Much has been made over the glacial pace at which the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is rolling out its Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. To date, not a dollar of the $42.5 billion program has been put into actual deployment — more than three years after passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA). “BEAD could have been done and dusted by now,” exclaims one frustrated former state broadband official. But it isn’t. “Internet for All” under the current Administration’s plans may be in jeopardy as a result.
Some are now suggesting that an incoming independent commission on government efficiency may cancel BEAD outright, as part of its mission to eradicate redundant, unnecessary and ineffective programs. This, of course, only amplifies concerns about BEAD’s future.
To be sure, criticisms of the program are fair: BEAD was intended to bring broadband service to all — namely, those presently unserved — but NTIA’s technology myopia and quest for “perfection” have proven to be a costly distraction.
Shortcomings aside, however, WISPA believes BEAD can, and should be, reformed. Too many stakeholders — on both sides of the aisle in rural, under-resourced and Tribal parts of America — stand to gain from BEAD’s ultimate success. Eliminating the program would continue to leave those without broadband further behind.
With a new Administration taking office in January, we see a unique and compelling opportunity to reform and refocus BEAD so that it can achieve its goal of connecting the unserved, on budget and on time.
So how can BEAD reach its promise?
Very simply.
The NTIA needs to change its definition of “Reliable Broadband Service” to include unlicensed fixed wireless (FW), opening up what can be employed in BEAD. Doubtless, fiber is a tremendous technology. Indeed, many of our members provide it where it makes economic sense. For communities lacking broadband, however, BEAD’s preference for fiber paints the program into a very expensive corner. Numerous states, including California, have indicated they need more flexibility and choice of technologies to do the job.
Removing 13 words in the BEAD NOFO is all it would take.
More specifically, BEAD defines “Reliable Broadband Service” to be: “(i) fiber-optic technology; (ii) cable modem/ hybrid fiber-coaxial technology; (iii) digital subscriber line (DSL) technology; or (iv) terrestrial fixed wireless technology utilizing entirely licensed spectrum or using a hybrid of licensed and unlicensed spectrum.” Moving the “period” to the left by a mere 13 words (to end after “technology”) instantly activates the cost efficiency, speed-to-deployment, and proven resiliency of FW, and restores tens of billions of dollars to the BEAD program’s effectiveness.
Inexplicably, NTIA has sidelined FW, and especially FW using unlicensed spectrum, without providing any technical explanation.
The FCC’s years-long treatment of FW using unlicensed spectrum clearly refutes that.
Since 2016 the FCC has determined networks using entirely unlicensed spectrum qualify for federally funded broadband deployment. In 2019, the agency concluded that for any location that is (or will be) served by an unlicensed FW network, that technology is more resilient than an aerial fiber network on wooden poles, which is how most fiber is deployed. Finally, in its July 2023 ACAM Order, the FCC explicitly refused to follow BEAD’s approach, which excluded unlicensed FW, in a core component of the Commission’s Universal Service program.
All of this is key because Congress required NTIA to coordinate with the FCC on how to define “Reliable Broadband Service.” Yet NTIA has never explained why it failed to follow the FCC’s precedents that networks using entirely unlicensed spectrum can provide reliable broadband service.
The change would have significant, force-multiplying benefits: getting more Americans online quicker and at less cost; providing states with greater flexibility and choices to use the right tool for the job; reducing wasteful overbuilding; and promoting the very local players who are already satisfying the communities in which they work and live.
FW using unlicensed spectrum is one of the most cost-effective and resilient endpoint delivery technologies for broadband. Millions of Americans, living in the very types of areas BEAD seeks to connect, already use FW to live better, safer and more prosperous lives.
WISPA thinks the IIJA got a lot right. It’s time to realign the BEAD program and its budget, and achieve our national mission of serving the unserved, now. Can we fix BEAD? Yes, move a period!
