NTIA Release of More BEAD Money Properly Targets Deployment

For several months the telecommunications world has speculated on the future of the Broadband, Equity, and Access Deployment Program (BEAD). Congress created the program as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act with the purpose of extending broadband coverage to all underserved and unserved communities. Program changes by the Trump Administration reduced expected spending by $21 billion. Since then, the broadband community has been waiting to see whether this money would be spent and for what purposes. Now, commendably, it is good to see that the first guidance on additional spending goes right to the heart of BEAD’s purpose.

On September 3, NTIA issued guidance regarding how some of the money will be allocated. Briefly, the funds will be available for a second round of proposals to extend deployment of broadband to all Americans. This is the proper focus.

 

Although the BEAD program was supposed to allocate enough funds to accomplish this goal several months ago, NTIA anticipates three sources of new locations that still require funding. The first are areas that remain unserved due to defaults in other federal and/or state programs. The second are projects that suffered from misreporting by providers. The final source stems from changes to the Federal Communication Commission’s broadband DATA maps since completion of the final proposals. These locations either suffered from misfortune caused by others or, in the case of the DATA maps, were assumed not to exist.

In its Supplemental Deployment Policy Notice NTIA spells out new procedures that Eligible Entities (States, Territories, and the District of Columbia) can follow to request part of the $21 billion to fill in these remaining unserved areas, hopefully completing BEAD’s purpose: to extend broadband service to all areas of the country. NTIA's new Policy Notice builds on BEAD’s original Notice of Funding Opportunity.

Eligible Entities are expected to provide connectivity to all unserved locations within the constraints of the additional funds. However, additional funds are available in extraordinary circumstances.

It is reassuring that the initial plans for spending the Benefit of the Bargain Savings (the $21 billion) will deal directly with BEAD’s main purpose: completing the spread of broadband to all parts of the country. There may need to be further guidance, however, on how many areas NTIA believes still need to be funded or how much it will cost. Some approved projects have already experienced defaults. Inflation, difficulty obtaining state and local permits, and time constraints will likely result in others.

The procedure for allocating additional funding builds on the original round. NTIA will review the DATA maps to ensure their accuracy in locating additional locations to be served. NTIA will then determine an upper limit of funding to serve these new locations. This amount will be based on the average cost of serving a location and the additional unserved locations. NTIA states that other uses of BEAD will be addressed in subsequent guidance.

NTIA's "Call to Action" on 6G

Last week, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration issued a “Call to Action for 6G Leadership and Security.” So far 24 other countries, including all of our major strategic allies, have already agreed to participate. The timing is great. 6G technology is often portrayed as the Holy Grail of future technology, and there is a growing realization that AI depends on advanced telecommunications networks like 6G.

Policies relating to 6G technology are extremely important and NTIA's "Call to Action" under Administrator Arielle Roth's leadership displays all the right motivations and intentions. However, without the proper policy commitments and implementation, the effort may not be as successful as we would hope it to be.

Veterans of policymaking know that words are less important than intentions, which in turn are less important than resources. What is the depth of Congressional interest in 6G technology? Compromises will be needed there. Is the Administration willing to devote the necessary time and resources to get ahead of issues? Several points strengthen the Administration’s chances. First is the growing interest in both 6G and AI. Second is a better appreciation of both the economic and strategic aspects of next generation computing. The early support of allies is also encouraging. Finally, the 27th World Radiocommunication Conference in Shanghai during the fall of 2027 gives the Administration a hard deadline for making progress.

The "Call to Action" correctly emphasizes the importance of collective action. The U.S. and Europe have had long battles over the taxation of technology firms, data collection and storage, and the Digital Markets Act. To get significant allied agreement, the Administration needs to show a long-term commitment to achieving a united front.

The document also points out the critical role of the private sector. The draft timetable mentions many opportunities to involve private stakeholders in policy negotiations. This will be extremely important provided the negotiators are guided by the public interest. Partnerships with private parties are valuable because they often have more detailed knowledge than government officials and because their active involvement in carrying out any strategy is vital. Any successful advancement on 6G will require significant investment by private companies, which in turn depends on the wisdom of policy and the ability to start and complete projects quickly.

The "Call to Action" promises a “bias toward action.” That should provide the guidance necessary to encourage cooperation by the private sector without curtailing competition between different technologies. It also requires tradeoffs. The "Call to Action" contains an ambitious schedule of action.

All great accomplishments start with little more than an idea and intention. The "Call to Action" focuses on an issue vital to America’s economic and security strength, not to mention its tremendous value to individuals. In the right circumstances, significant progress can sometimes be made in a short period of time. Let’s hope that is the case here.

Adminstrator Roth Discusses NTIA's Plans for the 2.7 GHz Spectrum Band

During the June 4 celebration of the Free State Foundation’s 20^th anniversary, Arielle Roth, currently the Administrator for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), participated in a keynote conversation with former FCC Commissioner and Free State Foundation Adjunct Senior Fellow Michael O’Rielly. Administrator Roth used the occasion to discuss the Administration’s plans for auctioning the 2.7 GHz band of spectrum.

 

NTIA is under a congressional directive to release 500 Megahertz of federal spectrum to be reallocated for commercial licensed use. “The work is on us to get it done in a timely manner and we hope to meet or hopefully exceed our deadlines and targets,” said Administrator Roth.

The Administration is working on the 2.7 GHz band. NTIA “fully agrees” that this band should be devoted to commercial licensed use. A tech panel consisting of the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Communications Commission, and NTIA recently signed off on spectrum relocation funds so that the incumbent leadership can perform the engineering studies needed to transfer control.

These efforts are currently in the middle of a statutory waiting period of 60 days for notifying Congress of the recommended transfer. This period ends June 30^th after which NTIA can use spectrum relocation funds to conduct the engineering work so that the spectrum can be identified and hopefully auctioned as soon as possible.

Administrator Roth's remarks regarding the progress in getting spectrum in the 2.7 GHz band transferred for private sector commercial use are encouraging.

 

Revised BEAD Program Connects its First Location

On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act – that is, the legislation that created the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD Program – was signed into law. On May 14, 2026, 1,641 days later, BEAD Program funding at long last enabled the connection of its very location.

Of course, millions more locations are expected to come online in the coming weeks, months, and years.

In remarks offered on location in Ogallala, Nebraska, NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth highlighted the expediting impact of the "Benefit of the Bargain" revisions adopted last year. She also discussed changes designed to reinstate Congress' technologically neutral intent. In that regard, she noted that "[i]t's not an accident that this connection here in Ogallala is from an unlicensed fixed wireless provider."

Finally, a reminder: Ms. Roth will be a keynote speaker at the Free State Foundation's Twentieth Anniversary Celebration on Thursday, June 4, from 11:45am to 3pm, at the National Press Club. If you haven't already, register here to catch her fireside chat with FSF President Randolph May as well as an impressive lineup of other speakers.

Draft Bill Would Reclaim BEAD Program Nondeployment Funds

Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) reportedly has drafted legislation that would direct the states to return funds from the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program not specifically used for broadband deployment – a savings estimated to be as high as $20 billion.

The "Recovering Excess Communications Appropriations while Protecting Telecommunications Upgrades, Reinvestment, and Expansion Act" (the RECAPTURE Act), which as of this writing has not yet been introduced, would amend the statute that created the BEAD Program – the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) – to clarify that each state shall "deposit in the general fund of the Treasury, for the sole purpose of deficit reduction," funds beyond those "designated for a specific purpose in the final proposal" approved by NTIA – that is to say, in the wake of the "Benefit of the Bargain" revisions, nondeployment funds.

In "How to 'Spend' Unused BEAD Funding," an October Perspectives from FSF Scholars, former FCC Commissioner and current Free State Foundation Adjunct Senior Fellow Michael O'Rielly – while acknowledging that some state use of BEAD Program funds for non-deployment purposes is "contemplated in the infrastructure law" – recommended two alternative approaches:

• One, given that the national debt is massive and growing rapidly, nondeployment funds should be returned to the U.S. Treasury: "[w]ith the nation facing such widely acknowledged financial difficulties, the thinking by many experts is that this money needs to be reclaimed."

• Two, in light of past grant-recipient performance, at least some of that money should be set aside "to account for the simple fact that not all broadband builds will happen as planned…. [E]xperience suggests that a reserve funding stream could be useful to handle this inevitability."

It is worth noting that others, including Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), have argued that the IIJA allows states to retain any such remaining money. As Senator Wicker wrote in September:

[T]he Trump administration has changed the way these broadband funds will be spent. Because of this, many states' proposals will come in under budget. These states could actually end up with leftover funds from the 2021 broadband legislation. In that law, Congress was clear: States can use this remaining grant money. That policy rewards those who wisely stewarded their deployment funds.

Senator Ernst's draft legislation, should it ultimately become law, would provide a definitive response to this potentially open question.

Relatedly, Senator Ernst announced on November 7 that she is introducing the "Returning Unspent COVID Funds Act," a bill that would "claw back more than $65 billion in unspent COVID funds and return the money to taxpayers." That legislation would target subsidy programs created by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, among others.

NTIA's Roth Targets Net Neutrality, Duplicate Funding

In remarks delivered at the Hudson Institute on October 28, NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth announced implementation changes to the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program regarding two topics of substantial concern for Free State Foundation scholars: (1) the imposition of so-called "net neutrality" obligations, and (2) the possibility of overlapping federal subsidies.

With respect to the former, Roth clarified that state-level net neutrality statutes represent a form of rate regulation inconsistent with statutory language found in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act – "[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" – and therefore may not be applied to BEAD Program subgrantees, not just in subsidized areas, but statewide:

State-level net neutrality rules—itself a form of rate regulation—create a patchwork of conflicting regulations that raise compliance costs and deter investment…. To protect the BEAD investment, we are clarifying that BEAD providers must be protected throughout their service area in a state, while the provider is still within its BEAD period of performance. Specifically, any state receiving BEAD funds must exempt BEAD providers throughout their state footprint, from broadband-specific economic regulations, such as price regulation and net neutrality.

Regarding the latter, Roth announced a straightforward solution to the duplicate-funding risk I have highlighted on many occasions, most recently in "The Failure's in the Footnote: Agencies Must Improve Broadband Expenditure Coordination Efforts," a January 2025 Perspectives from FSF Scholars:

NTIA will require states to have providers certify in writing that they will not require or take additional federal subsidies—including operational subsidies—to complete or operate their BEAD projects…. BEAD was designed to close broadband gaps once and for all, not create another cycle of dependency. Congress envisioned "future-proof" networks that would stand on their own, not require permanent federal subsidies or future bailouts.

These changes are of a piece with other action Roth has taken to realign the BEAD Program with congressional intent, as well as ongoing efforts to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

Video of Roth's remarks can be found here.

Colorado's Plan Provides Useful BEAD Insights

 In today's Policyband, Ted Hearn provides some figures regarding Colorado's revised BEAD proposal that are useful in suggesting key policy insights.

This from Policyband: 

"Amazon’s Project Kuiper and SpaceX’s Starlink were tentatively awarded about half of the roughly 90,000 homes and buildings with either no service or speeds below 100/20 megabits per second. Fiber providers captured 48% of the locations, while fixed wireless accounted for 2%. Colorado awarded $25.3 million to Project Kuiper to serve 42,252 locations – about 47% of all locations – at about $600 per location, while Starlink received $9.1 million to serve 5,400 locations – about 6% of all locations – at about $1,700 per location."

 

And then here's the kicker:

 

"Because fiber deployment come with high per-locations costs, Colorado awarded 91% of its BEAD funds to fiber Internet Service Providers (ISPs)."

                                                     

The cost difference between providing broadband service via satellite and fiber is significant. Under the Biden administration BEAD plan, Colorado was to receive about $826 million in federal funds, whereas under the reworked Trump administration guidelines, Colorado said it would connect all eligible locations for a cost of $409 million. The $417 million in savings to the governments is not peanuts.

 

So, the Trump administration's abandonment of Biden's "fiber at all costs" policy makes sense, including for America's taxpayers. And it's consistent with Congress's intent in the Infrastructure Act that the BEAD program be technology-neutral.

 

Of course, it matters whether the satellite providers can actually deliver broadband service at the specified 100/20 megabits per second requirement and whether Amazon's Project Kuiper can actually get its satellites up and running in time to meet its commitments in this regard. Apparently, Colorado thinks both contingencies can be met or it would have proposed a different plan.

 

And I have a lot of confidence that new NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth, who has been on top of observing implementation of the BEAD program for years as the key telecom aide to Senator Ted Cruz, will ensure that NTIA administers the program efficiently and effectively. 

 

BTW, if you are not subscribing to Policyband, you should. Always useful information intelligently presented – and often with a bit of wit.

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 Committee Advances New Bill to Reauthorize and Strengthen NTIA

On April 11, the House Commerce Committee voted to approve the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act of 2025 – HR 2482, a bill introduced on March 31 by Representatives Bob Matsui and Doris Matsui. The bill would reauthorize the NTIA for the first time in over 30 years. Additionally, HR 2482 would elevate the position of NTIA Administrator from a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Commerce Department to a Deputy Under Secretary.  

Elevating the position of NTIA Administrator likely would give the officer more clout in undertaking important agency functions, such as coordinating spectrum use and planning among executive branch agencies. Federal government agencies occupy a significant amount of spectrum. Stronger leadership at NTIA could help further a more effective interagency spectrum coordination process for repurposing some of that spectrum for private commercial use. 

 

As recounted in a blog post from July 31, 2023, the House Commerce Committee passed an earlier version of the NTIA Reauthorization Act during the 118th Congress. The prompt passage of HR 2482 in the 119th Congress indicates that this bi-partisan legislation could become law this year. 

 

Credit is due to Reps. Latta and Matsui for their persistence on the NTIA Reauthorization Act. HR 2482 deserves a timely vote by the House of Representatives.   

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 Passes Bills to Improve Broadband Infrastructure Siting on Federal Property

On December 16, the U.S. House of Representatives, by voice votes, passed the Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Act (H.R. 3293) and the Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act (H.R. 3343). Both bills are now in the Senate. Although there do not appear to be any companion bills in the House, perhaps the unanimous passage in the House will prompt the final passage of both measures by the end of the 118th Congress or early in the 119th Congress.  

My May 30, 2023, blog post noted the unanimous passage of both bills by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That post summarized H.R. 3293 and H.R. 3343:

The Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Reviews Act [H.R. 3293] would authorize the NTIA to establish an interagency "strike force" to ensure that each Federal land management agency "prioritizes the review of requests for communications use authorizations." The strike force would conduct periodic calls among those agencies and monitor their progress. And within 270 days after the Act becomes law, the NTIA would be required to submit to Congress a report on "the effectiveness of the strike force in ensuring that Federal land management agencies prioritize reviews of requests for communications use authorizations. 

 

The Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act [H.R. 3343] would require the NTIA to submit to Congress a plan for the agency to track requests for communications use authorizations on federal property and provide transparency to applications regarding the status of their applications. 

The FCC has long recognized that slow and cumbersome permitting processes can be a major impediment to market entry for communications services, and broadband Internet service providers frequently identify delays and costs associated with obtaining approvals to construct infrastructure on rights-of-way and government property as an impediment to timely and efficient network deployment. If passed into law, H.R. 3293 and H.R. 3343 could help streamline permit approvals and help prevent avoidable delays for infrastructure construction and major upgrades on federal property. Credit is due to the House for passing the bills. Hopefully, the Senate will give H.R. 3293 and H.R. 3343 prompt consideration.

Maine Satellite Plan Casts Doubt on BEAD Program Approach

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?

Despite their marketplace-proven ability, technologically speaking, to deliver the speeds that consumers demand – and that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the statute that created the BEAD Program, specifies – from day one NTIA has discouraged the use of BEAD Program subsidies to deploy non-fiber broadband distribution platforms.

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.

TMT with Mike O'Rielly - Ep 9: FCC Regulations and NTIA BEAD Burdens

Episode 9 of "TMT with Mike O'Rielly," a videocast featuring former FCC Commissioner and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Free State Foundation Michael O'Rielly, was released on July 30. In this episode, titled "FCC Regulations and NTIA BEAD Burdens," Mr. O'Rielly is joined by guest Grant Spellmeyer, President and CEO of ACA Connects. Their conversation also includes FCC matters and issues such as public utility regulation of broadband as well as the video services market. 

ACA Connects is a member association of independent broadband, video, and communications providers. 

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.

NTIA Spectrum Strategy Implementation Plan Announced at FSF Policy Conference

At Free State Foundation's 16th Annual Policy Conference held on March 12, the NTIA's Senior Spectrum Advisor Scott Blake Harris announced the release of the its National Spectrum Strategy Implementation Plan.

The Plan and an accompanying press release briefly summarizing it are available at the NTIA's website. Video of Mr. Blake's keynote address is available online. If Mr. Blake's prepared remarks at FSF's Annual Policy Conference become available, we will post them. FSF appreciates Mr. Blake's appearance at the Conference.

 

On January 2 of this year, FSF President Randolph May and Senior Fellow Andrew Long filed comments with the NTIA on the implementation of the National Spectrum Strategy. In those comments, FSF President May and Mr. Long emphasized the crisis of the empty spectrum pipeline and the need to take action to repurpose mid-band spectrum for commercial use. Stay tuned for more from FSF Scholars on the NTIA's Implementation Plan, spectrum policy, and the 17th Annual Policy Conference.
 

(*This post was updated on 3/15/2024 with information and links to the video of Mr. Blake's address at #FSFConf16.)

Report Shows U.S. Needs to Allocate and Harmonize More Mid-Spectrum for Wireless Use

On February 7, CTIA released a report by Accenture titled "Advancing U.S. Wireless Excellence – The Case for Global Spectrum Harmonization." The report itself is excellent in describing both the economic benefits of allocating mid-band spectrum for commercial wireless use and the benefits of harmonizing U.S. spectrum allocations in the mid-band range with other nations. 

But to reap those benefits, the U.S. needs to maintain its leading role by making more mid-band spectrum available. In its report, Accenture found that, as of 2023, the five leading countries in mid-band spectrum availability dedicated an average of 652 MHz to commercial wireless use. But the U.S. faced a 202 MHz mid-band spectrum deficit compared to those nations. Accenture projects that in the year 2027, the five leading nations will dedicate an average of 970 MHz of mid-band spectrum to commercial wireless use. But due to the lack of spectrum in the pipeline in the U.S., our nation's spectrum deficit will grow to 520 MHz in 2027.

 

Accenture identifies the 3.3-3.45 GHz band, the 4.4-4.94 GHz band, and the 7.125-8.5 GHz band as ideal for commercial use and global spectrum harmonization. As explained in the report, spectrum harmonization could benefit U.S. consumers and businesses to the tune of tens of billions of dollars: 

Spectrum harmonization can standardize network equipment and wireless device production, resulting in less market variation in radio requirements for these technologies. With more harmonization, fewer variations of network radios and wireless devices must be produced, and complex devices that support a wide range of frequencies can be simplified. These efficiencies result in cost savings for end users and drive additional downstream benefits (e.g., accelerated network deployment, earlier adoption of industry use cases, etc.) unlocking approximately $23B-$44B in value for industry and consumers over the next 10 years. Additionally, harmonization will improve network performance through minimized downtime, reduced interference, and better roaming.

And the Accenture report estimates that the overall economic benefits of industry expansion, innovation, and job creation from future U.S. leadership in a more harmonized wireless ecosystem total between $125 billion and $155 billion over a decade. 

But the U.S. will miss out if it fails to promptly replenish the spectrum pipeline with mid-band spectrum for licensed commercial wireless use. On January 2 of this year, Free State Foundation Randolph May and Senior Fellow Andrew Long submitted public comments to the NTIA regarding the agency's implementation of the National Spectrum Strategy. As explained in FSF's comments, although the NTIA's November 13, 2023 Strategy identifies 2,786 MHz of spectrum for study, that is no guarantee that a single megahertz actually will be dedicated for commercial wireless use and the Strategy "fails to tackle the difficult work necessary to rationally balance government and commercial demands for this high-value, limited resource." FSF's comments conclude: "The reality… is that NTIA must embrace the challenging work required to identify – and in fact repurpose – government-held spectrum that would better serve our nation's interests were it put to commercial use, whether on a licensed or unlicensed basis. And do so in a timely manner." 

For more, see my November 2023 blog post, "NTIA Releases National Spectrum Strategy, But Pipeline Remains Empty."

Press Release: FSF Comments – Implementation of the National Spectrum Strategy

On January 2, 2024, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and Senior Fellow Andrew Long filed comments in response to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Notice of Opportunity for Public Input on the Implementation of the National Spectrum Strategy.

Below are the first three paragraphs and the concluding paragraph of FSF's Comments:

These comments are submitted by the Free State Foundation (FSF) to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in response to its Notice of Opportunity for Public Input (Notice) on the National Spectrum Strategy (Strategy) dated November 13, 2023. Simply put, the Strategy fails to tackle the difficult work necessary to rationally balance government and commercial demands for this high-value, limited resource. Consequently, while the headline – "this Strategy identifies five spectrum bands totaling 2,786 megahertz of spectrum for in-depth, near-term study to determine suitability for potential repurposing to address the nation's ever-evolving needs" (emphasis added) – at first glance may appear to represent real progress, the bottom line is that there is no guarantee that a single megahertz of that total will be repurposed. While making available sufficient unlicensed spectrum is an important objective, what is perhaps immediately concerning is the fact that the Strategy fails to identify sufficient mid-band spectrum that could be licensed on an exclusive basis, thereby jeopardizing our nation's ability to compete effectively in the global race to 5G.

It has been nearly ten months since NTIA requested comments from the public "on the development and implementation of a National Spectrum Strategy for the United States." In the interim, no new spectrum has been added to the pipeline – and Congress has failed to reinstate the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) spectrum auction authority. All told, what was a pressing need in March 2023 is now a crisis.

Commercial applications demand more spectrum without further delay. Domestic mobile carriers require additional licensed capacity, particularly mid-band spectrum, to maintain their economically essential global leadership in the rollout of 5G. And even as substantial amounts of additional unlicensed spectrum have been made available in recent years, consumer demand for Wi-Fi and other unlicensed uses continues to explode. The Notice, and especially the "Memorandum on Modernizing United States Spectrum Policy and Establishing a National Spectrum Strategy" issued contemporaneously by the White House (Spectrum Policy Memorandum), arguably represent an incremental step forward to address these spectrum deficits. However, far bolder and more timely action is needed.

*****

The reality, however, is that NTIA must embrace the challenging work required to identify – and in fact repurpose – government-held spectrum that would better serve our nation's interests were it put to commercial use, whether on a licensed or unlicensed basis. And do so in a timely manner. The Spectrum Policy Memorandum issued by the White House, by establishing hard deadlines and clear processes to resolve interagency disputes, acknowledges the need for decisive action. Unfortunately, the Strategy itself may create the illusion of progress, while merely kicking the can further down the road.

A PDF of the complete set of Free State Foundation Comments, with footnotes, is here.