Skip to content
Bills from the 2021–22 session

Senate Bill 365

The broadband expansion grant program. (FE)

Vetoed by the governor

Both chambers passed it, and the governor vetoed it on Apr 15, 2022. Lawmakers did not ⁠, so it stands.

  1. Introduced, passed

    May 25, 2021

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Senate vote, passed

    Passed 20 to 12

  4. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed 60 to 36

  5. Governor, stopped here

    Vetoed Apr 15, 2022.

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, May 17, 2022: “Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82”

Read the governor's veto message · All vetoes this session

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

This bill makes various changes to the broadband expansion grant program.

Current law requires the Public Service Commission to administer the broadband expansion grant program, under which PSC designates as “underserved” areas of the state that are served by fewer than two broadband service providers and awards grants to eligible applicants for the purpose of constructing broadband infrastructure in underserved areas. This bill changes the purpose of the grant program to constructing broadband infrastructure in “unserved areas.” Under current law, “unserved areas” are areas not served by an Internet service provider (ISP) that is a fixed wireless service or wired service and that provides service at actual speeds of at least 20 percent of the upload and download speeds for advanced telecommunications capability as designated by the Federal Communications Commission. The bill changes the speed standard for an unserved area to be at least actual download speeds of 100 megabits per second and upload speeds of 20 megabits per second.

Read the full summary

Current law requires PSC to establish criteria for evaluating applications and awarding grants under the broadband expansion grant program and requires that the criteria give priority to projects meeting various standards, such as including matching funds and involving public-private partnerships. Under the bill, the criteria must require that projects serve unserved areas. The bill specifies that the criteria must prioritize projects with 50 percent or more matching funds and projects that are capable of offering service with either combined download speeds and upload speeds of 900 megabits per second or greater, or download speeds of 450 megabits per second or greater and upload speeds of 450 megabits per second or greater. When evaluating a grant application, the bill requires PSC to consider all federal broadband grant program project areas related to the proposed project. The bill prohibits PSC from awarding grants for projects that do not include at least 40 percent matching funds or for projects that are not capable of offering download speeds of 100 megabits per second or greater and upload speeds of 20 megabits per second or greater (minimum download and upload speeds).

The bill adds a procedure by which an ISP in or near to a project area proposed in an application for a broadband expansion grant may challenge the awarding of that grant. An ISP may challenge the grant if that ISP currently provides or will complete construction to provide broadband service to that area at minimum download and upload speeds or if that ISP commits to completing construction of broadband infrastructure and providing broadband service to that area at minimum download and upload speeds no later than 24 months after the date grants are made for the grant cycle under which the application was submitted. The bill requires PSC to evaluate the challenge and prohibits it from funding the project if it determines as credible the challenging ISP's commitment to provide broadband service that meets the requirements.

The bill allows PSC to require the recipient of a broadband expansion grant to submit a project completion final report before any withheld grant funds are disbursed. The bill requires the final report to include the number of customer locations passed, upgraded, or within range and how many actually ordered broadband service as a result of the project, as well as an official certification of speeds. The bill requires PSC to disburse any withheld grant funds to an eligible grantee no later than 30 days after the final report is submitted, and to submit the report to the joint committee on finance and to the appropriate standing committees of the legislature. The bill requires PSC to provide technical assistance and educational tools for broadband expansion grant project development.

The bill provides PSC a mechanism for annually collecting from ISP grantees the same broadband availability and speed data they must disclose to the Federal Communications Commission under the federal Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act (BDATAA) and to use this information to develop and maintain broadband availability maps. However, the bill requires PSC to review the maps created by the FCC under BDATAA and, if they provide sufficient information to facilitate access to broadband service in unserved areas, eliminates the requirement that ISPs annually disclose this information to PSC.

Who's behind it

9 senators are its ⁠. All 9 are Republicans.

23 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 32 names

Authors (9)

Signed on in support (23)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There were 5 votes on this bill.

Senate Committee on Utilities vote on an amendment

Passed, 3 to 2 · Feb 11, 2022

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Utilities, Technology and Telecommunications, Ayes 3, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate Committee on Utilities vote to recommend it

Passed, 3 to 2 · Feb 11, 2022

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Utilities, Technology and Telecommunications, Ayes 3, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote on an amendment

Passed, 20 to 12 · Feb 15, 2022

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Senate Substitute Amendment 1 adopted, Ayes 20, Noes 12”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote to pass it

Passed, 20 to 12 · Feb 15, 2022 · 1 didn't vote

See how each of the 33 senators voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Official motion: “PASSAGE”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 60 to 36 · Feb 23, 2022 · 1 didn't vote

See how each of the 97 representatives voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Yes (60)

No (36)

Didn't vote (1)

Official motion: “CONCURRENCE”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. May 17, 2022

    The veto stood. Lawmakers didn't override it.

  2. Apr 15, 2022

    The governor vetoed it.

  3. Apr 14, 2022

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Feb 23, 2022

    The Assembly passed it too, 60 to 36.

  5. Feb 17, 2022

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  6. Feb 15, 2022

    The Assembly received it.

  7. Feb 15, 2022

    The Senate passed it, 20 to 12.

  8. Feb 15, 2022

    The Senate adopted it, 20 to 12.

  9. Feb 11, 2022

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 3 to 2.

  10. Feb 11, 2022

    “Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Utilities, Technology and Telecommunications, Ayes 3, Noes 2” (the official wording)

  11. Feb 2, 2022

    The committee held a public hearing.

  12. Jun 22, 2021

    1 more representative signed on in support.

  13. Jun 10, 2021

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  14. May 25, 2021

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Utilities, Technology and Telecommunications.

  15. May 25, 2021

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. May 25, 2021 · Senate

    Introduced by Senators Marklein, Ballweg, Bernier, Cowles, Darling, Feyen, Nass, Wimberger and Felzkowski; cosponsored by Representatives Summerfield, Oldenburg, Armstrong, Cabral-Guevara, Callahan, Dallman, James, Magnafici, Moses, Petryk, Plumer, Pronschinske, Ramthun, Rozar, Schraa, Spiros, Swearingen, Tauchen, Tranel, Tusler, VanderMeer and Horlacher

  2. May 25, 2021 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Utilities, Technology and Telecommunications

  3. Jun 10, 2021 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Jun 22, 2021 · Senate

    Representative Kurtz added as a cosponsor

  5. Jan 26, 2022 · Senate

    Senate Substitute Amendment 1 offered by Senator Marklein

  6. Feb 2, 2022 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  7. Feb 11, 2022 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  8. Feb 11, 2022 · Senate

    Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Utilities, Technology and Telecommunications, Ayes 3, Noes 2

  9. Feb 11, 2022 · Senate

    Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Utilities, Technology and Telecommunications, Ayes 3, Noes 2

  10. Feb 11, 2022 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  11. Feb 11, 2022 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 2-15-2022 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  12. Feb 15, 2022 · Senate

    Read a second time

  13. Feb 15, 2022 · Senate

    Senate Substitute Amendment 1 adopted, Ayes 20, Noes 12

  14. Feb 15, 2022 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  15. Feb 15, 2022 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  16. Feb 15, 2022 · Senate

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 20, Noes 12

  17. Feb 15, 2022 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  18. Feb 15, 2022 · Assembly

    Received from Senate

  19. Feb 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Rules

  20. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Made a special order of business at 9:46 AM on 2-23-2022 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 29

  21. Feb 23, 2022 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  22. Feb 23, 2022 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  23. Feb 23, 2022 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  24. Feb 23, 2022 · Assembly

    Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 60, Noes 36, Paired 2

  25. Feb 23, 2022 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  26. Feb 23, 2022 · Senate

    Received from Assembly concurred in

  27. Mar 2, 2022 · Senate

    LRB correction (Senate Substitute Amendment 1)

  28. Mar 2, 2022 · Senate

    Report correctly enrolled

  29. Apr 14, 2022 · Senate

    Presented to the Governor on 4-14-2022

  30. Apr 15, 2022 · Senate

    Report vetoed by the Governor on 4-15-2022

  31. May 17, 2022 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 5-17-2022 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)

  32. May 17, 2022 · Senate

    Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82

Terms on this page

Veto override

Lawmakers can still pass a bill the governor vetoed, but it takes two-thirds of each chamber.

More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Veto override

Lawmakers can still pass a bill the governor vetoed, but it takes two-thirds of each chamber.

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote