Setting the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold for BEAD

Over the last 18 months, there’s been a lot of discussion about whether National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) struck the right balance in urging states to extend fiber as far as possible when implementing the $40+ billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. With all due respect to those who are passionate about their respective point of view—it’s time to step back and take a deep breath.

• It’s highly unlikely that many states will be able to use their BEAD allocation to get fiber 100 percent everywhere. There are a lot of reasons for that, but can we at least agree with that basic point, and move on?
• Congress and NTIA have given the states the responsibility for deciding where to draw the line—which areas are just “too costly” for fiber. The relative mix will vary from state to state, due to a variety of factors, including geography, who’s already in the state, and other rules that each state adopts for BEAD, such as how it defines proposed project areas.
• There will be locations served with other technologies. Fixed wireless and satellite are not excluded from BEAD. There’s a market for other technologies.

A critical tool that will determine the relative mix of fiber and other technologies is where states choose to set their Extreme High Cost Per Location Threshold (EHCPLT or Extremely High Cost Threshold).