A (3:17)

Gotcha. Gotcha. So, you know, as we know, BEAD really at this point isn't just a federal broadband program. Right. It's like a stress test for how states are planning, managing and delivering on these massive, you know, federal investments. So how are these implementation deadlines? Like I know after the final proposal is submitted, The NTIA has 90 days to turn around that approval. And then, you know, there are deployment windows. And with the ultimate goal though right of that 2030 deadline, how is the implementation of this, the multi stage process, affecting timing for states?

B (3:58)

It has been slow. This has been a long time process, as I am sure anyone who has ever heard anything about the Beat program knows. The one thing they probably heard is that it's taken a while. This passed back in 2021 in the infrastructure Investment and Jobs act, the bipartisan infrastructure law under the Biden administration. The program was built with various structures, but mainly to prioritize fiber broadband networks. Then when the Trump administration came in, they sort of scrapped a lot of the Biden era laws, undid the affordability requirements, undid the fiber preference to a certain extent, leaned into the use of satellite and wireless Internet providers like Starlink, and rewrote a lot of the rules. That sort of shook the Etch A Sketch, caused states to restart a lot of their work. This is back in January 6th last year. And then almost all states had to redo their grant processes, resubmit final plans, have NTIA re approve them, which is where we're at now. NTIA gave themselves a self imposed end of the year deadline. They've clearly missed that by about a month at this point. But there are 42 states. They're fairly close to being finished, at least in terms of the first stage of approvals. Of course, then there's the entire construction process, which permitting workforce. There are a lot of potential bottlenecks when it comes to the actual construction of the networks. But then setting aside this deployment part of bead, there's the entire other half of Bede, which is the non deployment part, which is the $21 billion that's left over. We can talk about that, but that is a whole nother issue that is under a different set of constraints and uncertainties.

A (5:48)

Yeah, and I know a lot of state and local legislators, along with state broadband offices, have been seeking clarity on how they can start thinking about planning using Those non deployment funds, the leftovers, as it were. But I want to go back to what you touched on. So are there any states that have begun construction underneath, you know, these bead funds?

B (6:14)

So I don't know if they have begun construction. I know that they have started signing contracts with ISPs, but Louisiana, Louisiana is the one, to my knowledge, that has publicly announced that they have gone through NTIA, gone through NIST, signed contracts with ISPs and are at least in a stage where they could be starting construction. There may be other states that I have just missed or have not publicly announced this, but Louisiana, as I, as I referenced earlier, they've had a good track record of being among the very first states to reach all of these milestones. And they are continuing that at least when it comes to getting near construction.

A (6:54)

Yeah, and Louisiana was also one of the states, their governor was quite vocal in terms of advocating for the usage of satellite underneath and alternative technologies right underneath this program. But I want to go back a little bit to the beginning of bead, right with that FCC mapping process. I think we're several years out removed from that now, but seeing as it was one of the most contentious parts of the process. Right. There was so much back and forth and it was one of the largest data collection processes that the federal government, I think has undertaken so far. But now standing here, we're looking at these states that are moving towards the goalposts. I guess my question is, was all that back and forth necessary? Did we really have to go through all of that?

B (7:45)

This is a good question because it was a lot of work and it was done at the federal level. We made the FCC created its maps. The FCC notably a different entity than ntia. So the FCC was in charge of the maps, which be the news, but also states had to create their own maps, many of them doing this for the first time. And just to really put a fine point on this, by mapping, we are saying to identify every single broadband serviceable location in the country. Every location, every home, every farm, every business that can use broadband, to identify where it is and to identify its existing level of broadband service. Is it served or is it not? Is it underserved? What level of service does it have? And to do this, you have to not only map every location, you have to go work with the Internet service providers to figure out are you here, how good is your service? And you then have to vet those claims. Because historically broadband maps have been plagued by overstatements, by advertising speeds from the ISPs where ISPs will claim, we serve this entire territory and we give them 120 Mbps, we give them broadband service, just high quality service. But when you actually go out into the communities and test them, the service may not exist or it may not meet that federal definition of broadband. This is certainly true in rural areas where the service just often doesn't exist. But it can also be true in urban areas where similar to historic housing redlining, there are instances of digital redlining where from a low income neighborhood to a high income neighborhood, you will see disparities in, in the quality and affordability of broadband service. Usually with a low income neighborhood having more expensive and worse service than the high income neighborhood. So that the mapping issues are across the country, rural and urban. And to your main question of do we need to do this? Yes, we do. When we are spending. Well, Internet service providers do not want to use federal public money to overbuild. Overbuild is their term of art. Their existing networks, they want it only to be deployed in areas where service doesn't exist. So I would say that a lot of people who want to just make sure that broadband money is going to the areas that truly don't have any service would support broadband maps. But because of their ability to sort of be misused or not reflect reality, there are a lot of challenges with them, which is in part why it takes so much time to get them right.

A (10:21)

Yeah. And why there was so much back and forth with that process. So I guess to kind of like, you know, bring it around to where we're at now. How are y' all at the Benton Institute thinking about the successful deployment? Right. Like what are you tracking success of this program through? Is it, you know, the award letters, the number received, or is it contract signed, completed connections? Like what are you guys looking for as like the hallmark of like success? Yeah.

B (10:54)

When I look at BEAD to evaluate its success, there are a few metrics I'm looking for. One is, are the households in fact getting connected? And is the quality of the connectivity meeting the beads requirements? So this is 120 Mbps broadband service, hopefully better, hopefully not just bare minimum. And how reliable is the service? And so to evaluate that, one quick way to do that is to tell what type of technology is being used to connect these households. Is it fiber? Is it wireless, is it cable, is it satellite? Typically if you see a fiber connection that's kind of you can rest safe and that, that is probably going to be a Very high quality connectivity that the household is receiving. The same can be said it's a spectrum when it comes to the other technologies where wireless may be great, it may not work, satellite may be great. But in many cases, if you have trees or hills or mountains or other buildings sort of obstructing your view of the sky, then satellite just may not work for those households. So I often look to see what is the ratio of fiber versus cable versus wireless versus satellite. When I'm looking to see just first impression of how a state's bid plan is doing. The other important criteria is what is the cost of Internet service to the households. So with these bead networks, these are public funds going to build private networks that are to a certain extent inherent monopolies. Just these are areas that by definition probably won't see much if any other competition. Just they're not economically feasible from a private investment standpoint, which is why we needed B to begin with. So these are trapped consumers. They're only going to have this one option. So what price is the Internet service provider charging them? Many of these rural areas are also very low income. So it's important to get that price down sort of as affordable as possible. In its original version, bead required ISPs to offer low affordable plans to low income households. These had a specific price point. Under the Trump administration, that requirement, that specific price point has been eliminated. So now it is sort of up to the ISPs to charge whatever they want. Like it's, it's their, their low cost option is ISP just gets to define it. So for example, Starlink's is probably going to be $80 or less around their which for a low income household may just like that's a big bill, $80 a month. A lot of households just can't afford that. So in addition to the quality of service, the type of technology used to provide it, I also look at what are the prices households are being charged. And then finally is BEAD actually connecting every household? Because in a lot of ways it is not. There have been some studies done by the, I believe the New York Law School that have found about over a million locations will be left unaddressed by bed. This number may increase as BED or other federal grantees from the Ardoff, the Rural Digital Opportunity Program or bead itself as ISPs default and don't actually build their service. So we're going to be left with some locations that even with beat even with the program that's supposed to provide universal service to every single home and business in the country. That's just not going to happen. And it might not happen to the tune of over a million households. So where are those households? What are states doing to address those households? That is another way to evaluate bid.

A (14:42)

Yeah, totally. And especially with the huge focus on affordability right now, those are all questions, I think, that are top of mind for everybody. Not just government or public sector folks, but those of us that actually need Internet, you know, Internet connection. So I guess, like, you know, with all of that in mind and the potential of there being, you know, a surplus of houses that just, you know, didn't get connected, how many states or territories do you think are on track to meet this 2030, you know, ultimate, ultimate goal of making sure that, you know, everybody's got universal broadband.

B (15:22)

The 2030 goal. At this point, before contracts are even signed, it's very hard to confidently say one way or the other how well they're going to do. I'll say that on one hand, four years is a long time. In perfect conditions, ISPs may say that they could deploy to their footprint in half that time, no problem. But then when you factor in workforce shortages, permitting delays, which sometimes can take take a year or more to cross a railroad or greatly increase the cost of the project, making it sort of making the ISP question it's its initial financial plans for this network, like, those variables, which are very hard to predict at this point, can throw off these timelines, if not make the network impossible. So I'd be reluctant to say that yes or no, every state is on track. We're not on track to make that 2030 deadline. But I would say that we will start to get ideas this year because once NTIA and NIST approve state plans, states have about six months, I think, to ink their contract with ISPs, at which points we should start to know at least what states and the ISPs themselves expect to be able to accomplish. I'd also say too that four years, this is a requirement of bead. So there is a lot of pressure to comply with that to the greatest extent possible. But again, there are a lot of variables that come into play when you're actually building the network.

A (16:55)

Yeah, totally. So something else I want to talk about too is like, with all of this context, what will the broadband landscape look like from say like 2027 until 20 2030? Like, you know, I know there's a lot of awareness of the issues with permitting. In fact, I think there's a handful of like federal pieces of legislation being shopped to try and you know, mitigate some of those problems. But you know, based on this current momentum, what are you, what are you anticipating over the next couple of years?

B (17:32)

Some. I'll start by talking about the NTIA's recent terms and conditions for states and then ISPs which touch on some of these things. First to the permitting point, NTIA is stressing that states should try to approve or deny permitting requests related to bed within 90 days. They should do what they can to minimize costs associated with permitting. They should convene roundtables between ISPs, municipal officials, locate services community members, just stakeholders in the broadband process to sort of identify permitting bottlenecks and elevate them for solutions when necessary. So NTIA has rolled out some requirements on states to expedite permitting whether or not states can comply. Like states aren't in charge of federal lands permitting on federal lands or railroads or private easements. State's ability to meet this 90 day requirement is questionable, but it is sort of the pressure NTIA is putting on them. The other factors to consider which go to our ISPs are the IS be going to succeed is that NTIA is using BEAD in many ways using bead money for lack of a better way to put this as a hostage to sort of compel states to adopt other policy objectives. Whether that is this, whether for example states are not able to implement net neutrality rules on bid networks or apply net neutrality rules to ISPs that when bead money nor are they able to require low cost options on bead network. So any ISP that takes a dime from BEAD according to NTIA should also be exempt from any state laws related to affordable broadband plans or net neutrality. Similarly, NTIA is using the non deployment portion of BEAD as a way to compel states to not regulate artificial intelligence in their state. Any state that has artificial intelligence laws that NTIA determines are onerous, which I'm putting in quotes, those would be, those would jeopardize the state's access to its non deployment funds. And the other big way NTI is leveraging B money is that they are prohibiting any ISP that receives bead funds from receiving future federal funds to support the bid portion of their network. So like the Universal Service Fund, which is an important FCC program that was designed to ensure that rural rates are roughly approximate to urban rates in terms of the rates subscribers have to pay. So a lot of rural networks rely on this ongoing Universal Service Fund to support the operation of their network and thereby keep the prices they charge to customers low. NTIA is saying that any B networks can't rely on those funds. So that for some ISPs will throw into question the long term feasibility of these extremely rural networks, like networks out in Alaska, that may struggle to be to maintain any affordable rates without being able to access these USF funds. So those are some questions that within the past couple months NTIA has injected into the B program that sort of complicates the timeline, may cause some ISP to sort of back off their awards. Maybe they won't accept an award if they don't think the project actually is going to be feasible. And they're also putting states in a position to accept BEAD money and while by doing so undo some of their other priorities with regard to AI regulation, affordability or net neutrality. So just some other complications that make it hard to predict the future.

A (21:27)

Oh yeah, there's so many moving pieces around this. It's like an infinite chessboard trying to keep track of all of the moving influences. But we've arrived at my last question for you, and I want to circle back around to this idea of BEAD and this entire process being a real stress test for states in terms of managing these huge federal investments. So now at this point, I'm curious what lessons from BEAD should really be informative for states to handle or how to handle these future potential federal investments, like, of this size. Like I'm thinking down to, you know, project management, performance tracking, and all of these things. So, you know, in your opinion, you know, what are the lessons learned? What are the takeaways?

B (22:19)

That's a really good question. States have spent the past five years developing these government capacities to manage probably the biggest broadband grants they have ever received. So they have, many states have built broadband offices, they've hired teams, they developed relationships with contractors, they developed maps, they have built a lot of knowledge and expertise with regards to broadband networks. So how do states sustain that? A lot of that is funded by BEAT itself. So states are arriving at the question of, like, when BEAD funds run out, how do we, or do we sustain this expertise and capacity that we have developed? Is broadband going to continue to be something that we believe is essential to our communities and worth state investment, or is this something that we will sort of let atrophy when the federal funding dries up? That is a question every state's going to have to decide to some extent. Some states, like Missouri, are already taking advanced efforts to sort of protect and enshrined the expertise they've already already developed. State Representative Louis Riggs of Missouri, someone I work with frequently, has recently introduced a bill to extend the sunset on their broadband office and to continue its the broadband office, which was really originally created with state funding. So Representative Riggs is sort of envisioning a way to keep and protect all the expertise and data that Missouri has collected over the past five years to ensure it can continue to pay off for Missourians over the throughout the future. Other states are struggling with that question. Some states, for example, Rhode island, have on their books state laws that prohibit any sort of state regulation of broadband. So, like, what is a state like Rhode island supposed to do when their own laws prevent them from overseeing basically this essential infrastructure that they just invested millions and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars into, potentially? So, yeah, it's a very good question, and it's something that we're going to be watching closely at the Benton Institute.

A (24:43)

That was Drew Garner, Director of Policy Engagement at the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society. Many thanks to him and his organization for both the work that they do and for participating in that conversation. You can subscribe to the priorities podcast@priitiespodcast.com and wherever you get your podcasts. While you're there, be sure to leave a review or a rating on the podcast page. That small extra step helps more people like you find the show. This podcast is a production of Scoop News Group in Washington, Washington, D.C. adam Butler and Carlin Fisher helped put it together. Until next week. I'm Keely Quinlan, and thanks for listening.