The State of the Net (SOTN) conference is an annual gathering of thought leaders, policymakers, and industry professionals convening to discuss the most pressing topics in current internet policy. With over 600 attendees each year, the conference series provides an important forum for discussing future trends in the field. During this year’s conference, I had the opportunity to sit down with Assistant Secretary Arielle Roth, Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

In our fireside chat, we discussed the crucial role NTIA plays within the federal government, the upcoming World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-27), and Roth’s three priorities as NTIA Administrator. Our conversation touched on spectrum access, BEAD program reforms, and screen time for children, subjects at the forefront of today’s Internet policy debates.

Below are highlights from our conversation together. You can watch the entire conversation and view other sessions from SOTN 2026 here.

Daniel Lyons: The NTIA is a powerhouse agency, but it operates behind the scenes. Can you share with us a little bit about what the NTIA does and what role it plays in the federal government?

Arielle Roth: In terms of NTIA’s role, I think that you categorized it really thoughtfully. We have an important strategic role, sometimes fly under the radar. I would describe our role in a nutshell as advancing connectivity nationwide, as well as America’s technology leadership. And we do that in different ways. We manage federal spectrum and expand opportunities for greater spectrum efficiency. We are charged with administering the $42 billion BEAD program and ensuring broadband connectivity nationwide. We play a role in public safety communications in overseeing FirstNet. And we also, in the international arena, play an important role in tracking and getting involved in international standard setting, which is so critical to America’s technology leadership. So, I would just say that the NTIA is operating according to these mandates at a pivotal time for America, and it’s just such an honor to be serving the President and serving our country at this time

You’ve identified three big priorities as Administrator. The first one is commercial spectrum access. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act requires NTIA to find 500 megahertz of spectrum for commercial use. Walk us through what that means for the American people. How will more commercial spectrum access affect wireless services or innovation or U.S. competitiveness?

Spectrum is this invisible but mighty resource that fuels so much of what we consider the defining features of modern life: 5G, 6G networks, Wi-Fi, satellite technology, radars. And so it’s so critical that this essential resource be managed effectively, because the opportunity costs of inefficient spectrum are really quite enormous in terms of our economy, in terms of jobs, in terms of our technology leadership. Because it’s not just about the networks themselves and exporting our architecture abroad, but also all of the innovation that happens on top of those networks, the apps. We want to make sure that the killer app for 6G is developed here at home, not by our adversaries, because technology leadership is becoming so increasingly synonymous with national security.

Additionally, the military relies so much on off-the-shelf wireless technology. And that’s just another example of why it’s so critical that we lead on spectrum and that we’re the first mover and that we don’t underutilize our spectrum resources. So, I think that was something that was recognized by Congress and the President in the One Big Beautiful Bill, and then later in the presidential memorandum on spectrum from last December. We need to increase access to commercial spectrum, especially after the pipeline had run dry over the past few years. We lacked auction authority, we lacked a clear plan for what auctions we were going to have. And the One Big Beautiful Bill restored that auction authority and set the federal government, including NTIA, on clear timelines to identify spectrum for 6G.

So, we’re in charge of identifying 500 megahertz of federal spectrum to be reallocated from federal to commercial licensed, full power use. We are full steam ahead on that project. The presidential memorandum that came out last December put us on a strict deadline of identifying spectrum in the 7 gigahertz band by the end of the year, and we’re working really hard to meet that deadline. So, I’ve talked a lot about commercial licensed spectrum, but it’s also important to recognize that we need an all-of-the-above approach to expanding access to spectrum. Not just licensed spectrum, but also unlicensed spectrum. We have all of these low power unlicensed technologies that we rely on day to day, including Wi-Fi, and maintaining our leadership on that technology is really critical. One of the predictions for the future 6G networks is that it’s going to be defined increasingly by seamless integration of terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks. So, increasing access to spectrum for satellite is also critical. So, we just really need that all-of-the-above approach, and that’s what we’re pursuing at NTIA.

Your second big initiative is BEAD reform. And I think a lot of people have heard a lot about that. The BEAD program had famously been criticized for having been around for several years and not having wired a single house when you took over. Now, after the Benefit of the Bargain reforms, you’re approving state plans right and left, and you’ve saved $21 billion. Can you talk a little bit about what wasn’t working before and what steps NTIA has taken to shake up the process?

 I think that BEAD has been a real success story for the Trump administration. This was a program that was saddled with unlawful, extraneous rules, extreme technology mandates, central planning that drove provider participation away. And so when the Trump administration in June, in issuing the restructuring notice, Secretary Lutnick really restored BEAD to its core statutory mission of ensuring nationwide connectivity. And I think that as the results have shown, we’ve really delivered on that goal. Thanks to the Benefit of the Bargain reforms, participation in the program surged. Providers that otherwise stayed out under hostile, burdensome rules came to the table. That brought down costs. And there was increased skin in the game through private matching. That’s a feature that we really look to, to ensure that a project is going to be successful.

We’ve been incredibly careful to ensure that skin in the game exists. We have terms and conditions that are really focused on ensuring that the program succeeds and that BEAD areas are successful, that BEAD projects are successful and don’t succumb to default, learning lessons from previous broadband programs past. And I think we’re really proud of the work that we’ve been able to achieve. We’re proud of the work that the state broadband offices have been able to achieve. They’ve worked really hard to get their states approved, to get their states over the finish line. And we’re really looking forward to seeing America universally connected through BEAD.

On the screen time topic, to close this out, you held a December 10th listening session. You were talking about wanting to understand the ed tech marketplace and procurement decisions, commercial incentives. What concerns do you have about how the ed tech companies are driving decision-making in this area?

I think that when you speak to parents these days, particularly of school-aged kids, and this has been my experience, there’s just this perception that kids’ curricula are being increasingly driven by educational technology and screen use throughout the school day and in homework, and in ways that sometimes you have to question, is this really helping my child pedagogically? How is it affecting their development? There’s just this sense of powerlessness among parents. Socially, so much of life revolves around a screen, and school isn’t a haven for that. They’re on screens all day between their social lives as well as their academic lives.

I’ve really thought about this a long time as a policymaker. I’ve been interested in how federal policy affects these trends. What’s the market for educational technology? Just understanding the trends that have led to so much screen time and Internet use in school. It seems like part of it was fueled by the pandemic, but a lot of those trends have stayed. In my own life, I think a lot about the opportunity costs of so much of kids’ lives spent online. My own son got in trouble last week in class because he was on his laptop during school, and he was looking something up that didn’t have anything to do with the lesson plan, and he got punished. And you think to yourself, okay, of course I don’t want my child doing something that’s not appropriate or they’re not following directions in class. But on the other hand, you’re giving this distracting, addictive machine to a child. And so it’s important to ask, are they ready for this? And what are the consequences of this?

I’ve heard educational technology advocates respond, well, we have this technology that allows a teacher to see all the screens of all the kids. That’s how my son was discovered. But then you think, well, what’s the opportunity cost of the teacher having to look at every kid’s screen during class? Is that time that’s being taken away from teaching? So, these are all things I think about as a mom and as somebody who works in public policy. We’ve started this initiative. We had this great listening session last fall, and it really brought people to the table to start thinking about this issue. I think that our work really starts with listening and getting a survey of the market and of the trends that are fueling these phenomena. And really looking forward to our continued work on this topic.