The U.S. Commerce Department appears to be shooting for mid-May to announce anticipated reforms to the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) rural broadband funding program, according to Washington insider Blair Levin.
In a research note released today, Levin outlined four options that are under consideration, according to what he has heard.
Readers may recall that Levin headed up the FCC team that penned the National Broadband Plan 15 years or so ago. Today he is a policy advisor for New Street Research.
The BEAD rural broadband reforms are expected at a time when at least three or four states already have announced awardees in the program, which will cover some of the costs of making broadband available to unserved and underserved locations. According to Levin, an additional 25 states have already accepted applications, with selections pending. And 12 states currently are accepting applications.
BEAD Rural Broadband Reforms
According to Levin, the four options under consideration include:
- Requiring states to rebid and imposing a federal high-cost threshold that would shift funds from fiber to satellite
- Requiring states to eliminate certain requirements but allowing the results of the application process to stand with only marginal adjustments
- Setting some general rules but having the Commerce Department review each state’s awardee lists before approving the release of funds
- Rewriting the BEAD Program rules to award all funding to satellite providers, rerunning the application process and returning money to the Treasury
The last two options would face the strongest opposition, according to Levin. The third option would be unpopular because Republicans generally don’t like decisions to be made at the federal level, rather than the state level. And the fourth option would be seen as favoring Elon Musk, Trump’s biggest campaign contributor.
Levin believes the first two options are the most likely to be selected but adds that Commerce seems to prefer the first option. He argues that the second option could be implemented more easily, and he thinks Commerce already would have done so if that was the favored choice.
Telecompetitor’s Take
Levin didn’t delve into the details of the four options beyond that analysis. But here are some things to consider about the first two options, which he considers to be most likely.
The “certain requirements” referenced in the second option probably involve requirements that Levin has noted before and that Republicans see as onerous. These include diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), low-cost plan, and climate resiliency requirements.
Regardless of how readers feel about those requirements, the second option would be less disruptive than the first because it wouldn’t require re-doing the application process, which could delay the program by at least a year, according to a previous New Street research note.
Where the high-cost threshold might be set is another major concern. If set too low, it could relegate many unserved and underserved locations to lower-speed and less future-proof technologies.
These are important issues for Telecompetitor readers, and we will continue to follow them closely in the coming weeks.
