Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program

The Michigan High Speed Internet Office kicked off its BEAD challenge process this week, and it’s doing everything in its power to scrub the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) map of locations where providers are overstating their coverage. The state is receiving a historic $1.56 billion BEAD funding allocation—the fourth highest in the nation.

Are federal labor protections for broadband workers strong enough, or should state lawmakers intervene to give them a boost? That question is at the heart of a fiery debate raging in Colorado’s state house over a piece of proposed legislation that would codify additional rights for broadband workers. If passed, the bill would mandate that any company using federal or state money for broadband projects of over $500,000 would have to pay workers prevailing wages.

We write in support of your ongoing focus on internet affordability as you work to administer the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program enacted in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.  For years, Democrats and Republicans expressed concern over the digital divide, and the $42 billion investment in the BEAD Program gives us a real opportunity to finally bridge this divide and connect every American to high-speed, reliable, and affordable internet.

When internet service providers are asked about the impediments they encounter for building new fiber networks, they almost always list pole issues at or near to the top of the list. Why are poles of such big concern? Building aerial fiber means putting the fiber on poles. Most poles are owned by electric utilities, although some belong to telephone companies or municipalities. Invariably, some poles have to be replaced in order to add a new fiber line. This mostly occurs when there is not enough space for the nationally required distance between wires.

Lieutenant Gov. Garlin Gilchrist II joined the Michigan High-Speed Internet Office (MIHI) and announced the start of the State Challenge Process, encouraging Michiganders to help identify locations across the state that are eligible for high-speed internet infrastructure expansion through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. Challenges will be accepted March 25 through April 23 through an interactive State Challenge Portal.

In spite of all the public broadband haters, municipalities will be allowed to vie for money from the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program.

Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program Director Evan Feinman spoke to the Elko Daily Free Press about what the BEAD program means for Nevada and how citizens can get involved.

This brief examines how place-based factors—such as education levels, social vulnerability, regional economic strength, and measures of income inequality—influence broadband affordability. These measures reinforce that income is not the only factor policymakers should consider when seeking to understand broadband affordability and adoption challenges.

Pennsylvania will be getting $1.2 billion in Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program rural broadband funding, making it one of the top states in terms of the amount awarded. Telecompetitor spoke with Brandon Carson, executive director of the Pennsylvania Broadband Development Authority, about BEAD and other efforts to make broadband available throughout the state. Pennsylvania aims to deliver service to 236,000 unserved and 52,000 underserved locations.

State Broadband Offices and the BEAD grant process have designed grant rules that put pressure on internet service providers to provide inexpensive rural broadband. But in doing so, I’m not sure that they understand the high prices that rural folks are paying for broadband today. In rural areas I've looked at, most households are paying over $100 a month for broadband. There are state BEAD rules that are trying to force rates down to rates between $50 and $75 per month for gigabit speeds. I find several faults with these rate-setting efforts: