Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program

Federal broadband expansion efforts aim to ensure that every American household has a reliable and affordable internet connection in order to learn, work and access online services. But even with a fiber connection, many challenges still stand in the way of access to the internet and digital services. Some are unable to afford the necessary devices or internet services. Others lack a high-quality connection or digital literacy skills altogether.

Streamlining permitting efforts is crucial to quickly deploy the high-speed Internet networks needed by families and businesses across the U.S. The impact of the Advisory Council’s action will be felt immediately in our current broadband projects, and will make it easier for future deployments to connect unserved locations across America.

Our journey towards providing Internet for All will only succeed if we are able to quickly build high-speed Internet networks and get people the connections they need for doctor’s visits, distance learning, and applying for jobs. One important way to meet this moment is to streamline permitting reviews.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Chair Sara Bronin announced her approval of the Amended Program Comment for Federal Communications Projects. The amendment was requested by the US Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The purpose of the amendment is to assist federal agencies in efficiently permitting and approving the deployment of wired and wireless next generation technologies of communications infrastructure, including 5G, to connect all communities with reliable, high-speed Internet.

I believe we can’t ignore the history of our industry if we want to avoid the worst of it from happening again. There are a variety of factors that led to the rural mess that created the need for BEAD and other broadband grant programs. I think the downward trajectory started with the divestiture of AT&T into AT&T as a long-distance company and large regional telephone companies. The newly-formed company lobbied hard to be able to make profits over and above the low, but steady profits that could be earned by a regulated utility.

Chris Scharrer, founder and CEO of DCS Technology Design, claims that Mercury Broadband has overstated its ability to provide fixed wireless access (FWA) in 12 Michigan counties on the FCC’s broadband map. And he says this is deterring other providers from competing for Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) grants. Scharrer has mapping data that shows Mercury has claimed it provides practically ubiquitous coverage across 12 counties in Southern Michigan.

There is a tendency to think of high-cost areas—places where it’s expensive to build fiber—as only being in remote places with tough terrain. We’re going to see a lot of other cases of high cost locations that I think are going to surprise State Broadband Grant offices. There are many reasons that drive up the cost of building a landline network. Some places are high-cost by definition. I know of a small town in Arizona that is fifty miles away from the nearest other people.

President Biden is fighting to lower costs for American families and has made lowering costs his top domestic priority.

A large majority of internet service providers seeking BEAD grants will be financing matching funds using loans. Matching funds are the contributions expected from providers—a 75 percent grant means 25 percent in matching funds. Very few providers carry enough cash on hand to consider using equity to pay for broadband expansion. This contrasts significantly with large telephone and cable companies that will be pursuing BEAD grants, most of whom will finance grants using equity. When it comes to financing using equity vs using loans, equity is the clear winner for the provider.

Some State Broadband Offices are taking a stab at social engineering by trying to force BEAD grant winners to offer low broadband rates. I understand the sentiment behind this because everybody in the industry involved with digital equity issues hears stories about homes that can’t afford broadband even when it is available. I know this feels like a broadband office is doing something good, but there are a number of reasons why this is a terrible idea.