As reported by Broadband Breakfast (subscription required), the Maine Connectivity Authority (MCA) has announced that it will allocate upwards of $5 million toward the purchase of Starlink terminals for every remaining "unserved" location in the state. What's more, the contract with Starlink "is expected to include capacity guarantees to ensure that the state-purchased terminals can connect to internet service at the newly established speed benchmark of 100/20 Mbps."
Universal access? Check. Speeds that satisfy the FCC's recently updated "broadband" benchmark? Check. A price tag roughly one-twentieth that of fiber? Check. So why, then, will the MCA spend an additional $278 million in federal subsidies from NTIA's Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program to connect "underserved" locations to fiber?
As I pointed out in "BEAD Program Technological Neutrality 'Fix' Falls Short," an August 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, even recent changes to NTIA's BEAD Program rules approving the use of satellites and unlicensed spectrum do so only under very limited circumstances – to be specific, when the price tag for fiber exceeds a state-specified price ceiling aptly labeled the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold (EHCPLT).
Other distribution technologies – cable broadband, fixed wireless access using licensed spectrum, and so on – likewise are eligible for BEAD Program subsidies only if the fiber cost exceeds the EHCPLT.
The MCA's announcement that it will make Starlink terminals available to all 9,000 unserved locations in the state at a cost of just $599 per location, plus free shipping and professional installation, highlights the degree to which NTIA's approach leads to inefficiencies and waste.
Evidence that proves this point can be found in the very same press release announcing the purchase of Starlink terminals: "[i]n 2025, MCA will facilitate the investment of an additional $350 million in broadband infrastructure through the [BEAD] Program to serve the remaining 5% of locations in Maine that currently have slow and unreliable internet service."
According to my back-of-the-envelope math, $350 million in total subsidies works out to almost $12,000 per "underserved" location – that is, locations with Internet access at speeds equal to or greater than 25/3 Mbps but less than 100/20 Mbps. That amounts to a nearly 20X premium for a fiber-based solution as compared to the cost of satellite-based service.
Incidentally, Volume 2 of Maine's Initial Proposal, which was approved by NTIA in June, does not identify a specific EHCPLT. Instead, it indicates that the MCA intends at some point in the future to set the EHCPLT so high that, in virtually all cases, fiber will win the day:
If it is determined that a small number of locations in a given PSA should be served with alternative technologies allowed through the EHCPLT process to ensure maximum impact of BEAD funding, MCA will consider allowing non-fiber service to a minimal number of locations. All other locations in the PSA will otherwise be served by FTTH.
Accordingly, the extent to which satellites and other non-fiber distribution platforms will be eligible for BEAD Program funding likely will be extremely limited.
The BEAD Program's underlying congressional goal is to connect locations still without "broadband" – Internet access at speeds of 100/20 Mbps – in a cost-effective manner. The fact that, in Maine, far more federal taxpayer dollars will be spent on "gold-plated" fiber infrastructure to upgrade "underserved" locations than what is being spent to connect "unserved" locations strongly suggests that NTIA's approach is fundamentally flawed.
Posts
