BEAD Has Not Connected a Single Home for Broadband Interenet Access, After 3 Years

As an observer of the follies of government ineffectiveness, we note that the U.S. Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program was enacted in November 2021 and allocated $42.45 billion to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to work on the “digital divide” by facilitating access to affordable, reliable, high-speed internet throughout the United States, with a particular focus on communities of color, lower-income areas, and rural areas.

As of November 2024 not a single dollar has been spent in support of the program, for a variety of perhaps simple bureaucratic reasons. 

The program's implementation has been slowed by a complex approval process. States were required to submit Initial Proposals outlining their broadband deployment objectives. 

As of June 2024, only 15 states and territories had received approval. States have 365 days after approval to select projects and submit a final list to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for review.

As you might imagine, all that has caused delays. 

Also, the NTIA had to wait for the FCC to release an updated national broadband map before allocating funds to states.

There have been other issues as well. The Virginia proposal has been delayed over affordability requirements and rate-setting. The program also has provisions related to accessibility, union participation, and climate impact, which have not helped speed things up. 

.

High interest rates and tight financing conditions have made it more difficult for broadband providers to secure funding for projects, even when approved. 

The result is that funding isn't expected to start reaching projects until 2025 at the earliest. .

Some might argue the program’s design was not optimal for rapid funds disbursal.

Some might argue it would have been far simpler to route money directly to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) based on their proven ability to deploy networks quickly in underserved areas. 

Competitive bidding could have been used. The program could have specified uniform national standards for broadband deployment to replace the current patchwork of state-specific and local requirements. 

The program could have been “technology neutral” instead of mandating use of some platforms over others, and might have used a simpler application and reporting system, in place of the cumbersome existing framework. 

The larger point is that the law arguably was poorly designed, in terms of its implementation framework. The fastest way to create infrastructure might have been to give buying power to potential customers, as did the Affordable Connectivity Program, or make direct grants to ISPs in position to build almost immediately. 

And since rural connectivity was deemed important, it might have been wise not to exclude satellite access platforms. 

It was a good impulse to “want to help solve this problem.” But intentions also must be matched by policy frameworks that are efficient and effective, getting facilities depl;oyed to those who need them fast. BEAD has not done so.