Tech Mix Key to Saving Ailing Federal Broadband Program: RPT

An emphasis on fiber optic broadband delivery blunts the effectiveness and reach of a federal program designed to close the gap between the Internet haves and have-nots, according to a report released Tuesday. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF).

The Washington, D.C. tech think tank maintains that the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program has been financially harmed by the prioritization of deployment projects using fiber-optic cable.

It has called on the Trump administration to reform BEAD to stop supporting prohibitively expensive fiber when low-Earth-orbiting (LEO) satellites can do the same job at a lower cost.

Taking a technology-neutral approach to broadband deployment would save money that could be better spent on other causes of the digital divide, it argued in its 11-page report.

“We think technology neutrality would make sense from the start, but of course there have been a lot of satellites launched and a lot of fixed wireless deployed since the law was originally adopted,” said ITIF director of Spectrum and broadband policy Joe Ken.

“We don’t need to put fiber everywhere if there are viable satellite and fixed wireless options,” he told TechNewsWorld.

Tech Overruns Guidance

The law creating BEAD was passed three years ago and was funded at US$42.45 billion. The goal of the program was to help overcome high front-end broadband deployment cost barriers and get high-speed Internet service to every American who wanted it.

“(I)t has become clear that technological advances are outpacing the program’s regulatory guidelines,” Kane and research assistant Alice Scherer wrote in the report. “The main problem is that the seed technology is not neutral,” they continued. “The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) designed the program to give a strong preference to using expensive fiber-optic cables. The result is that funding creates more expensive infrastructure than necessary, which will ultimately limit BEAD’s impact in bridging the digital divide.”

NTIA declined to comment for this story.

According to the report, states could save tens of millions of dollars in their deployment efforts if BEAD could better incorporate cheaper and still high-performing technologies such as fixed wireless broadband, such as 5G Internet, and satellite service. Those savings could then be used to address other major causes of the digital divide, including affordability and digital literacy for low-income households, it added.

“A change in administration might be a good turning point to take stock of where we are now,” Kane said. “The satellite ecosystem is very different than when President Biden took office. The same can be said for the fixed wireless ecosystem.”

Underfunded from the start

Jim Dunstan, General Counsel TechFreedomA technology advocacy group in Washington, DC, maintains that BEAD has been underfunded since its inception. “$42.5 billion won’t get broadband to everyone no matter what technology you use,” he told TechNewsWorld.

He added that inflation has increased dramatically since the BED Act was passed. “This makes closing the digital divide even less likely with $42.5 billion,” he said.

Still, he admits, “I think the NTIA really missed the ball by agreeing to fiber.”

Although fiber is expensive, it has advantages, in addition to performance, over satellite technology, resisting Rai MercatilioAssociate Director of Research for the Community Broadband Network Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit organization and advocacy group that provides technical assistance to communities on local solutions for sustainable community development, with offices in Washington, DC, and Portland, Maine. , and Minneapolis.

“Fiber is certainly more expensive to build, but it solves the problem for geometrically longer time horizons than LEO satellite services,” he told TechNewsWorld. “These satellites have to be replaced every five years.”

“The argument that we should build broadband infrastructure in a ‘technology-neutral way’, I think is a recipe for spending tens of thousands of dollars on the same household over and over every five years, rather than running fiber on a massive scale. Most of them and solve the problem once for three or four generations in a row,” he said.

Niche solutions?

Mercatilio contended that satellite Internet was a niche solution for a very small number of rural households. “It works well as a niche solution if you don’t mind shifting the burden of startup and monthly expenses onto the family.”

“The LEO service will work well for a small number of families, and that’s been true from the beginning,” he added. “I think that’s going to be true for a while, but it’s never going to be a mass market solution that we all want it to be.”

“If we handed over $42.5 billion to satellite providers, you could very easily provide broadband to 100% of Americans,” Dunstan claimed. “The problem is, what kind of service can you emit from these satellites?”

He explained that satellite networks claim they can support 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload. “The problem is when you start adding people to the service,” he said. “You’re sharing bandwidth. At some point, even with 6,000 satellites, it’s going to be hard to maintain that speed.”

Kane acknowledges that congestion can be an issue for satellite networks, but is less of a concern for BEAD users. “BEAD is targeting people in rural and remote locations, places where broadband has never been deployed before,” he explained.

“In those places, thousands of people won’t sign up at once,” he continued. “We’re talking about areas that don’t have thousands of people.”

Foul in politics

John Strand of Strand Consulting, an advisory firm focused on global telecoms based in Denmark, argued that NTIA should not have been charged with managing the program. “It was political from the beginning,” he told TechNewsWorld. “The FCC should have been in charge. It has experience in disbursement of subsidies and provides bilateral accountability.”

He claimed that BEAD was supposed to be technology-neutral, but NTIA put its thumb on the scale in favor of fiber solutions. “That’s because fiber generally requires more labor. So unions are involved, a Democratic Party constituency,” he said.

“Fiber networks also lend themselves to the growing traffic of video entertainment and advertising from big tech and Hollywood platforms, which is helpful to another traditional Dem constituency,” he added.

He also noted that BEAD has climate and DEI requirements, which are not welcome in red states. “NTIA requires funding that Congress did not require,” he added. “It takes longer to manage the program.”

“Wireless technologies are, in general, more cost-effective, but no one network type is always the right solution for every situation,” he explained. “Networks are a mixture of technologies.”

“I expect Ariel Roth to be named head of NTIA and predict that he will either kill BEAD or turn it into something practical, not political or aspirational,” he observed.