In late August, the Congressional Research Service released a discussion paper identifying issues for the 119th Congress to address regarding the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. BEAD is the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) flagship program, which provides grants to ensure “affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband” service to locations currently lacking it. Congress appropriated $42.45 billion for the BEAD Program, making it the single largest federal investment in broadband infrastructure to date.
A broadband network built with BEAD funding must provide broadband services with (1) at least 100 megabits per second (Mbps) for downloads and 20 Mbps for uploads; (2) low-network latency enabling real-time, interactive applications; and (3) a low-network outage rate (less than 48 hours over any 365-day period). Historically, these specifications have led to funding high-cost fixed fiber projects rather than wireless and satellite services. Wireless and satellite are frequently argued to be more cost-effective, but due to technological and environmental challenges, they aren’t always able to guarantee service at the prescribed levels. Indeed, the NTIA’s May 2022 Notice of Funding Opportunity explicitly preferred fiber over other satellite despite there being no specific statutory requirements to favor it, by requiring that a “reliable broadband service must be…a fixed broadband service.”
The bias against satellite services has allegedly caused rural communities to wait a long time for services requiring additional infrastructure investment and construction, whereas for the most part, the high-cost satellite infrastructure has already been deployed and may reap the broadband benefits immediately. In part to address these concerns, the NTIA issued the BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, which clarified that all future BEAD funding decisions be technology-neutral, provided the three qualifying criteria are met.
The August discussion paper notes that new concerns have arisen regarding whether consideration of satellite provision now alters the definition of whether some rural locations are “unserved” (lacking broadband or only having services offering less than 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream) or “underserved” (lacking a 100Mbps/20Mbps service) in the first place, thereby calling into question their eligibility for BEAD funding. It also identifies ongoing concerns that adding satellite and wireless to the mix risks decisions not adequately considering the consequences of resource sharing in areas with higher or increasing population densities.
The paper also notes concerns that satellite and wireless connections cannot always guarantee service above the minimum specified thresholds. It suggests that the decision about the suitability and practicality of specific technologies be deferred to local decision-makers, noting that “states are best suited to determine what technology is appropriate for their terrain and therefore must be afforded deference on priority project determinations, so long as they meet the speed, latency and scalability requirements.”
However, the paper is silent on the use of arbitrary speed and latency criteria rather than the capacity of a given connection to meet the application-based needs of specific users. As the usage profiles of the communities being served by the BEAD connections differ, it makes little sense for decision-makers in Washington—who are unaware of these specific needs—to impose universal technical requirements for individual services. In some locations, users may be prepared to accept a service that occasionally falls below the BEAD specifications because the applications used do not require them. For other locations with specific commercial uses, however, higher levels are necessary. Given the near-ubiquitous availability of high-quality satellite services, it may be that for some locations subsidizing individual users to connect to an appropriate commercially-available satellite service meeting their needs rather than funding network infrastructure builds is a more appropriate use of BEAD funds.
By way of illustration, consider how satellite availability has transformed internet access in some of the remotest parts of Earth visited by cruise ships (e.g., the South Pacific, see Figure 1 below). Most lines now offer satellite internet packages to customers, with prices varying by applications used and devices connected. My recent premium package experience on the Carnival Encounter, on average 1000 nautical miles from land capable of hosting a fixed broadband service, enabled me to work and relax as if I was at home—using cloud services, making WhatsApp and Zoom video calls, streaming video and audio content with no appreciable difference in my experience or productivity. This satellite connection was perfectly acceptable for my uses, relative to the option of having no internet access for 10 days, even if it did not meet all the BEAD criteria. It was also sufficient for Carnival’s own extensive on-board commercial applications.
Maybe it is time to reconsider BEAD rationale entirely, as tinkered-with rules still stand in the way of access by rural US citizens to the same services readily available to South Seas cruise passengers.