When is an apartment building considered connected to the internet? Millions of dollars depends on the answer

California is getting more than $1.8 billion in federal grant money to expand high-speed broadband service in areas where residents have little to no access.

But advocates say the state is undercounting the true number of residents who lack internet, especially those living in apartment buildings.

That could mean dense cities like Los Angeles not getting their fair share.

To identify underserved areas, the state uses broadband maps, which are based on self-reported data from internet companies.

But that data has some significant flaws. For example, an entire 20-unit apartment building can count as “served” if even one household — or just the leasing office — is able to get connected.

The rest of the building's residents may not have service, either because they can’t afford it or because their units don’t have the necessary wiring or infrastructure to make it possible.

Without a proper headcount, L.A. appears to have a smaller share of unserved or underserved residents — and that could stop the billions of dollars from the federal Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program from reaching the people it’s supposed to help.

“L.A. will probably not receive any of the BEAD funding,” said Natalie Gonzalez of the Digital Equity L.A. Coalition. “It won't be considered eligible based on the maps that they currently have.”

Mayor Karen Bass’ office estimates that of nearly 200,000 households in L.A. who aren't connected to the internet, about 60% live in apartment buildings and are therefore at risk of being undercounted.

In December, she wrote a letter urging the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which is overseeing the program, to prioritize these communities as it figured out how to split up the grant dollars in an “equitable” way.

Submitting a challenge

There is a way to dispute the maps following their release a few weeks ago. If a tenant believes their apartment building is wrongly marked as fully connected, they can submit a challenge to the CPUC within a 30-day window, which closes Aug. 6.

However, that challenge has to be verified by a third party, like a community group. If the building has more than 15 units, at least two tenants have to make the request. And if it has more than 25 units, three tenants have to step forward.

Advocates feel that these onerous requirements make it difficult for ordinary people to get their voices heard.

“If communities aren't speaking up and making comments and feedback on those maps, then the state is kind of just left in the dark about who is being served and who's not being served and what areas to prioritize over others,” Gonzalez said.

Fact checking addresses

Finding potential inaccuracies in the data can be slow-going and difficult, involving looking at the state map to see a building’s designation, measuring the actual speed of a household’s internet connection and then comparing it with what’s on offer from the internet service provider.

“You really have to be like a cyber sleuth," said Liliana Monge of UNITE-LA, which is a co-convener of L.A. Digital Equity Action League (LA DEAL)

And if pricing and speed information is not immediately available online, residents may have to call a provider, which can discourage some people from following through the process.

“You have to give people your name, your email, your phone number, all of this really personal information,” Monge said. “How many calls can we actually make given that the process is so laborious?”

Her organization has created a user-friendly resource guide for people to get involved.

Jorge Rivera, co-founder of the Healing and Justice Center in the San Gabriel Valley, said fact checking the addresses “should be a full time job” given the amount of time and work it takes to do. He said the state should provide funding so that community groups can guide residents through the challenge process.

“It's easier said than done... because most community groups aren't involved in digital equity work,” he said. "So how would they even make themselves available to the community for these kind of questions?”

He also questions the entire process. “[The state is] relying on information that is being hand fed to them by the same organizations and companies we are challenging. That doesn't seem to make any sense,” Rivera said.

What advocates have found so far

Despite their best efforts, advocates have only identified about a dozen addresses they can challenge on the state’s map.

Ironically, inaccuracies can also show some largely wealthy areas as being “unserved.” For example, in Pleasanton, one of Alameda County’s wealthiest neighborhoods, a whole cluster of homes is “demonstrably erroneously” categorized as unserved, according to a filing from the California Alliance for Digital Equity.

In another case, a house in Culver City was considered “unserved” and eligible for funding even though two companies offered high-speed service at the address.

What comes next

The CPUC will be accepting petitions from nonprofit organizations, local governments, Tribal nations, and broadband service providers through Aug. 6.

Private internet companies will also have a chance to submit rebuttals against any challenges, including proof that it’s planning to begin service or that it’s indeed meeting the state’s availability and speed requirements. The CPUC will make a final decision in the coming months.