Roth's NTIA Takes Early Aim at Rate Regulation

On July 30, 2025, Arielle Roth officially assumed the role of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, a position that includes serving as Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Days later, NTIA released updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. Notably, the revised FAQs underscore a significant policy shift from the Biden Administration's approach, one that aligns with Congress's explicit prohibition against broadband rate regulation.

This latest version of the FAQs builds on the BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice (BEAD RPN) that was released in early June. The BEAD RPN made numerous substantive changes to the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) that the Biden Administration NTIA issued in May 2022, including several addressing the low-cost service option (LCSO) requirement for BEAD Program grant recipients.

Under the NOFO, NTIA imposed prescriptive price and service terms for the LCSO. These included effective mandates on the maximum monthly rate, restrictions that, in substance, amounted to prohibited rate regulation.

The RPN eliminated those requirements: "BEAD subgrantees must still comply with the statutory provision to offer at least one LCSO, but NTIA hereby prohibits [states] from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer." The updated FAQ expounds upon this point:

The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.

In addition, the FAQ notes that, "[p]er the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN."

This, of course, is a sharp departure from the Biden Administration's deeply flawed approach. As I described in a February 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Virginia Flags NTIA's Impermissible Pressure to Regulate Broadband Rates," NTIA sought to compel Virginia to "specify an exact price or formula" for the LCSO.

That demand directly conflicted with Section 60102(h)(5)(D) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which states that "[n]othing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service."

By making explicit that neither NTIA nor a state may dictate broadband rates, the RPN and the updated FAQs realign BEAD Program implementation with the letter of the law. In doing so, they empower grant recipients to develop sustainable offerings. They also foster competition, innovation, and continued private investment (to the tune of $2.2 trillion and counting).

Released in the first few days of Roth's tenure as NTIA Administrator, these updated FAQs are a welcome indicator that, going forward, the BEAD Program will hew far more closely to congressional intent.

A Revisionist History of the BEAD Program Ignores Congressional Intent

Today's Policyband (subscription required) included a useful pointed critique of a July 9 Washington Monthly article suggesting a clandestine plot by Republican lawmakers to sabotage from within the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. But there is even more that can be said by way of rebuttal.

The extraneous, partisan policies layered on top of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) by the Biden NTIA were not the issue, authors Paul Glastris and Kainoa Lowman insist. Instead, they make the unsupported claim that "the complexity and delays of the BEAD program and the broader failure of Washington over many years to solve the digital divide is overwhelmingly the result of telecom monopolies whose economic and political power previous administrations unleashed."

Likening NTIA's Notice of Funding Opportunity to an "everything bagel," the piece nevertheless goes to great lengths to assure us that requirements not found in the IIJA – promoting policies relating to labor standards, climate threats, net neutrality, third-party (so-called "open") access, and so on – "were not major time sinks." The real impediment, they suggest, was "incumbents' goal of avoiding competition to their existing infrastructure." The truth, meanwhile, is that lawmakers appropriately took reasonable steps to prevent the use of federal subsidies to overbuild privately financed networks to prevent waste and encourage additional private investment.

In the IIJA, Congress, exercising its authority under Article I of the Constitution's Spending Clause, reached a relatively rare bipartisan compromise. That compromise sought to learn from the mistakes of the past – mistakes that the authors describe at length – and once and for all connect those remaining locations not yet served by privately constructed broadband Internet infrastructure.

According to USTA | The Broadband Association, providers have invested nearly $2.2 trillion in broadband infrastructure since 1996 – including $94.7 billion just in 2023. Largely because of that capital spending, the FCC reported in May that "110 million homes and small businesses (95 percent) have access to a terrestrial fixed service with speeds of 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload (100/20) or greater."

What the authors willfully choose to ignore is that the stated goal of the IIJA was to subsidize the prohibitively high price tag to connect primarily rural locations still "unserved" – not to use taxpayer dollars to compete with these existing, privately funded networks, which of course would disincentivize future investment.

Accordingly, Congress in the IIJA defined "unserved" as without access to speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and "underserved" as lacking access to speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps; designated the FCC's then-under-development National Broadband Map as the definitive source of location-specific service availability information; established a challenge process to verify that information; and enlisted state-level offices to determine how best to overcome the unique geographic, financial, and other factors encountered within their borders.

To be sure, in practice BEAD Program implementation has left much to be desired. To suggest, however, that measures agreed to by Congress to avoid the wasteful overbuilding of existing broadband infrastructure using taxpayer dollars somehow tell a "story … of how telecom monopolies are behind the failure of government to solve the digital divide" ignores both the substantial role played by Biden NTIA overreach and the well-documented – in the article itself, no less – mistakes of the past.

Instead of engaging with the IIJA's actual text and structure, the authors rely on a convenient – but wrong-headed – narrative to try to deflect accountability away from those truly responsible and onto those that have invested the trillions necessary to connect nearly every location in the U.S.

House Commerce, Commerce Department Commence BEAD Reforms

Multiple efforts are underway to reform the beleaguered $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program.

Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology – and Keynoter at the Free State Foundation's upcoming Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference – recently introduced legislation designed to "eliminate the burdensome Biden regulations so that we can get money out the door and shovels into the ground as soon as possible."

In his Opening Statement before "Fixing Biden's Broadband Blunder," a hearing held on March 5, 2025, Chairman Hudson unveiled the Streamlining Program Efficiency and Expanding Deployment (SPEED) for BEAD Act. In the accompanying Press Release, he pointed out that "not a cent of the BEAD funds have been put towards actual deployment for even one household. This is unacceptable. Our rural communities need to be fully connected, and this legislation will do that."

Specifically, the SPEED for BEAD Act would:

• Clarify that BEAD Program money is to be used for two purposes: broadband deployment and workforce development. Consistent with that refined focus, the bill would replace the word "Equity" with the word "Expansion" in the program's title.

• Expressly require the return to the U.S. Treasury of unused funds.

• Prohibit the consideration, when awarding grants, of the following: prevailing wages, project labor agreements, union workforces, collective bargaining, local hiring, commitments to union neutrality, labor peace agreements, workforce composition (or the reporting thereof), climate change, the regulation of network management practices (including data caps), open access requirements, and certain letter of credit requirements.

• Provide applicants greater flexibility with respect to service area.

• Expand the definition of "reliable broadband service," consistent with the principle of technological neutrality, to include "any broadband service that meets the performance criteria … without regard to the type of technology by which such service is provided."

• Expound upon the existing ban on the regulation of rates (see below).

Regarding rate regulation, the bill makes clear that neither NTIA nor the states may:

[R]egulate, set, or otherwise mandate the rates charged for broadband service or the methodologies used to calculate such rates, for consumers generally or for any subset of consumers, including through the capping or freezing of such rates, the encouragement of another entity to regulate such rates, or the use of rates as part of an application scoring process.

The SPEED for BEAD Act explicitly would ban any such forms of rate regulation even if approved prior to its enactment or adopted "in conjunction with the requirement to offer a low-cost broadband service option."

The same day, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick issued a Statement announcing that:

Under [his] leadership, the Commerce Department has launched a rigorous review of the BEAD program. The Department is ripping out the Biden Administration's pointless requirements. It is revamping the BEAD program to take a tech-neutral approach that is rigorously driven by outcomes, so states can provide internet access for the lowest cost. Additionally, the Department is exploring ways to cut government red tape that slows down infrastructure construction.

Since the passage of the legislation that created the BEAD Program, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, in 2021, FSF scholars repeatedly have criticized the Biden Administration for its prioritization of extraneous policy preferences that discouraged proven broadband providers from participating, raised costs, and ground implementation to a standstill.

They include impermissible rate regulation, inappropriate labor- and climate-related mandates, the unjustified promotion of government-owned networks, and a pro-fiber bias that brazenly defied the statute's technologically neutral intent. 

 

Report Proposes Much-Needed Repairs to Beleaguered BEAD Program

The Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute (ACLP) at New York Law School today released a "BEAD Acceleration Checklist" that "offers … a series of straightforward recommendations for accelerating the award of BEAD grant funds [that] focus on freeing BEAD from its bureaucratic shackles."

Those of you who have been following the Free State Foundation's extensive scholarship on the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program – and, more broadly, the deeply flawed Biden Broadband Plan for which it serves as the centerpiece – will find familiar many of the fixes set forth in "How to Free BEAD From its Bureaucratic Shackles."

In a companion op-ed published by Broadband Breakfast, Michael Santorelli, Director of the ACLP and co-author (along with ACLP Senior Fellow Alex Karras) of the report blamed the Biden Administration for the BEAD Program's ongoing failure to bring broadband to even one unserved location, pointing the finger specifically at "excessive bureaucracy, regulatory overreach, and a misguided approach by the Biden administration, which prioritized its political agenda and program micromanagement over connecting people to broadband."

In the report itself, the co-authors urge the Trump Administration to make seven course corrections, which include:

• Eliminating all rules and requirements not expressly prescribed by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) – that is, the legislation that established the BEAD Program. In "NTIA's BEAD Program Needs Revisions to Succeed," an October 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, Michelle P. Connolly, Ph.D., a member of the Free State Foundation's Board of Academic Advisors and Professor of the Practice within the Economics Department at Duke University, identified five superfluous "subgrantee requirements" included in NTIA's Notice of Funding Opportunity: "Buy American" requirements, union labor-related mandates, middle-class "affordability," network management practice limitations (including data caps), and the unreasonable prioritization of municipal broadband.

• Prohibiting rate regulation. As I pointed out in "Virginia Flags NTIA's Impermissible Pressure to Regulate Broadband Rates," a February 2024 Perspectives, while the IIJA does require that grant recipients make available a "low-cost broadband service option," it also explicitly bans the regulation of rates. And as Free State Foundation President Randolph May argued in "Government Price Controls Jeopardize the BEAD Program's Success," a September 2024 Perspectives, attempts by NTIA and the states to require below-market rates amount to price caps, which "lead to suboptimal levels of supply" and undermine the "policy goal of achieving universal broadband access because experienced ISPs will be discourage from participating."

• Clarifying the role of low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites. In "BEAD Program Softens Stance on 'Alternative' Technologies," a January 2025 post to the FSF Blog, I explained that while revised NTIA guidance opened the door in certain extremely high-cost situations to "alternative technologies" – that is, LEO satellites and unlicensed spectrum – it fell well short of putting these distribution platforms on an equal footing with other "Reliable Broadband Service" options.

• Removing "extraneous requirements," including those referenced in the first bullet point above as well as those relating to climate change and other policy preferences, from NTIA's BEAD Program "Terms and Conditions."

• Prohibiting the states from imposing their own "extraneous" and "burdensome" requirements beyond that which the IIJA requires.

• Strongly encouraging states to prioritize public-private partnership applications involving established broadband service providers with a proven track record of success.

• Allowing states to adjust project-service areas so that they "align with the realities of broadband network deployment."

BEAD Program Softens Stance on "Alternative" Technologies

In final guidance released on January 2, 2025, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) opened the door, ever so slightly, to Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program projects utilizing unlicensed fixed wireless and low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites. By no means a course correction to a true technology neutral approach – end-to-end fiber proposals continue to be heavily favored without adequate regard for cost – at least providers using these so-called "alternative technologies" are no longer barred outright from participating in the $42.45 billion BEAD Program.

In the Public Notice, NTIA reiterated its position that states "must seek the most robust technology feasible at each location." Prior to this policy change, that meant (a) end-to-end fiber first ("Priority Broadband Projects"), and (b) cable broadband, digital subscriber line (DSL), or fixed wireless – using either licensed spectrum or a combination of licensed and unlicensed spectrum – second ("Reliable Broadband Service"). Projects using unlicensed spectrum only do not fall within the definition of "Reliable Broadband Service." Nor do LEO satellite-based offerings.

With this final guidance, NTIA will allow states to consider grant applications utilizing distribution technologies that meet the speed (100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream) and latency (less than or equal to 100 milliseconds) requirements for "Reliable Broadband Service" but (in my view, at least) arbitrarily remain excluded from that category. Specifically, unlicensed fixed wireless and LEO satellite-based offerings now will be treated as quasi-eligible "Alternative Technologies."

However, and as I highlighted in "BEAD Program Technological Neutrality 'Fix' Falls Short," an August 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, states may consider non-fiber "Reliable Broadband Service" technologies only where the cost to deploy fiber exceeds the "Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold" (EHCPLT), an often unreasonably high bar that disregards the amount of time it will take to deploy fiber versus other technologies.

"Alternative Technologies," meanwhile, become eligible only after states "demonstrate that no ["Reliable Broadband Service"] was deployable for less than the EHCPLT by leveraging multiple strategies to obtain bids for Priority Broadband Projects and other ["Reliable Broadband Service"] projects that fall under the EHCPLT."

In other words, with this change the funding eligibility priority order has been expanded, somewhat, from two categories – end-to-end fiber followed by other "Reliable Broadband Service" – to three, with unlicensed fixed wireless and LEO satellite at the end of the line.

While in theory an improvement over the exclusionary approach originally set forth in the BEAD Program Notice of Funding Opportunity, the final guidance's creation of a third-place "Alternative Technology" category – well short of a full embrace of the concept of technological neutrality – may not have that much of practical impact.

House Commerce Hearing Critiques NTIA's Handling of BEAD Program

As I previewed in a Monday post to the Free State Foundation blog, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology the following day held a hearing on the status of the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. Participants had much to say about NTIA's management of the program, particularly with respect to timing, clarity, and the approval process.

Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) in her opening remarks focused on "NTIA's decision to pressure states to regulate the rates charged for broadband service," "unnecessary workforce and climate-related requirements," "an expensive fiber-first agenda," and "unnecessary delays in NTIA's approval process."

Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) touched on similar topics in his opening remarks – and expressed concern that "NTIA continues to add requirements that are contrary to Congressional intent and make this program less attractive and more expensive to the broadband providers needed to deploy to unserved and underserved communities."

In a Written Statement, Misty Ann Giles, Director of the Department of Administration and Chief Operating Officer for the State of Montana, characterized navigating the BEAD Program process as "akin to building a plane while flying it without having the necessary instructions to be successful" and complained that "Montana has often received conflicting or even new and changed guidance after submitting our plans or beginning a previously approved NTIA operational process."

One specific example provided relates to NTIA's recent guidance regarding "alternative technologies" such as satellites and unlicensed wireless. Many, including Committee Chair Rodgers and Subcommittee Chair Latta, support the use of these and other non-fiber distribution platforms in areas where the deployment of fiber would be prohibitively expensive. But Giles, echoing an argument I made a month ago in "BEAD Program Technological Neutrality 'Fix' Falls Short," a Perspectives from FSF Scholars, pointed out that "[w]hile much of the guidance is helpful and needed, it has come at the 11th hour for Montana."

Shirley Bloomfield, NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association CEO, testified that "several concerns, if not adequately addressed, could deter small, community-based providers from participating in BEAD." They include: the accuracy of the FCC's National Broadband Map, prohibitively large project areas, preferences based upon fund-matching ability, higher-than-expected costs and longer-than-expected permitting processes, and the uncertain fate of the Universal Service Fund.

Video of the hearing is available here.

House Commerce Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on BEAD Program

Tomorrow the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold a hearing titled "From Introduction to Implementation: A BEAD Program Progress Report."

In the hearing announcement, Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) state that the "hearing will serve as an opportunity to hear about how the implementation of the program is going, better understand the impact of NTIA's rules, and what to expect going forward as states begin to award funds."

Regarding rate regulation and the statutorily mandated "low-cost broadband service option," a concern Free State Foundation President Randolph May addressed in a Perspectives from FSF Scholars published earlier today, the accompanying Majority Staff Memo asserts that "NTIA is responsible for reviewing and approving these low-cost options and has used this requirement as a way to regulate rates. The Committee considers these rate regulated approvals to be a violation of the IIJA's rate regulation prohibition."

Other topics teed up by the Majority Staff Memo include the disconnect between the clear congressional goal of technology neutrality and NTIA's "fiber-first" bias; the need for permitting reform; and the implementation impact of labor, letter of credit, and Buy America requirements.

The following witnesses are scheduled to testify:

• Misty Ann Giles, Director and Chief Operating Officer, Montana Department of Administration
• Basil Alwan, Chief Executive Officer, Tarana Wireless
• Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Office, NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association
• Blair Levin, Policy Analyst, New Street Research and Non-Resident Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Project, Brookings Institution

The hearing will begin at 10:30 am.

House Commerce, Commissioner Carr Target BEAD Program

In a June 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, I focused a spotlight on insidious efforts by both the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and certain state-level bureaucracies to inject extraneous policy objectives like rate regulation and a fiber-at-any-cost bias – what I termed "devilish details" – into Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program funding decisions. Recent news from the Hill and the FCC demonstrate that others share my concerns.

In a letter dated July 9, 2024, to NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson, House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican leaders wrote that "it appears that the NTIA may be evaluating initial proposals counter to Congressional intent and in violation of the law." And in written testimony prepared for a congressional hearing held that same day, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr expressed his broad view that the BEAD Program "is going off the rails."

Noting the BEAD Program's unprecedented exemption from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Bob Latta (OH), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (VA) in their letter demanded greater visibility into why only 16 of the 56 initial proposals submitted by states and territories prior to year-end 2023 had been approved as of July 9, 2024. (The following day that total grew to 17 with the approval of Maryland's submission.)

In particular, the authors pointed to "anecdotal evidence" – the best available under the circumstances – indicating that NTIA "is directing [states] to set rates and conditioning approval of initial proposals on doing so." By way of example, they highlighted an objection by the Virginia Office of Broadband to NTIA's insistence upon "an exact price or formula" for its low-cost service option before its initial proposal would be approved, an impasse which I addressed here.

Chair McMorris Rodgers and Subcommittee Chairs Latta and Griffith therefore requested copies of "all communications between [NTIA] and state broadband offices as it relates to pending [BEAD Program] Initial Proposals" no later than July 23, 2024. They also sought information regarding "[t]he factors or conditions that are preventing state entities from having their initial proposals accepted," including "all instances where a state's initial proposal was not accepted … due in part to the BEAD's low-cost option requirement pricing as a factor in the decision."

The concerns of Commissioner Carr, meanwhile, include but are in no way constrained to rate regulation alone. Labeling the $42.45 billion BEAD program "the slowest moving federal broadband deployment program in recent history" – after nearly 1,000 days, "not one person has been connected to the Internet with those dollars" – he pointed the finger at the convoluted, multistep design of the program and reminded the Subcommittee that this "failure to launch is not only predictable, it was predicted" by various members of Congress.

(For the record, it also was predicted by numerous Free State Foundation scholars: member of the Free State Foundation's Board of Academic Advisors Michelle P. Connolly, Ph.D., FSF President Randolph J. May, FSF Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow Seth L. Cooper, and me.)

Laying the blame at the feet of the Biden Administration for "layering on red tape and advancing a wish list of progressive goals," Commissioner Carr faulted specific elements of the BEAD Program as implemented – but not found in the text of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that lead to its creation – that "pursue a climate change agenda, [diversity, equity, and inclusion] requirements, technology biases, price controls, preferences for government-run networks, and rules that will undoubtedly lead to wasteful overbuilding."

Consequently, Commissioner Carr predicted that, at the end of the day and after all the money is gone, households, particularly rural households, will remain unserved "absent major reforms" that reign in wasteful spending on unrelated Biden Administration priorities and remove unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.

Congress Shouldn't Have to Mandate Another Broadband Plan

Ted Hearn's Policyband reports that the House-passed bill reauthorizing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) contained a provision requiring the Biden administration to prepare – yet another! – national broadband plan.

 

According to Policyband – by the way, a site with much useful information if you haven’t checked it out – the Proper Leadership to Align Networks (PLAN) for Broadband Act, sponsored by Reps. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and Annie Kuster (D-N.H.), is a response to the 2022 Government Accountability Office report that detailed the current balkanized condition of the federal approach to funding broadband projects. The PLAN Act would give NTIA one year – after consulting with the FCC, the Agriculture Department, the Treasury Department and several more – to submit to Congress a plan to “support better management of federal broadband programs to deliver on the goal of providing high-speed, affordable broadband internet access service to all individuals in the United States.” The GAO report determined that “U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by a national strategy” and that “federal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies,” risking overbuilding as well as wasteful duplication.

Well, it shouldn’t take a law of Congress to get the government to develop a national strategy with a primary aim of eliminating the duplication inherent in separate 100 broadband funding programs administered by 15 separate agencies. Here at the Free State Foundation, we’ve been recommending that this be done for well over a year! It should just take a commitment to effective and efficient government.

 

We understand that there is a pronounced bureaucratic imperative that tilts towards wasteful overlap and duplication – but it’s past time to end it with respect to federal funding of broadband projects.

GAO Reiterates Broadband Funding Coordination Concerns

On May 10, 2023, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released "Broadband: A National Strategy Needed to Coordinate Fragmented, Overlapping Federal Programs," a Statement addressing the status of federal broadband subsidy efforts. It echoes the findings set forth in a May 2022 GAO Report that I summarized in a post to the FSF Blog – and that Senator John Thune (R-SD) underscored in prerecorded remarks delivered to the Free State Foundation's Fifteenth Annual Policy Conference on March 28, 2023.

Troublingly, it also indicates that little has changed over the past twelve months.

As Senator Thune noted, the May 2022 GAO Report concluded that "there are more than 130 federal broadband programs that are administered by 15 federal agencies" – a scenario he characterized as a "spiderweb of bureaucracy." The Statement, meanwhile, focuses on a subset of that total: the 25 programs whose "main purpose" is broadband, 13 of which "overlap because they can each be used for the purpose of broadband deployment," as illustrated in the chart reproduced below.

The Mosaic of 25 Federal Programs with Broadband as a Main Purpose,
as of November 2021, by Purpose Category

Continuing, the Report expressed concern that "[t]his patchwork of programs could lead to wasteful duplication of funding and effort." It therefore made the following recommendations:

• That the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in consultation with other relevant agencies, "present to Congress a report that identifies the key statutory provisions that limit the beneficial alignment of broadband programs and offers legislative proposals to address the limitations, as appropriate."
• That the "Executive Office of the President … develop and implement a national broadband strategy with clear roles, goals, objectives, and performance measures to support better management of fragmented, overlapping federal broadband programs and synchronize coordination efforts."

The publication of the Statement coincided with the appearance of Andrew Von Ah, GAO's Director, Physical Infrastructure, at a hearing held the same day by the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee entitled "Closing the Digital Divide: Overseeing Federal Funds for Broadband Deployment." (Indeed, it served as his official witness testimony.)

In terms of updates, the Statement reveals that little concrete progress on those recommendations has been made over the last year:

• NTIA's report to Congress remains in the planning stage – and is not expected until May 31, 2026.
• In May 2022, "the Executive Office of the President was considering if a national strategy was needed. As of this testimony, it has not developed a national strategy for broadband."

As I illustrated in "Wasteful Duplication by Design: A Case Study on Overlapping Federal Broadband Subsidies," a recent Perspectives from FSF Scholars, the status quo unacceptably – and seemingly intentionally – opens the door to redundant grants from multiple sources and the overbuilding of privately funded networks.

GAO once again has raised the alarm and proposed solutions. It is high time that the Biden Administration and Congress respond with meaningful coordinating measures.

Senator Thune Spearheads Call to Revise BEAD Program Rules

In a letter released earlier today, a group of eleven Republican Senators, led by John Thune (SD), ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband, and including Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Senator Ted Cruz (TX), urged National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) head Alan Davidson to bring in line with congressional intent the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program's rules.

Specifically, the letter pressed Assistant Secretary Davidson to remove several provisions from the May 2022 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) that "divert resources away from bringing broadband service to rural America and are inconsistent with NTIA's statutory authority in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)."

The letter targets the following extraneous and counterproductive policy priorities not found within the IIJA yet championed by the NOFO:

• Labor requirements inappropriately designed "to achieve targeted social outcomes";
• A "misguided" bias in favor of government-owned networks;
• A fiber-focused failure to heed "Congress' technology neutral stance in the IIJA" with regard to other viable broadband distribution platforms;
• Affordability and other requirements inconsistent with specific language in the IIJA prohibiting NTIA from '"regulat[ing] the rates charged for broadband service";
• Climate change mandates "not envisioned by Congress" that raise costs; and
• "Buy American" mandates that threaten untimely delays absent "a consistent waiver process."

Senator Thune stepped up his broadband-funding oversight efforts late last year with the release of a letter soliciting input on a wide range of topics, including many of those listed above.

In "Senator Thune's New Broadband Oversight Initiative," a December 2022 post to the FSF Blog, Free State Foundation President Randolph May welcomed the arrival of Senator Thune's oversight letter and wrote that he "couldn't agree more on the need for congressional oversight of the various programs providing funds for broadband."

Mr. May submitted a thorough response, referencing dozens of related FSF scholarly papers, on January 6, 2023.

In prerecorded remarks addressing the FSF Fifteenth Annual Policy Conference on March 28, 2023, Senator Thune emphasized the importance of congressional oversight and highlighted the Free State Foundation's substantive contributions to those efforts:

On rural broadband oversight, as many of you know, Congress has allocated an unprecedented amount of money in federal broadband investments. And there are more than 130 federal broadband programs that are administered by 15 federal agencies. That spiderweb of bureaucracy is exactly why I began an effort last year to ensure there is stringent oversight of how these taxpayer funds are being spent. And I greatly appreciate the Free State Foundation taking the time to provide thoughtful responses to my oversight request.

The other signatories to the letter to NTIA Administrator Davidson are Senators Ted Cruz (TX), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Ted Budd (NC), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Deb Fischer (NE), Eric Schmitt (MO), Dan Sullivan (AK), J.D. Vance (OH), Todd Young (IN), and Roger Wicker (MS). 

New Report Puts a $60B Price Tag on NTIA's Fiber-Broadband Bias

A just-released study commissioned by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) finds that the National Information & Telecommunications Association's (NTIA) departure from the concept of technological neutrality could increase the cost to extend broadband connectivity to those (largely rural) locations as yet unserved by as much as $60 billion.

"Getting to the Broadband Future Efficiently with BEAD Funding," a white paper by MIT's Dr. William Lehr, concludes that:

Ignoring wireless ISPs that use unlicensed spectrum increases the number of unserved locations by over 1.922 million locations, or by almost a third. Those locations are concentrated in rural locations where deploying [Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP)] is extremely costly and much more costly than for fixed wireless alternatives. Requiring that those locations be served by FTTP instead of lower-cost alternative technologies could increase costs by upwards of $30 to $60 billion depending on the distribution of fiber deployment costs for the unserved locations.

Free State Foundation scholars write regularly about the importance of technological neutrality. For example, in his response to Senator John Thune's December 2022 broadband oversight letter, FSF President Randolph J. May pointed out that "[t]he value of a technology-neutral approach to government-subsidy eligibility is that it maximizes the pool of potential applicants. Just as additional entrants in a competitive marketplace can generate greater efficiency, better quality, increased innovation, and lower prices, so, too, can additional applicants make the best use of grant money."

Consequently, Mr. May criticized NTIA's rules for the $42.45 Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program because they (1) "embody a blind preference for fiber broadband networks," and (2) "exclude by name proven solutions – specifically, satellite-based services and offerings that rely exclusively upon unlicensed spectrum – despite their potential ability in some circumstances to deliver 'broadband' … most efficiently to a specific area."

And in "Senators Urge NTIA to Acknowledge Role of Broadband via Unlicensed Spectrum," a December 2022 post to the FSF Blog describing a letter from seven Republican Senators urging NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson "to continue working to advance broadband deployment in rural states and unserved areas by remaining technology neutral and creating rules and funding opportunities that allow all forms of broadband technology to compete," I explained that:

With respect to any given location, its unique features (population density, geographic features, and so on) can favor certain different distribution platforms –including fiber, cable, DSL, 5G, satellite, and fixed wireless – over others. Such factors influence investment choices in the competitive broadband marketplace, and government-led efforts to extend broadband infrastructure to areas still unserved ought to encourage similarly efficient and informed decisionmaking by subsidy recipients.

Senators Urge NTIA to Acknowledge Role of Broadband via Unlicensed Spectrum

Seven Senators representing states with significant rural populations recently expressed their concerns regarding the exclusion of offerings operating solely within unlicensed spectrum from the definition of "Reliable Broadband Service" adopted by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in connection with its $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program.

In a letter dated November 22, 2022, Senators Steve Daines (R-MT), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Barrasso, M.D. (R-WY), Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and John Cornyn (R-TX) urged Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson "to continue working to advance broadband deployment in rural states and unserved areas by remaining technology neutral and creating rules and funding opportunities that allow all forms of broadband technology to compete."

NTIA's Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the BEAD Program defines "Reliable Broadband Service" in relevant part as "broadband service that … is accessible to a location via … terrestrial fixed wireless technology utilizing entirely licensed spectrum or using a hybrid of licensed and unlicensed spectrum." Conspicuously absent from this list is broadband delivered exclusively by means of unlicensed spectrum.

According to the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), as of July 2020 its members delivered broadband over unlicensed spectrum "to approximately nine million Americans, business, anchor institutions and first responders." As a practical matter, fixed wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) are particularly well suited to "serving the hardest to reach, unserved areas of rural America."

Free State Foundation scholars long have argued that broadband infrastructure subsidy programs should embrace the concept of technological neutrality. For example, in a June 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, FSF President Randolph May and I took issue with President Biden's proposal to "future proof" government-subsidized broadband infrastructure, which we interpreted as an intention to favor blindly fiber over other proven solutions:

Should the Biden Broadband Plan make available massive subsidies solely to one modality – fiber – under the meaningless guise of "future proofing," it will discourage continued private investment in otherwise viable alternatives and undermine the competition given birth by a longstanding adherence to the principle of technological neutrality.

With respect to any given location, its unique features (population density, geographic features, and so on) can favor certain different distribution platforms –including fiber, cable, DSL, 5G, satellite, and fixed wireless – over others. Such factors influence investment choices in the competitive broadband marketplace, and government-led efforts to extend broadband infrastructure to areas still unserved ought to encourage similarly efficient and informed decisionmaking by subsidy recipients.

As it stands, however, the BEAD Program's definition of "Reliable Broadband Service" renders ineligible for subsidies WISPs exclusively utilizing unlicensed spectrum, thereby constraining artificially the pool of potential applicants.

In addition, and as the Senators highlighted in their letter, the exclusion "runs the risk of wasting billions of taxpayer dollars by duplicating services in areas that already have access to speeds well above 25/3 Mbps, 100/20 Mbps or even higher, instead of prioritizing rural communities that are truly unserved."

A True Assessment of the USF's Future Relevance Demands a Full Accounting of Broadband Subsidies

In a Perspectives from FSF Scholars published last Friday, Free State Foundation President Randolph May expressed his disappointment that the FCC's Report on the Future of the Universal Service Fund (Report) did not "go further than it did … in articulating a likely 'end state' for the USF's High Cost Fund."

As the Report does acknowledge, Congress has earmarked "billions" for broadband, an "unprecedented amount." However, it does not follow that money to its logical and inevitable conclusion: a near-term reality in which every location in America has access to a broadband connection – and in which the High Cost Fund therefore is no longer needed. And it exacerbates that lapse by failing to acknowledge nearly $9 billion in Department of Treasury subsidy grants publicized prior to the Report's adoption. The Report's failure to account for all of the known sources of federal funds necessarily casts doubt on its conclusions as to the future relevance and need for the agency's existing universal service programs, especially the High Cost Fund.

Over the last several years, Congress has passed multiple pieces of legislation allocating to multiple federal agencies historic amounts of government subsidies for the construction of high-speed Internet networks. Some of those appropriations provide specific dollar amounts. The most obvious example of this is the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which included $65 billion, $46.45 billion of which targets broadband infrastructure construction via NTIA's Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program and Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program.

As I noted in a March 2022 Perspectives, however, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) created two separate grant programs administered by the Department of Treasury, the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) and the Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund (CPF), that combined make available a whopping $360 billion – some of which will be used for broadband. That uncertainty demands real-time accounting and close interagency coordination, a point that Mr. May and I emphasized in comments recently submitted to the FCC.

Arguably the best way to define the "end state" for the High Cost Fund, which subsidizes the construction and maintenance of broadband infrastructure in rural areas, is in terms of dollars. That is, the actual amount of money needed to extend broadband infrastructure to every location in the U.S. currently unserved. Generally speaking, the moment when federal subsidies reach that specific financial target is the moment when the goal of the High Cost Fund has been achieved.

Regrettably, the Report does not include such a number. However, the Biden White House, after first asking for $100 billion, in May 2021 did concede that with $65 billion – that is, the very amount that Congress included in the IIJA – "we can still achieve universal access to affordable high-speed internet."

Whatever that total – and, given inflation, it is conceivable that the final price tag may be higher than $65 billion – the other side of the equation is the cumulative amount of federal money allocated. Given the fact that Treasury has at its disposal far more ARPA money than required to supplement NTIA's BEAD and middle-mile coffers (to say nothing of the countless other federal broadband subsidy programs), it is essential that the FCC coordinate with Treasury, in addition to NTIA and the Department of Agriculture, on a running tally.

To its credit, the Report does reference some non-IIJA sources of federal broadband subsidies. Two examples: the ReConnect Program administered by the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service ($4.8 billion to date) and NTIA's Broadband Infrastructure Program ($288 million).

However, it effectively ignores ARPA's $360 billion – concluding that "we agree with the majority of commenters who caution that the Infrastructure Act will not achieve all of the universal service goals for broadband, and as such, the Commission should not abandon its universal service programs" (emphasis added).

Keep in mind, the relevant statutory language in the IIJA directs the Commission to "submit to Congress a report on the options of the Commission for improving its effectiveness in achieving the universal service goals for broadband in light of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and other legislation that addresses those goals" (emphasis added). As such, the Report's narrow focus on the IIJA not only paints an incomplete picture of progress, it also runs afoul of congressional intent.

To be sure, the Report does point out that "there are billions of dollars more that are available for broadband programs now being implemented by … the Department of Treasury" and that "other recent legislation delivered unprecedented broadband funding to … Treasury." The Commission also commits, appropriately, to "extensive" and "continued close coordination with other agencies" and highlights the interagency agreement among the Commission, USDA, NTIA, and Treasury announced on May 12, 2022.

But prior to the Report's release, the White House and Department of Treasury publicized nearly $9 billion in disbursements from the $350 billion SLFRF Program and the $10 billion CPF – money that the FCC does not even mention in its report. Moreover, that number certainly will increase over time: As Treasury noted in a July 14, 2022, Press Release:

A key priority of the [CPF] is to make funding available for reliable, affordable broadband infrastructure and other digital connectivity technology projects. In addition to the $10 billion provided by the CPF, many governments are using a portion of their State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) toward meeting the Biden-Harris Administration's goal of connecting every American household to affordable, reliable high-speed internet.

A June 2022 Fact Sheet released by the White House proclaims that "[t]he American Rescue Plan has already spent or committed more than $25 billion to invest in affordable high-speed internet and connectivity" – a statement that assumes 100 percent of the CPF's $10 billion will be used for broadband.

Limiting the discussion to those grants in fact made prior to the Report's adoption, however, results in the following list of Administration announcements:

• Per the White House Fact Sheet referenced above, "[e]ven without full reporting in, state and local governments have committed more than $8 billion in investments [from the SLFRF] toward expanding affordable digital connectivity, through construction of affordable and high-speed broadband infrastructure and providing assistance to households for Internet access and digital literacy."
• In a June 2022 Press Release, Treasury announced grants from the CPF to four states to the tune of $582.8 million: Louisiana ($176.7 million), New Hampshire ($50 million), Virginia ($219.8 million), and West Virginia ($136.3 million).
• In addition, that Press Release revealed that, as of July 21, 2022, Treasury had made 72 separate grants from the CPF to 76 different Tribal governments, with each receiving $167,504, for a total of over $12.73 million.
• In a July 14, 2022, Press Release, Treasury announced an additional $356.9 million in awards from the CPF to four states: Kansas ($83.5 million), Maine ($110 million), Maryland ($95 million), and Minnesota ($68.4 million).

All told, Treasury announced $952.43 million in grants from the CPF prior to the Report's adoption. Combining that amount with the "more than $8 billion in investments" out of the SLFRF heralded by the White House results in nearly $9 billion, a substantial step toward the High Cost Fund's "end state" not even mentioned in the Report.

In sum, the Report's failure to account for these receipts inevitably casts doubt on its conclusions as to the future relevance of the USF, especially the High Cost Fund.

Commissioner Carr Praises National Broadband Strategy Bill

In a statement released earlier today, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr welcomed the introduction of bicameral and bipartisan legislation compelling the Biden Administration to create a national broadband strategy – a much-needed development for which he long has advocated.

As I pointed out in a June 2022 post to the FSF Blog, a report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the previous month found that 15 different federal agencies and departments had been tasked with administering upwards of 133 unique broadband funding sources – and cautioned that "[t]his patchwork of programs could lead to wasteful duplication of funding and effort."

I raised a similar concern in March 2022's "Overlapping Broadband Appropriations Demand Agency Coordination: New FCC Maps Can Track Grants, Avert Waste," a Perspectives from FSF Scholars in which the above chart, depicting over $450 billion in potential subsidies overseen by just four agencies and departments (the FCC, NTIA, and Departments of Agriculture and Treasury), originally appeared.

Accordingly, the GAO report recommended that the "Executive Office of the President … develop and implement a national broadband strategy with clear roles, goals, objectives, and performance measures to support better management of fragmented, overlapping federal broadband programs and synchronize coordination efforts."

In a statement released in response, not for the first time Commissioner Carr voiced his concerns regarding this "troubling" state of affairs, concluding that "it appears that the Administration has turned the spigot on full blast and then walked away from the hose" and warning that "[a]s a result, taxpayers are about to get soaked."

For similar reasons, the Free State Foundation argued in comments submitted Monday regarding the effectiveness of the Interagency Broadband Coordination Agreement between the Commission, NTIA, and Department of Agriculture that "it is incumbent upon the Biden Administration to craft a national broadband strategy out of the current chaos."

Introduced by Senators Roger Wicker (R – MS) and Ben Ray Luján (D – NM) and Representatives Tim Walberg (R – MI) and Peter Welch (D – VT), the PLAN for Broadband Act would ensure that that occurs.

As Commissioner Carr's statement explains, "[t]his bipartisan, bicameral legislation would require the President to develop a national strategy to improve the coordination and management of broadband programs, including adopting accountability and performance measures, as well as an implementation plan to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in federal broadband programs."

GAO, FCC's Carr Echo Broadband Funding Coordination Concerns

In a March 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, I (1) called attention to the numerous, overlapping federal initiatives to extend broadband infrastructure to those areas that remain unserved, and (2) underscored the need to coordinate those efforts to ensure that taxpayer dollars are put to good use and the goal of ubiquitous connectivity in fact is achieved.

A recent report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made similar points – and inspired FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, consistent with his comments during the Free State Foundation's Fourteenth Annual Policy Conference, to call for the Biden Administration to "put a national strategy in place to ensure that the federal government delivers on this opportunity to end the digital divide."

In "Overlapping Broadband Appropriations Demand Agency Coordination: New FCC Maps Can Track Grants, Avert Waste," I identified some of the biggest federal broadband subsidy programs, in terms of dollar amounts, and presented (via the chart reproduced below) a theoretical total spend of over $450 billion dollars.

The GAO report, entitled "Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide," identifies "at least 133 funding programs that could support increased broadband access" under the purview of 15 different agencies – and warns that "[t]his patchwork of programs could lead to wasteful duplication of funding and effort."

Accordingly, the report recommends that the "Executive Office of the President … should develop and implement a national broadband strategy with clear roles, goals, objectives, and performance measures to support better management of fragmented, overlapping federal broadband programs and synchronize coordination efforts."

In a Statement dated June 10, 2022, Commissioner Carr marked the release of the GAO report by "sounding the alarm," yet again, "on the troubling lack of oversight and coordination when it comes to the federal government's expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars that Congress appropriated for ending the digital divide."

Contending that "it appears that the Administration has turned the spigot on full blast and then walked away from the hose," Commissioner Carr called for the creation of a national strategy.

As my colleague Seth Cooper highlighted in a May 31, 2022, post to the FSF Blog, Commissioner Carr made similar points during a #FSFConf14 panel moderated by Mr. Cooper.

Among other things, Commissioner Carr noted that, by his count, ten times the amount needed to connect every American – $80 billion – has been appropriated, but absent improved interagency coordination, he remains "very concerned that we're going to flash forward a couple of years, the $800 billion dollars is going to gone and we're still going to have a significant portion of the digital divide that we didn't close."

Congress Disavows USDA's Misguided Favoritism of Municipal Broadband

Congress disapproved of the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) favoritism for municipal broadband in a nonbinding directive attached to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 passed last week. That nonbinding directive, which appears within a Joint Explanatory Statement, "encourages the Secretary to eliminate or revise the awarding of extra points…" to municipal broadband networks applying for ReConnect program deployment subsidies.

If followed, this nonbinding directive would improve the likelihood that ReConnect funds flow to states based on true need for broadband service rather than states' conformity to unrelated policy objectives. ReConnect is a multi-billion broadband deployment grant and loan program managed by USDA that generally targets unserved rural areas. Congress tasked ReConnect with distributing $3.15 billion in broadband subsidies over the next few years between the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and appropriations made in 2021.

In response to this cash influx, USDA published "Evaluation Criteria" guidance last year explaining how it will review applications for ReConnect deployment subsidies. This guidance amounts to a points-based system that awards applicants with greater chances of success for meeting standards contained within.

As Free State Foundation Senior Fellow Andrew Long explained in a Perspectives from FSF Scholars, the portion of the Evaluation Criteria awarding 15 extra points for applications submitted by municipal broadband providers exceeds USDA's authority. This criterion intrudes into the FCC's jurisdiction to set communications policy "in the face of conflicting congressional intent" and should be repealed. And USDA didn't adhere to Administrative Procedure Act notice and comment requirements while adopting the municipal favoritism criterion, which foreclosed potential for public comment on whether USDA has authority to adopt such a criterion in the first place.

Further, the municipal favoritism criterion biases ReConnect funds to flow to states that lack prohibitions on municipal broadband, irrespective of actual need for broadband infrastructure, because only municipal applicants within those states will be eligible for these 15 extra points. This is an ill-advised policy choice. As Andrew Long explained in another Perspectives from FSF Scholars, municipal networks are often economic failures that cannot achieve financial viability, explaining why many states prohibit them. So biasing ReConnect funds in favor of municipal networks will reduce ReConnect's effectiveness for narrowing the digital divide.

Now, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, Congress appears to agree. This law added nearly $550 million additional funds to ReConnect and other smaller broadband programs at USDA, and it included a nonbinding directive that disavows the Evaluation Criteria's municipal favoritism:

"In addition, the agreement encourages the Secretary to eliminate or revise the awarding of extra points under the ReConnect program to applicants from States without restrictions on broadband delivery by utilities service providers in order to ensure this criterion is not a determining factor for funding awards."

This disavowal should be unsurprising because Congress rejected similar municipal favoritism in the IIJA. Of course, nonbinding directives are, indeed, nonbinding, and amount to legislative history, which is disfavored and cannot substitute for the plain text of the law. But Congress's disavowal of municipal broadband favoritism is at least notable because no law authorizes the Department of Agriculture authority to set Communications Policy in the first place.

Also, a separate nonbinding directive in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022's Joint Explanatory Statement encourages the Secretary of Agriculture to follow notice and comment rulemaking for "all program administration and activities" regarding ReConnect.

It will be interesting to see if the Secretary of Agriculture heeds Congress's wise advice to stop favoring often failed municipal networks for subsidized support.