Federal Program to Close Internet Gap Imperiled by Fiber Optic Preference

A report released by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) has found that a federal program aimed at bridging the gap between internet haves and have-nots is being hindered by a preference for fiber-optic broadband delivery. The report, which was released on Tuesday, argues that the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program is financially imperiled by this preference.

The Problem with Fiber Optic

The ITIF report maintains that the BEAD program is being unfairly biased towards fiber-optic cables, which are expensive and not always the most viable option for rural and remote areas. The report suggests that low-Earth-orbiting (LEO) satellites could provide the same service for less cost.

A Technology-Neutral Approach

The ITIF is calling on the Trump administration to reform the BEAD program to adopt a technology-neutral approach to broadband deployment. This would allow for the use of a variety of technologies, including satellites and fixed wireless networks, to provide high-speed internet access to underserved communities.

The Cost of Fiber

The ITIF report notes that the BEAD program was initially funded to the tune of $42.45 billion, but that the preference for fiber-optic cables has driven up costs. The report argues that a technology-neutral approach would save money that could be better spent on other causes of the digital divide.

The Need for Flexibility

ITIF Director of Spectrum and Broadband Policy Joe Kane emphasized the need for flexibility in broadband deployment. "We don’t really need to be putting fiber everywhere if there are viable satellite and fixed wireless options," he said.

The Impact of Politics

The ITIF report also highlights the impact of politics on the BEAD program. John Strand of Strand Consulting, an advisory firm based in Denmark, argues that the NTIA should not have been charged with administering the program, as it was always intended to be a bipartisan effort. Strand contends that the NTIA’s preference for fiber-optic cables was driven by political considerations, including the influence of unions and the Democratic Party.

Climate and DEI Requirements

Strand also notes that the BEAD program includes climate and DEI requirements, which were not welcome in red states. He argues that these requirements have slowed down the administration of the program and have made it more difficult to achieve its goals.

A New Direction

Strand predicts that the new head of the NTIA, Arielle Roth, will either kill the BEAD program or remake it into something more practical and less politicized. He believes that a technology-neutral approach would be a more effective way to address the digital divide and provide high-speed internet access to underserved communities.

Tech Overruns Guidance

The BEAD program was passed three years ago and was initially funded to the tune of $42.45 billion. The program aimed to help communities overcome the barrier of high front-end broadband deployment costs and get high-speed internet service to every American who wanted it.

Fouled in Politics

The ITIF report highlights the challenges faced by the BEAD program, including the need for a technology-neutral approach and the impact of politics on the program’s administration. The report argues that a more flexible and bipartisan approach would be more effective in addressing the digital divide and providing high-speed internet access to underserved communities.

Conclusion

The ITIF report highlights the need for a more flexible and technology-neutral approach to broadband deployment. By adopting a more bipartisan approach and considering a variety of technologies, the BEAD program can be more effective in addressing the digital divide and providing high-speed internet access to underserved communities.