Created as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that President Joe Biden signed into law in November 2021, the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program is supposed to provide $42.45 billion to U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia to help with broadband planning, deployment, mapping, equity, and adoption—all overseen by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
Now nearly three years old, the BEAD program has been beset by red tape and regulatory headaches from the outset. One of the more migraine-inducing provisions has been NTIA’s treatment of so-called “alternative technologies” such as low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites and unlicensed fixed wireless (ULFW).
Late last year, the NTIA took a small step toward relieving the pain by asking for comments on how to loosen the process for alternative technologies to qualify for BEAD grants. In our response, my colleagues and I at the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) recommended that NTIA take a more technology-neutral approach.
NTIA ultimately released its updated guidance at year-end 2024. To call the revised guidance a baby step toward technology neutrality would be an overstatement. Rather, the new guidance continues the agency’s cautious and overly hierarchical approach that risks undermining the program’s goals. While the inclusion of nontraditional technologies like LEO and ULFW is a welcome development, the NTIA’s framework falls short of embracing the much-needed technology-neutral principles essential for efficient and equitable broadband deployment.
A Missed Opportunity for Technological Neutrality
One of the BEAD program’s most promising features is its potential to bring innovative solutions to areas that traditional broadband providers struggle to serve. This is why ICLE’s recommendations emphasized the importance of allowing alternative technologies to compete on equal footing with fiber and other reliable-broadband-service (RBS) projects.
Unfortunately, NTIA’s guidance continues to entrench a rigid hierarchy that prioritizes fiber and relegates alternatives to the status of options of last resort. This preference is both unnecessary and counterproductive, particularly in rural or sparsely populated regions where LEO satellites and ULFW may be the only technologically and economically feasible solutions.
Burdensome Rules for Alternative Technologies
NTIA’s guidance imposes significant burdens on providers of alternative technologies, particularly LEO satellites. The agency requires reimbursement for LEO subgrants to be tied to subscriber counts, a condition that conflates broadband adoption with broadband access. This approach penalizes providers who have invested heavily in infrastructure, but struggle with initial subscription rates due to socioeconomic factors beyond their control.
In contrast, ICLE recommended more flexible reimbursement models, such as compensating providers for maintaining sufficient network capacity or tying funding to certain “milestone” achievements, such as geographic coverage. These adjustments would better reflect the operational realities of satellite networks, which serve wide areas dynamically, rather than through fixed connections.
Similarly, NTIA’s insistence on rigid capacity benchmarks—5 Mbps of simultaneous capacity or 2 TB of monthly usage per-subscriber—ignores the shared nature of LEO and ULFW networks. ICLE argued that these standards are not only unnecessary, but also risk excluding viable solutions that could otherwise meet the program’s goals.
A more practical approach would be to focus on ensuring adequate performance during peak usage periods, aligning funding criteria with user experience rather than arbitrary technical specifications.
The Case for Hybrid Solutions
One glaring omission in NTIA’s guidance is its lack of explicit support for hybrid solutions. Combining technologies like LEO satellites for rapid initial coverage and fiber for long-term capacity could provide cost-effective and scalable options for challenging deployment scenarios. Hybrid approaches that integrate fiber backhaul with fixed-wireless last-mile connections also hold significant promise for areas with dispersed populations.
Explicitly encouraging such strategies would not only unlock innovative deployment models, but would also ensure that BEAD funds are used efficiently. By leveraging the strengths of multiple technologies, NTIA could overcome geographic and economic barriers that single-technology solutions often struggle to address.
Technological Neutrality Could Ensure BEAD’s Success
To fulfill its mission of universal broadband access, NTIA must rethink its approach to alternative technologies. ICLE stands by its recommendations to make BEAD more likely to succeed:
- Eliminate the hierarchical framework: Replace the current technology hierarchy with a truly technology-neutral model that evaluates all proposals based on performance metrics like speed, latency, reliability, and cost-effectiveness.
- Revise reimbursement policies: Adopt flexible funding models for LEO satellites and other alternative technologies that account for their unique operational characteristics. Capacity-based or milestone-driven reimbursement structures would be more appropriate than subscriber-based models.
- Reconsider capacity benchmarks: Align technical requirements with the realities of alternative networks. Focus on peak-usage performance—rather than rigid per-subscriber metrics—to ensure viable solutions aren’t unnecessarily excluded.
- Promote hybrid approaches: Actively encourage states and providers to explore hybrid deployment models that combine the strengths of multiple technologies. This flexibility would foster innovation and maximize the impact of BEAD funding.
Closing the Digital Divide with a Bang-for-the-Buck Approach
The NTIA deserves credit for acknowledging the role of alternative technologies in its BEAD guidance. Its cautious and hierarchical approach does, however, risk leaving many Americans waiting longer for broadband access than necessary. By embracing technological neutrality and adopting more flexible policies, NTIA could ensure that BEAD funds are used to their fullest potential, delivering high-speed internet to areas that lack access.
NTIA should seek to maximize BEAD’s deployment “bang” while simultaneously minimizing the taxpayer “bucks.”