A $42 billion federal program to provide “internet for all” hit a milestone recently. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration said Nov. 19 it had approved plans from all 56 states and territories outlining how they will use their grant money to ensure no resident is without high-speed internet.
But it’s been a long, bumpy road to get there, with states and territories forced to navigate changing requirements of the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, funded by the bipartisan infrastructure law. So far, no homes have actually been connected, which has made the program a target of critics, including the incoming administration and lawmakers intent on cutting government spending.
Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican who chairs the Senate DOGE caucus, last week cited BEAD among $2 trillion in government spending she says could be axed.
In a letter to billionaire businessmen Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the new leaders of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, Ernst said “it’s time to pull the plug” on that program and several others, including one to build electric vehicle charging stations.
It's not exactly clear how that would be done for BEAD, given that the money for broadband deployment is already being allocated. The agency said states and territories “are taking the next steps to request access to their allocated BEAD funding and select the providers who will build and upgrade the high-speed Internet networks of the future.” NTIA has posted a dashboard to track progress.
Asked how Ernst planned to claw back the funding, a spokesperson said, "the BEAD Program represents the exact waste and inefficacy of government that DOGE will identify and improve. The $42.5 billion has not connected a single person to the internet in three years. Expanding rural broadband access in Iowa is important and Senator Ernst leads legislation to do just that, but throwing billions of dollars and creating bureaucratic hurdles, which BEAD does, is not the way to accomplish that."
Some of the criticism has been focused on NTIA’s initial requirement that alternative technologies, such as unlicensed fixed wireless access and low-earth orbit satellites, would not be eligible. NTIA now appears to be moving toward allowing those technologies for “last mile” access, releasing draft guidance in August that would expand the range of eligible technology.
“Alternative technologies can cost-effectively, rapidly, and reliably go where fiber economically cannot,” Steve Schwerbel, state advocacy manager for WISPA – Broadband Without Boundaries, said in a statement.
Gary BoltonMusk, whose Starlink satellites offer high-speed connections in hard-to-reach areas, has criticized the program in the past, and President-elect Donald Trump said on a podcast during his campaign that “We’re spending a trillion dollars to get cables all over the country, up to upstate areas where you have two farms, and they are spending millions of dollars to have a cable. Elon can do it for nothing.”
But Gary Bolton, CEO of the Fiber Broadband Association, told Fierce Network in June, “I think considering the magnitude of the project and following the statute, things are moving pretty quickly. NTIA has also addressed a lot of concerns.”
Stakeholders such as The National Grange are encouraged by the progress, as deliberate as it has been.
“What we're hearing from the grassroots is things seem to be progressing now,” says Burton Eller, the group’s legislative director. “It takes a long time. We all aren't going to get that fiber laid in the first year. We're looking at a five-year moving target.”
As for what technology should be used, he says, “The Grange has been a strong supporter of all forms of technology that are reasonable and efficient and effective.”
Some states, however, have been frustrated by the time it has taken to roll out the program, which has involved examining Federal Communications Commission maps that may not accurately reflect gaps in high-speed internet in the countryside.
Kara Semmler, the South Dakota Telecommunications Association's executive director, said states do not have flexibility to design a program to use BEAD funds.
“Just because a company checks all boxes in BEAD, does not mean it is best for the job. The state does not have independence in making those decisions. NTIA is looking over [its] shoulder,” she said. She hopes, under the Trump administration, that states will be able to decide which type of technology and company is best.
An arm of the state economic development office called ConnectSD had its initial proposal for a grant of more than $207 million approved by NTIA in August.
“BEAD money has not done much yet and has not gotten out the door,” Semmler said.” It is hard to tell if it will have much impact in rural America.”
Bill Esbeck, the Wisconsin State Telecommunications Association executive director, said BEAD’s preference for fiber except in high-cost areas is appropriate.
“Fiber is the gold standard, but other technologies have their place,” he said. Compared with low earth orbit satellite internet, Esbeck said that fiber is faster, more reliable, has lower latency and is also less susceptible to factors like weather.
Latency is the time it takes to move data from a device to a network server and back.
Wisconsin expects to get slightly more than $1 billion from BEAD. The broadband office of the state Public Service Commission said a final proposal will be sent to the NTIA in July. “The timeline is longer than we would have preferred,” Esbeck said.
He added that some states had to create a new department to get BEAD money, while Wisconsin has had its in place for 10 years.
The BEAD grant process in North Dakota has been adopted by the state information technology office. Carissa Swenson, executive director of the Broadband Association of North Dakota, suggested that cooperative and locally owned broadband companies appear uninterested, since the state is already is 95% served by fiber.
Carissa Swenson, Broadband Association of North Dakota“Almost all of the fiber has been laid without BEAD,” she said. “Our companies have borrowed and built on their own dime.
“Part of our frustration is there is money going to broadband — which is fantastic — but the rules are different depending on which government program.”
Swenson said the NTIA division of the Commerce Department runs BEAD with rules different than the Reconnect program of USDA and the Capital Projects Fund of American Rescue Plan, administered by the Treasury Department, another source of federal broadband funds.
Iowa’s final application for $400 million of BEAD funds is close to being ready, according to Daniel Stalder, broadband advocate for the Iowa Communications Alliance. Its goal is to serve people with low-quality or no internet service.
“We have advocated for and would welcome the paring back of a few of the more burdensome strings recently attached to the federal investment in broadband,” he said.
Part of the criticism of BEAD arises from data from the FCC that 99.97% of homes have access to high-speed internet. But the Biden administration says nearly 25% of Americans lack access to high-speed connections at home “due to high costs, and in certain communities, a lack of necessary infrastructure,” according to Heather Boushey, chief economist of the Biden administration's Investing in America Cabinet.
Eller said he thought the 99.97% figure, which was also cited by the Wall Street Journal in an editorial critical of BEAD that was quoted by Ernst. “It sounds like they're going over off the old map data, the old FCC data,” Eller said.
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.
