;
- they require complex coordination between systems;
- maintenance and updates are costly or non-existent;
- updates need to be managed;
- they add extra costs for hardware and power; and
- they’re closed and proprietary.
The second trap is private clouds and walled gardens. The vendor will claim that they use “all of the open internet standards,” listing protocol after protocol, but they use these protocols only to send the data (your data) into a closed, proprietary cloud system — locking it away so that only they have the keys. This is akin to building a road that leads to a cul-de-sac, which is blocked by a locked gate that only lets traffic in. Then, new systems must be built to connect through this cloud, likely via closed and proprietary interfaces. In the end, only other systems in this closed ecosystem can be used for future projects, thereby limiting innovation and increasing time and costs. Sending data to the cloud isn’t a panacea, as many vendors would like to suggest.
Who owns the data — that is, your data
In Smart City projects the goals of improving city services or infrastructure are the leading driver for implementation but the greatest benefits will come from the availability of the data gathered from these projects and new systems. Unfortunately, many of the Smart City systems being proffered today lock away access to the data in walled gardens, as mentioned before. It’s imperative that the data is sent to city-owned and managed servers, or the city’s data lake or available without license through open APIs. Only in this way will the city and future Smart City projects be able to use and leverage the wealth of information and the underlying real value of these types of projects.
A related concern surrounding data ownership is the rights to the use and sale of the data created by the Smart City project — a valuable commodity. Throughout the life of the project it should be clear that the city owns all rights to the data. The vendor may not access, distribute, or sell any of the data whether in raw form or aggregated without the explicit permission of the city. Only in this way will you be able to protect the rights and privacy of the city and it’s citizens.
Choosing the right project
By adopting open standards and APIs, you’re now able to embark on a Smart City project without having to solve all other city projects at the same time or constrain them with the choices made today. But choosing the “right” project is important. In some cases, it’s prudent to choose a small, fast, low-cost project. This allows you to get your feet wet, test vendors, accomplish a project in a short time, and hopefully succeed; but if you fail, fail fast, learn, and move on. There sometimes is a problem with these projects though: they may have little impact and they may cause others to look upon them as “ho hum.”
An alternative is to choose a project that’s a large “pain point” for the city. By definition, these projects have great visibility and impact, but may have far greater risk and take much longer to complete. They don’t generally meet the rules for lean-agile, but the small “safe” projects may not show off the true benefits that a Smart City can bring. Solve this by using divide and conquer. Rather than implementing smart parking across the entire city, choose to focus on a particularly congested city section or single parking structure.
Building success
When a city is becoming smarter by investing in a Smart City project, use this checklist to evaluate the project:
- Does it start small and scale well? This is better than a monolithic solution that requires a gigantic investment.
- Is it locking the city into technologies, or, even worse, vendors? Does it exclude other vendors?
- Is it open? What protocols are used? Are the APIs published and open?
- Did the vendor mention or require (evil) gateways?
- Does it solve a problem for the city quickly, even if it’s only a small problem?
- What will the city be able to learn from taking on this project?
- Who owns the data?
Through the strict application and requirement of openness, your Smart City project can be delivered in a way that’s quick, beneficial, evolvable, and scalable. Our cities can and will become smarter and better places to live through small steps and open standards — open APIs and microservices are the foundational stepping stones to that future.
Geoff Muilligan is IoT Practice Lead at Skylight Digital and CTO for IIoT at Jabil. Past founder and Chairman of LoRa and IPSO. Former White House Presidential Innovation Fellow on IoT. Creator of 6lowpan. This article originally appeared on the author’s web site, and is reposted with permission.
BroadbandBreakfast.com accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@broadbandcensus.com. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of BroadbandBreakfast.com and Breakfast Media LLC.
Expert Opinion
Craig Settles: Believe in the Healing Power of Telehealth
Healthcare organizations are seeing telehealth as an opportunity to enhance connectivity with patients and improve healthcare outcomes.

Listening to many politicians and National Telecommunications and Information Administration officials, you’d think “broadband” is practically synonymous with “telehealth.” So let’s go with it! Make telehealth front and center, the marketing hook of your NTIA Broadband Equity Access Deployment and Digital Equity Act grant applications.
Do a medical needs assessment of NTIA’s eight populations (target markets): 1) low-income urban dwellers, 2) rural communities, 3) Native American communities 4) veterans, 5) seniors, 6) people with disabilities, 7) those for whom English is a second language, and 8) the incarcerated. Low-income Americans have high rates of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and other chronic conditions compared to higher-income Americans.
How many people would we help with telehealth and how many people would go home with a computing device? A marketing win-win – attack the disease, attack the digital divide.
By the numbers
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 4 of 10 adults live with two or more chronic diseases. That’s 103.2 adult human beings. Imagine if we leveraged those $45 billions from NTIA, the thousands of all staff people, and the hosts of volunteers to treat, cure, or prevent chronic conditions?
In 2020, 1,603,844 new cancer cases were reported and 602,347 people died. About 695,000 people in the U.S. died from heart disease in 2021 and the disease costs us about $239.9 billion each year in 2018 and 2019. 37.3 million people have diabetes.
Many more millions suffer from and die from lung disease, strokes, Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, and kidney disease. What’s more, many these of chronic diseases are driven by unhealthy lifestyles – smoking, minimal physical activity, poor nutrition, and excessive alcohol use.
Make sure the numbers include the dramatic disparities. For example, African Americans make up 12% of the U.S. population, but twice as many die from strokes (100,000) as all other ethnic groups combined. Studies have found that Black people between the ages of 45 and 54 die of strokes at a rate that’s 3 times greater than their White counterparts. Being overweight or obese increases your risk of stroke. About three out of four Hispanics are overweight.
Telehealth making a difference: Gilda Radner’s legacy
Gilda’s Club Twin Cities, part of the Cancer Support Community global non-profit network providing free social and emotional support for those impacted by cancer, offers telehealth to medically underserved Minnesota urban and rural residents. The club partnered with telehealth firm Equiva and ISP Infinti Mobile to enroll members in the Federal Communications Commission’s Affordable Connectivity Program, to sign them up for Internet access, and send them tablets preloaded with special content.
“CSC organizes the telehealth content in a way that makes sense for their constituents,” says Beth Strohbusch, head of marketing for Equiva. “Members learn about cancer treatment options, digital support groups, and free psychosocial services if members are having problems with depression.”
Strohbusch believes it’s not just hospitals and support groups pursuing broadband and telehealth. Healthcare organizations, nursing homes, and financial risk-bearing organizations are seeing telehealth as an opportunity to enhance connectivity with patients and improve organizations’ financial and chronic healthcare outcomes.
Jason Welch, Infiniti president, says, “Equiva has a reach we don’t have – the healthcare communities, the cancer support community, those in elder care, the larger healthcare organizations. Infiniti saw a natural, practical fit. The Equiva ACP Connect Program is a practical combination of services that are easily explained. Our customers understand accessing healthcare and related resources from their computers and is the data transport mechanism allowing them to do so.”
The eyes have it
Age-related macular degeneration affects the central part of the retina that allows you to see fine details clearly. AMD causes damage to the macula and results in blurring of your central vision. It is a leading cause of blindness among older Americans and is more common in individuals of European ancestry.
Ocutrx manufactures an augmented reality corrective devices that tackles AMD and doubles as patients’ cell phone with Wi Fi, 4G, and 5G capabilities. CEO Michael Freeman says, “We build circuit board in our headsets that enables them to do everything that cell phones do, control seven cameras, and creates the six degrees of freedom where patients can pose virtual objects out in front of their eyes.”
The user puts on the headset and continually does a field test in each eye. Software signals the device when the user can’t clearly see an object, which triggers the cameras that starts projecting real-time on the lens a live 60-frames/second video. Augmented reality moves pixels from the peripheral to the front of the user and within 13 milliseconds the user can see the object.
Ocutrx has a headset for patients with chronic disease. Patients and their doctor each has a headset and cell phone capabilities for talking real time over an encrypted network. This headset measures temperature, respiratory rate, heart rate and other readings. Freeman adds, “Its camera can be disconnected so you can show the doctor your arm or leg.” To treat ‘lazy eye’, AI in the headset let’s patients play a game virtually. It frosts the lens of the good eye and makes the lazy eye work harder and tracks how well the eyes work together when they’re doing the exercises.
The fruits of telehealth
Telehealth vender Fruit Street delivers digital therapeutics for addressing bad habits that have medical consequences. CEO Laurence Girard says, “digital therapeutics may be programs that deal with sleep, stress, and resiliency, others may focus on opiate addiction or general mental health.
One in three adults have prediabetes in which someone’s blood glucose (sugar) level is too high but not high enough yet for a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Fruit Street’s Digital Diabetes Prevention Program combines group telehealth sessions, wearable devices, and dietary tracking in the vender’s mobile application. Besides lowering the risk to develop type 2 diabetes, the program can also lower the risk of having a heart attack or stroke, improve health overall, and help subscribers feel more energetic.
Consider nonprofits marketing core digital therapeutics within a community. Imagine teams of “Life Changers” whose main goal is to embed broadband, smart home, cloud, and telehealth infrastructure that keeps residents healthy while reducing asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic illnesses.
Craig Settles conducts needs analyses with community stakeholders who want broadband networks to improve economic development, healthcare, education and local government. He hosts the radio talk show Gigabit Nation, and is Director of Communities United for Broadband, a national grass roots effort to assist communities launching their networks. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.
Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.
Expert Opinion
Kristian Stout: Red Tape and Headaches Plague BEAD Rollout
States must overcome numerous hurdles before BEAD will be able to succeed.

As part of the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that President Joe Biden signed in November 2021, Congress allocated $42.45 billion to create the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, a moonshot effort to close what has been called the “digital divide.” Alas, BEAD’s tumultuous kickoff is a vivid example of how federal plans can sometimes become a tangled web, impeding the very progress they set out to champion.
In the weeks since the BEAD initiative was rolled out by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, state officials have been voicing mounting concerns over what they see as bureaucratic roadblocks to implementation. Tamarah Holmes, director of Virginia’s Office of Broadband, recently called BEAD “the most burdensome federal program” she’s ever encountered. Given that she previously worked for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, an entity notorious for extensive bureaucracy, that’s saying something.
One frequently cited problem has been NTIA’s preference for fiber-optic connections, which finds itself in tension with realities on the ground. While fiber connections often provide the best solution, implementing them can be challenging in rough terrain and remote areas. Other technologies like fixed wireless and satellite often make better sense in such territories. Here, the one-size-fits-all approach that NTIA has preferred is proving detrimental to a more tailored, location-based strategy.
This should not be news to NTIA. As Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and his colleagues noted in April, states must overcome numberous hurdles before BEAD will be able to succeed—from labor stipulations that are more prescriptive than inclusive to the program’s inexplicable favoritism for government networks over private enterprises. Coupled with requirements like the middle-class affordability option, which will essentially function as a form of rate regulation, the entire implementation push has been creaking under the weight of its own red tape.
In its initial notice of funding opportunity, NTIA also required a preference for noncontract labor when an internet service provider rolls out a network. Unfortunately, there are not nearly enough fiber-optic technicians available in the United States to keep up with the demand created by BEAD. Thus, creating impediments to quickly bringing technicians online only saddles the program with further costly problems.
So, where does this leave America’s ambitions of broadband equity and access?
For one, there’s a compelling need to reassess the BEAD initiative’s guiding principles. The rigidity that’s currently the program’s hallmark needs to be replaced with adaptability. Each state, with its unique geography and challenges, should be given the flexibility to chart its own digital course. The federal role should be that of facilitator, not gatekeeper or, worse still, roadblock.
Moreover, implementation should be guided by a principle of technological neutrality; preferences for particular technologies simply do not make sense. Above all, realities on the ground must shape deployment strategies, not overarching directives that may be disconnected from the local context. The impending workforce challenges must also be addressed proactively. The most obvious solution would be to remove requirements that frustrate the onboarding of technicians as expeditiously as possible.
America’s broadband aspirations will only be realized through a commitment to adaptability and putting the demands of reality ahead of political preferences.
Kristian Stout is the director of innovation policy at the International Center for Law and Economics. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.
Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.
Expert Opinion
Scott Sampson: How Fiber Can Build a Work Culture in a Remote World
Greater reliable and secure broadband bandwidth is necessary to support a quality remote culture and work environment.

With the increased popularity of working remotely, organizations are being challenged to create and maintain a positive culture in a virtual environment. While elements of creating a strong, collaborative work culture have not changed, technology has taken on a more vital role during the surge in remote work.
A core necessity needed to support remote workers is high-speed Internet connectivity. Remote workers count on their Internet service provider to deliver the connectivity needed to keep up with and manage the applications required to have a successful workday in a remote environment. Fiber Internet is the best solution to provide the “enterprise-level” performance and reliability needed to support this paradigm shift.
Why is a strong remote work culture important and what are best practices?
Just like the work culture in the office, there are many benefits to developing a work culture that considers the remote nature of the environment:
- A strong and consistent remote work culture can unite employees and give them a shared sense of purpose.
- Remote work culture prepares organizations for future success.
- Remote work culture can build long-term relationships using the right environment.
Since the pandemic, companies have been working hard to create a remote work culture and a lot of best practices are coming out of that work:
- Create an environment of trust — To create a healthy remote work company culture, it’s important to communicate all the high-level decisions with teams to show employees that they are trusted completely to manage their work and are not being left out of the conversation just because they are not in the office.
- Share the company’s mission and goals — Creating an optimum and high performing remote teamwork culture becomes easier when everyone understands the mission and goals an organization is trying to achieve. It can work as a constant reminder for employees to always know what they are trying to accomplish as a team.
- Define the company’s remote work policy — Remote work or flexible work can mean different things to different people. As a result, a company needs to be as specific as possible about the organization’s remote work policy so the employees know exactly what to expect. More clarity will only lead to smoother remote work and better culture.
- Make face-to-face meetings a priority — While there is no replacement to meeting your team members directly, regular video calls can help close the communication gap. Team managers should hold regular one-on-one meetings with employees to build better connections, establish trust, and celebrate their individual accomplishments. Another simple thing — encourage team members to switch on their video during team meetings. Face-to-face communication helps workers get to know each other in a better way.
- Collect regular feedback and make changes accordingly — It is always a good idea to ask remote employees for their feedback regularly so that they can tell you what’s working for them and what just isn’t. Many are new to the remote work culture so feedback is invaluable.
- Use the right tools — The long-term success of remote work also depends on whether you’re using the right tools to manage work. Such things as video conferencing, a digital workplace platform for collaboration, or instant messaging are essential to supporting the remote culture workers’ needs. Having the right tools makes a difference, but just as important is having high performing bandwidth to make those tools perform optimally.
Broadband connectivity is the technological backbone for building a remote culture
All kinds of technology tools are popping up to better support the remote worker from online video conferencing to digital workplaces to cloud-based data management tools. As a result, greater broadband bandwidth that is reliable and secure is necessary to support the delivery of a quality remote culture and work environment. There are four reasons why:
- Performance Needs to Be Comparable to That in the Office – Just because one is remote doesn’t mean poorer network performance than the enterprise is okay. Companies are demanding commercial grade Internet performance at home, too.
- Remote Enterprise Applications Demand More Bandwidth — New, advanced applications requiring greater network speeds that could only be available at the office need to be attainable by remote workers.
- Scalability Is Paramount — Broadband connectivity needs to be able to scale as more remote workers require access and applications require greater bandwidth and performance.
- To Duplicate In-Person Culture, Bandwidth Needs to Do More — Bandwidth needs to be fast enough to support technologies that can more closely duplicate in-person culture, such as AI, real-time interactive streaming, and human resources applications that analyze unique types of data about the employee experience and interaction, often in real time.
While technological innovations will continue to change and improve the cultural experience for an organization regardless of where an employee works, the demand for higher performing, more reliable, and more secure bandwidth will be needed. Fiber is the only technology that can meet these demands today and scale to meet even greater demands in the future.
Scott Sampson is an experience executive with extensive knowledge in all aspects of telecommunications and IT and is one of the industry’s leading experts on fiber to the home. He has worked with companies such as Arrow Electronics, ULA, and Rio Tinto, as well as a successful sale of a company he co-founded. Sampson is known for building high-achieving teams. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.
Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.
-
#broadbandlive4 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on September 13, 2023 – AT&T and BlackRock’s Gigapower Joint Venture
-
Broadband Roundup4 weeks ago
AT&T Launches New Fixed Wireless Service, Lawsuits Over Lead Cables, $27M for Rural South Dakota Broadband
-
Funding4 weeks ago
Do Not Overlook Other Broadband Programs, say Experts
-
Funding4 weeks ago
Precursors to BEAD Implementation: A Deep Dive Into Prior Broadband Programs
-
Community Broadband3 weeks ago
Rural Broadband Provider Touts Cooperative and Coalition-based Models
-
Artificial Intelligence4 weeks ago
U.S. Chip Export Restrictions Will be ‘Huge Roadblock’ for Chinese AI Competitiveness: Expert
-
Broadband Roundup3 weeks ago
5G Fund for Rural America, FCC Disaster Information Reporting System, US Cellular Expands 5G,
-
Funding4 weeks ago
Virginia and Louisiana Each Release BEAD Implementation Plans, Volume Two