A recent report from the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) argues that prioritizing fiber-optic broadband for federal programs is hindering efforts to close the digital divide. According to the ITIF, the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program is financially strained due to its preference for fiber-optic cable deployment projects.
The think tank calls for reform, urging the government to consider more affordable alternatives, such as low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites, which can provide the same service at a fraction of the cost. The report suggests that adopting a technology-neutral approach would free up funds that could be better used to tackle other key digital divide issues, like affordability and digital literacy.
Joe Kane, ITIF’s Director of Spectrum and Broadband Policy, emphasized the need for the program to evolve, noting that significant advancements in satellite and fixed wireless technologies make fiber deployment unnecessary in many areas. “We don’t need to put fiber everywhere when viable satellite and fixed wireless options exist,” Kane stated.
The BEAD program, which was established with a budget of $42.45 billion three years ago, was designed to help underserved communities overcome the high costs of broadband deployment. However, the report argues that the program’s heavy focus on expensive fiber-optic infrastructure limits its overall effectiveness in bridging the digital divide.
Kane and ITIF Research Assistant Ellis Scherer pointed out that the NTIA’s fiber-centric approach unnecessarily inflates costs, and that shifting to more affordable technologies, like fixed wireless and satellite broadband, could save states millions. These savings could then be redirected to address other barriers to broadband adoption, such as affordability for low-income households.
Despite challenges, experts believe that the change in administration could be an opportunity to reassess the program’s approach. The satellite and fixed wireless ecosystems have evolved significantly, with new technologies now offering faster and more affordable options for broadband deployment.
The debate around the BEAD program is also colored by concerns over its funding. Jim Dunstan, general counsel for TechFreedom, believes that BEAD has always been underfunded. He noted that $42.5 billion isn’t sufficient to provide broadband for every American, particularly as inflation has increased since the program’s inception.
While fiber networks have undeniable advantages, such as long-term sustainability, some experts argue that they are an overinvestment in many areas. Ry Marcattilio, an associate director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, pointed out that while fiber requires significant upfront costs, it solves the broadband problem for many years, whereas satellite networks need frequent replacement.
However, some see satellite broadband as a viable niche solution for rural areas, particularly where fiber isn’t cost-effective. Satellite internet services, such as those provided by LEO satellites, can reach isolated communities that would otherwise be left behind. But concerns about bandwidth and service quality remain.
John Strand of Strand Consulting argued that the NTIA should not have been given control over the program, suggesting that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would have been a better fit due to its experience in subsidy distribution. Strand also criticized the NTIA’s apparent bias toward fiber-optic solutions, suggesting political influences played a role in shaping the program’s direction.
In conclusion, the ITIF’s report calls for a reevaluation of the BEAD program’s approach, advocating for greater flexibility in technology selection to maximize the program’s impact on bridging the digital divide.