With the incoming Trump administration and the ascendance of GOP leaders taking aim at key aspects of broadband expansion initiatives embedded in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, industry insiders expect the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program to likely get a major facelift in the coming months.

GOP Senate leaders have signaled they will push for BEAD to be scaled back or reconfigured.

One way they may do that is to remove the law’s preference for funding fiber network deployments and create a path for subsidizing Musk’s satellite Internet company, arguing that Starlink would be a more cost-effective solution to bring broadband to rural America.

Late last week, in fact, NTIA released its “Final Guidance for BEAD Funding of Alternative Broadband Technology.” And while the updated guidelines still considers fiber deployments as “priority broadband projects,” the agency administering the BEAD program now explicitly says that states can award “LEO Capacity Subgrants.”

Digital inclusion advocates are bracing themselves for an uncertain year ahead.

As the incoming GOP regime takes aim at key aspects of the Digital Equity Act (DEA) and the BEAD (Broadband, Equity, Access, And Deployment) program, those working to bridge the digital divide have more questions than answers just as states are preparing to dole out federal grant money yet to be awarded to grant recipients.

One major question looming over both BEAD and the Digital Equity Act is whether a new Congress can leverage the Congressional Review Act – a tool Congress can use to overturn certain federal agency actions – to undermine the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law behind the national “Internet For All” initiative.

Image

“The Congressional Review Act only applies to things that were adopted in the last six months. I know that there were a number of things the FCC did to make sure that they were done and would be non-reviewable under the CRA and I suspect NTIA did that as well (with BEAD),” former FCC Chief of Staff and now New Street Research policy advisor Blair Levin said during our final Building For Digital Equity (B4DE) livestream of 2024.

States wary about the restrictions and delays with looming federal broadband grants are poised to put significant taxpayer resources into Starlink and other low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations. The problem: such services often aren’t affordable, raise environmental questions, and may struggle to keep pace with consumer capacity demand.

Back in March, Maine unveiled a $5.4 million initiative to offer Starlink Low Earth Orbit (LEO) terminals to 9,000 state residents outside the reach of broadband from existing terrestrial providers.

An estimated 9,000 locations in the state (1.5 percent of residents) have no access to broadband, mostly peppered across rural Oxford, Penobscot, and Aroostook counties.

While well intentioned, the state’s initiative immediately sparked a debate about whether Starlink is the best use of taxpayer resources.

Starlink May Be Part of Solution

LEO satellite broadband has understandable allure for state broadband offices tasked with showing the federal government they have a solution for every premise – household and business – in the state. Depending on geography and state, some of these locations may require $100,000 for a terrestrial wireline connection.

Many of these unserved locations may be inhabited for a few weeks a year by the family of billionaires or 52 weeks a year by a family barely able to afford the fuel to live there. Spending $100,000 on that household may mean tens of other households see no improvement or have to settle for worse technology. And depending on who you ask, NTIA either demands that the state actually connect that household or simply have a feasible plan to achieve that connection.

Now that the election has been settled, many in the broadband space are wondering what, if anything, will change with the incoming Trump administration.

Of course no one has a crystal ball, but there are a number of telecommunication policy developments we will be tracking, which include numerous fronts where there will likely be changes.

What those changes will be exactly will only become apparent sometime next year.

BEAD and DEA

The BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment) program and Digital Equity Act (DEA) programs are at the center of the universe in the national effort to ensure everyone has high-speed access to the Internet.

Image

However, in the run-up to the election, GOP leaders were highly critical of the BEAD program, saying it was taking too long to dispense funds to build new networks, questioned the NTIA favoring the building of fiber networks, and criticized aspects of the effort they consider to be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says it won’t be providing broader relief for broadband operators that have defaulted on grant awards via the agency’s messy and controversial Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) broadband subsidy program.

According to an FCC public notice, the FCC stated it found "no demonstrated need for broad relief" from provider penalties connected to either the RDOF or Connect America Fund II (CAF II) programs. It also shot down calls for a broader amnesty program for defaulters.

“Given the flexibility available under the existing default processes…we decline to provide a blanket amnesty,” the agency’s Wireline Competition Bureau said.

In a letter to the agency last February, a broad coalition of providers and consumer organizations suggested that either reduced penalties – or some sort of amnesty program – might speed up defaults, freeing areas for upcoming broadband infrastructure bill (Broadband Equity Access And Deployment, or BEAD) subsidies.

Image

The group was quick to point out that areas where RDOF and CAF II money has been committed are considered “served” for purposes of BEAD deployments, potentially boxing out many desperate U.S. communities from billions in potential funding.

“Many of the RDOF and CAF II awardees who cannot or will not deploy their networks are located in states with the greatest connectivity needs, like Missouri and Mississippi,” the authors wrote. “The Commission should not permit these unserved rural communities to face this type of double whammy and be left behind once again.”

But in its statement, the FCC insisted that changes to its approach aren’t necessary because, it claims, its existing processes are working.