Home » Technology » Tech Mix is the Key to Saving Federal Broadband Program RPT

Tech Mix is the Key to Saving Federal Broadband Program RPT

According to a report published Tuesday by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF).

The Washington, D.C.-based tech think tank argued that the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program (BEAD) is financially endangered by a preference to deploy projects using fiber optic cables.

The Trump administration is being urged to reform BEAD so that it does not favor the expensive fiber when LEO satellites are able to do the job just as well for less.

In its 11-page document, the report argues that a technology neutral approach to broadband deployment could save money which can be spent on other causes for the digital divide.

Joe Kane, Director of Spectrum and Broadband Policy at the ITIF, said: “We believe tech neutrality was a good idea from the start, but in the years that have passed since the law’s adoption, there have been many satellites launched and many fixed wireless deployments.”

“We don’t need to put fiber everywhere when there are satellite and fixed-wireless options that work,” he told TechNewsWorld.

Guidance on Tech Overruns

The funding for BEAD is 42.45 billion dollars. The program was created to help American communities overcome high deployment costs for broadband and to provide high-speed internet to everyone who wants it.

“[I]It has become evident that technological advances have exceeded the program’s regulations guidelines”, wrote Kane and research assistant Ellis Scherer in the report. They continued, “The major issue is that BEAD’s technology neutrality isn’t the case.” The National Telecommunications and Information Administration has designed the program so that it gives a strong preference to expensive fiber-optic cable. This money is used to fund more expensive infrastructure that is not needed. The impact of BEAD in closing the digital divide will be limited.

The NTIA declined comment on this article.

The report states that states could save up to tens millions of dollars if BEAD was able to better integrate cheaper but still high-performing technologies, such as fixed wireless internet (5G) and satellite service. These savings could be used to tackle the other main causes of the digital gap, such as affordability for low income households and digital literacy.

Kane stated that the change in administrations could be a good moment to reflect on where we stand today. “The satellite eco-system is very different from what it was before President Biden came into office.” It is the same for fixed wireless.

The Start of Underfunding

Jim Dunstan, general counsel for TechFreedom The group, which is a Washington, D.C.-based technology advocacy organization, maintains BEAD has received inadequate funding since its founding. TechNewsWorld reported that “$42.5 billion will not get broadband to all people, regardless of the technology used.”

He also noted that inflation had increased significantly since the BEAD legislation was passed. He said that the $42.5 billion needed to close the digital divide was even less likely.

He acknowledged that “I think NTIA missed the mark on this issue by mentioning fiber.”

While fiber may be expensive, it offers many advantages over satellite technology. Ry Marcattilio Associate director for research, Community Broadband Networks Initiative, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, an advocacy and nonprofit group that offers technical assistance to local communities on sustainable community development, has offices in Washington, D.C., Portland, Maine, Minneapolis.

He told TechNewsWorld that while fiber is more expensive to construct, it can solve the problem over a longer period of time than LEO satellite service. “These satellites must be replaced every five to ten years.”

“This argument that we should build broadband infrastructure in a ‘technology-neutral way’ I think is a recipe for having to spend thousands of dollars every five years on the same household over and over and over again, instead of running fiber to the vast majority of them and solving the problem once for three or four generations in a row,” he said.

Niche Solution?

Marcattilio argued that satellite internet was a good niche option for a few very rural households. “It is a great niche solution for those who don’t want to shift the costs of monthly and startup onto consumers.”

“LEO service works well for a limited number of households. This has been true from its inception,” said he. “I believe it will work for a little while, but I don’t think it is going to become a solution that can be used by everyone as we would like.”

Dunstan said that “if we handed $42.5 billion to satellite providers, it would be easy to deliver broadband to 100 percent of Americans.” The question is: What kind of service will you be able to squeeze out of these satellites?

He said that satellite networks can claim to support download speeds of 100 Mbps and upload speeds of 20 Mbps. He said that the problem arises when more people join the service. You’re sharing bandwidth. “At some point, with 6,000 satellites in orbit, it will be difficult to maintain this speed.”

Kane admitted that congestion can be a problem with satellite networks. But it’s less a problem with BEAD. He said that BEAD was aimed at people living in remote and rural areas where broadband had never been available before.

“There won’t be thousands of people signing on at the same time,” he said. “We’re not talking about large areas with thousands of people.”

In Politics, you are being thrown out

John Strand, an advisor firm in Denmark that focuses on global telecom, believes the NTIA shouldn’t have been entrusted with the administration of the program. TechNewsWorld quoted him as saying, “It’s been political since the beginning.” “The FCC had a responsibility.” The FCC has extensive experience in subsidy distribution, and is bipartisan.

He claimed BEAD was supposed be tech-neutral but that the NTIA has favored fiber solutions. This is because fiber-based builds require more labor. “Unions are involved because they represent a Democratic Party constituency,” said he.

He added that “Fiber networks are also a great way to deliver video entertainment traffic from Big Tech platforms and Hollywood, which is helpful to another traditional Dem constituency.”

He noted that BEAD also had requirements for climate and DEI, which are not welcomed in red states. “The NTIA imposed requirements on money that Congress did not demand,” he continued. This made it more difficult to administer the program.

He explained that “wireless technologies, in general are more economical. However, no single network type is the best solution for all situations.” “Networks combine a variety of technologies.”

He said: “I predict Arielle Roth to be the new head of NTIA, and I predict that she will either eliminate BEAD, or transform it into something practical. Not political or aspirational,”