Criticizing BEAD

A report from Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) highlights some of the problems and issues of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant program. Sen. Cruz's first criticism of BEAD is that the allocation gives too much funding to places that have good broadband and don’t need the money—like Washington (DC) and Delaware. The report blames this on the Biden administration, but the allocation of the funding to states was specified in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The next big criticism is that the BEAD allocations did not account for other federal money being spent elsewhere for broadband. This criticism is totally accurate. I think it’s ludicrous that the Federal Communications Commission announced a new round of Alternative Connect America Model (ACAM) funding only a few weeks after the BEAD dollars were allocated. Another of Sen. Cruz's criticisms is that the Biden administration bias in favor of fiber is going to mean that there isn’t enough money to go around and that some homes won’t get broadband. However, while the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has a stated preference for fiber, it also balances that off with a mandate to states to make sure that all unserved locations get broadband. A number of states have said they will fund wireless as needed to make sure the grant funding stretches far enough. Ultimately, the report doesn’t mention my number one complaint about BEAD: that the grant rules say that anybody can apply for a grant—but the rules clearly favor giant broadband providers over smaller providers, municipalities, and everybody else.