The ConnectMT program, established to expand broadband access in Montana using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funds, faces multiple issues regarding being able to comply with both Senate Bill 297 (SB 297, 2021) and House Bill 632 (HB 632, 2021). What we can know is fleshed out below with a concerned eye noting percolating issues with workable solutions.
An initial and lingering issue that the ConnectMT program has been criticized for is insufficient transparency regarding its spending, contracts, and project outcomes. The Daily Montanan has reported on its filing a records request to obtain details on ConnectMT’s expenditures and connections made, highlighting the lack of publicly available data on the program’s $270 million in ARPA funds and $629 million in BEAD funding. The concern here involves stepping on Montana public records laws pursuant to Montana Code[1] that requires public access to government records. The program not providing clear, accessible data could lead to lawsuits from media, advocacy groups, or citizens seeking to enforce transparency, potentially resulting in court-ordered disclosures or injunctions.
There are also federal transparency requirements that the ConnectMT is expected to follow as it uses ARPA and BEAD funds, it must comply with federal reporting mandates under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and ARPA guidelines. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) requires detailed reporting on BEAD-funded projects, and non-compliance could jeopardize future funding or trigger federal investigations. The concern is with potential litigation from the perceived lack of transparency which may prompt legal action from stakeholders alleging mismanagement or violation of public access laws, delaying program implementation.
While there are no specific lawsuits identified directly targeting ConnectMT’s transparency, the Daily Montanan’s records request that was filed in 2025 indicates a potential for legal action if the state fails to comply with Montana’s public records laws.[2] Publishing comprehensive reports on fund allocations, project statuses, and connections made, as mandated by HB 632, which established the Communications Advisory Commission (CAC) to oversee ARPA funds would address this concern. Also, regular updates on connectmt.mt.gov and timely responses to records requests are essential to mitigate legal risks.
There is also the issue of ConnectMT’s grant allocation process which may not fully comply with SB 297 (2021) and HB 632, particularly in prioritizing local providers and rural areas,[3] non-adherence to statutory criteria, i.e., SB 297. Senate Bill 297 requires grant scoring to prioritize factors such as a provider’s history in Montana, the necessity of government funding, and avoidance of duplicating existing infrastructure.[4] Possibly breaching legislative intent is always a concern and it arises as HB 632 emphasizes equitable broadband deployment to unserved, underserved, and frontier areas. However, 65% of initial grants went to Montana’s eight most populous counties, with $70 million allocated to Ravalli County, raising concerns about neglect of rural and frontier areas. Smaller ISPs or rural communities could file lawsuits alleging that ConnectMT’s grant awards violate SB 297’s requirements, seeking administrative appeals or court-ordered reallocation of funds.
To date, there are no direct lawsuits cited specifically challenging ConnectMT’s compliance with SB 297 or HB 632, but John Kilgore’s formal complaint to the CAC could escalate to legal action if unresolved. ConnectMT agency actions could be invalidated if deemed to have deviated from statutory mandates.[5] One solution, if needed, would be for the Department of Administration (DOA) and CAC to ensure that grant scoring aligns with SB 297’s criteria, prioritizing local providers and rural areas. Public documentation of scoring methodologies and expanded public comment periods, as noted in the DOA’s response to Kilgore, are critical to demonstrate compliance.
Audits present another dynamic of concern, especially with the noted matters regarding providers not being able to complete projects. Without clear, independent audit mechanisms to verify compliance with state and federal funding requirements, it makes auditing reports on ISP performance and fund usage difficult to ascertain. This inevitably will raise concerns about accountability, especially given Blackfoot Communications’ not completing projects.[6] The legal implications derive from receiving ARPA and BEAD funds requiring rigorous oversight, including audits to verify broadband deployment. The NTIA mandates states to develop a five-year action plan with audit provisions. If ConnectMT has not fully demonstrated this, non-compliance could lead to federal sanctions or loss of BEAD funding. If audits reveal mismanagement, such as Blackfoot’s relinquishment of 688 locations, the state or federal government could demand repayment of funds, as seen in the FCC’s response to Blackfoot’s non-compliance with Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) obligations. The Montana Legislative Audit Division could initiate an investigation into ConnectMT if transparency or compliance issues persist, potentially leading to corrective legislation or penalties.
While no specific audit-related lawsuits against ConnectMT have been documented, the FCC’s action against Blackfoot Communications (placement on a non-compliance list for failing RDOF obligations) indicates potential for similar scrutiny of ConnectMT contracts.[7] A panacea would be an independent audit process through the Montana Legislative Audit Division, publishing reports on ISP performance and fund usage to ensure compliance and accountability.
The scoring process for ConnectMT grant applications has as well been an issue for allegedly not adhering to SB 297’s statutory criteria. John Kilgore’s letter to the CAC, cited by Montana Free Press, highlighted discrepancies between the law’s requirements (e.g., prioritizing long-standing Montana providers) and the actual scoring matrix, which favored larger providers like Charter Communications. This SB 297 implication, that is, failure by ConnectMT to prioritize statutory criteria (e.g., provider history, funding necessity) if proven could render grant awards non-compliant, opening the door to administrative appeals or lawsuits from smaller ISPs. Moreover, if it is proven that there has been unfair competition, resulting in favoring large providers, this may be deemed to violate the legislative intent to promote fair competition in bidding for contracts under state procurement or fairness laws. Not to mention, the challenge process concerns where ConnectMT’s process allowed providers to contest subsidized competition, which received sixty challenges, but the resolution process may have lacked the needed transparency, which could raise fairness concerns.[8]
The remaining concerns regard handling of funds disbursal regarding the noted allocation of 65% of initial grants to populous counties and $110 million to Charter Communications that has drawn criticism for neglecting rural and frontier areas, contrary to SB 297’s focus. The implication derived from the distribution may not have followed SB 297’s mandate to prioritize unserved and underserved areas, potentially leading to lawsuits from rural communities or advocacy groups. The subsequent HB 484 (2023) aims to address this by reworking ConnectMT’s oversight, indicating legislative concern.[9]
In conclusion, the ConnectMT program unavoidably faces legal issues regarding transparency, statutory compliance with SB 297 and HB 632, adequacy of audits, scoring assessments, and challenges from ISP non-compliance. These are compounded by lingering issues with impinging easement disputes,[10] inequitable fund distribution, and restrictive community broadband laws.[11] Despite the absence of a case against ConnectMT, a national case like City of Wilson v. FCC (2016, 6th Cir.) presents an example of challenged state restrictions on community broadband, suggesting a potential legal path against ConnectMT. Achievable resolution of these concerns hinges on instituting operational transparency, scoring aligning with statutory goals and criteria, established audits, contract enforcement efforts, prioritizing rural areas, and considering legislative measures. Issues like these are common for new programs just learning the ropes of administering the funding for broadband telecommunications deployment.
Lorenzo Law, LLC. All rights reserved, 2025.
#broadband #ConnectMT #telecommunications #governance #Internet #governmentcontracts #litigation #governmenttransparency
_____________________
[1] Montana Code Annotated, Title 2, Chapter 6,
[2]See Montana Environmental Information Center v. Department of Environmental Quality (1999 MT 248), 1999 MT 248, 296 Mont. 207, 988 P.2d 1236 the Montana Supreme Court upheld the right to public access to government records, setting a precedent for transparency that could apply to ConnectMT if challenged.
[3] Montana Free Press reported concerns from smaller ISPs, represented by John Kilgore, that the initial $309 million in grants disproportionately favored Charter Communications ($110 million), potentially violating the legislative intent to support Montana-based providers and rural communities.
[4] Kilgore’s letter to the CAC argued that these criteria were not adequately reflected in the scoring matrix, suggesting non-compliance.
[5] See Montana Power Co. v. Montana Public Service Commission (1983 MT 266).
[6] Blackfoot Communications was awarded $60 million for seven ConnectMT projects, informed the FCC in May 2025 that it could not complete 688 of 2,687 locations due to cost increases, citing eligibility for BEAD funding. This failure violates ConnectMT’s contractual expectations.
[7] See Montana Legislative Audit Division v. Department of Administration (2015), audits revealed mismanagement in state programs, prompting corrective actions that could apply to ConnectMT if audited.
[8] Despite there not being direct lawsuits challenging ConnectMT’s scoring, Kilgore’s complaint to the CAC has the potential to lead to legal action if the scoring process is not addressed. See Montana Contractors’ Association v. Department of Highways (1993 MT 172).
[9] See Montana Rural Education Association v. State (2004 MT 193), unequal funding distribution prompted legal action, a potential model for rural communities challenging ConnectMT. HB 484 could resolve this concern for future BEAD funding rounds.
[10] Intermountain Infrastructure Group (IIG) v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF): BNSF halted permits for IIG’s fiber-optic projects on railroad property, delaying ConnectMT-related infrastructure. Delays could breach ConnectMT contracts with ISPs relying on IIG’s infrastructure, exposing IIG to liability and ConnectMT to scrutiny for project delays. In NorthWestern Energy v. Ziply Fiber (Yellowstone County District Court, August 2, 2024). NorthWestern filed for injunctive relief, alleging Ziply attached cables to power poles without authorization, violating agreements and safety standards. Ziply’s alleged unsafe practices could violate state utility regulations, leading to fines, injunctions, or damages if accidents occur. ConnectMT may face indirect liability if funded projects contribute to safety violations.
[11] Montana’s laws on community broadband networks limit ConnectMT’s ability to fund local solutions, potentially conflicting with federal BEAD goals. These restrictions may face legal challenges under federal broadband initiatives encouraging diverse deployment models, potentially leading to lawsuits from communities seeking to overturn barriers.