Digital Equity Grants Inch Forward

You may read headlines that lead you to believe that the courts have restored the Digital Equity Act as a result of a lawsuit by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA). The ruling from Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a lot more complicated than that.

If you’re brave enough to venture into the court order, you’re going to quickly figure out that, unless you are a constitutional lawyer, you aren’t going to understand a lot of the background and discussion inside the order. If you want a plain English summary of the order, I direct you to the excellent summary from the Benton Institute – and even that is challenging to read in places for those not used to reading court orders. Rather than rehash everything in the order, which was done well by Benton, I’m going to cut to the conclusions of the case and talk about what this might mean for those still hoping to get digital inclusion grants.

What did the Court order? The Administration killed the $2.75 billion grant programs that were part of the Digital Equity Act. This suit specifically challenged the termination of the Digital Equity Competitive Grant program, where NTIA made direct grant awards for digital inclusion activities. This suit did not address the Digital Equity Capacity Grant program, where State Broadband Offices were slated to make digital inclusion grant awards.

The Court did not yet order the NTIA to continue with the Competitive Grant program. The order basically eliminated the government’s stated reason for canceling the grant program. The government argued that making grants based on race was unconstitutional. The court agreed with that argument, which is a big win for the Administration, since this is the first Court to so plainly agree with that assertion. But the Court further ruled that if grant requirements based on race are removed, the rest of the lawsuit can continue. The government said in a footnote of their pleading that they would be willing to immediately reinstate the Competitive Grant program if the race issue were removed. The two sides are now required to file a joint status report by August 1 that proposes a schedule for continuing the case.

So what’s next? One possibility is that the government will want to continue to dispute some of the other claims by NDIA, and if that happens, the court case would continue.

The possibility that digital inclusion advocates hope for is that the government will be good on its word and will agree to end the suit now that the race criteria are gone. If that happens, it’s likely that the Court would order NTIA to restart the Competitive Grant program.

Nobody knows what that would mean. NTIA could decide to get moving again with the grant program. However, NTIA might still be reluctant to award these grants if that’s the message they get from the Administration, and they could slow-roll the process, just like they are doing with the BEAD nondeployment funds. NTIA could decide to take a fresh look at the grant rules now that race has been removed and start the process over. Even if NTIA moves forward, I find it unlikely that NTIA would automatically honor the grants that were already awarded and would make everybody apply again. I wouldn’t make any bets that NDIA is going to get a grant award from this program.

The other half of this program is the Capacity Grant program, which was going to give money to states to make digital inclusion grant awards. There doesn’t seem to be any direct ties between this case and that grant program, so it likely stays in limbo, even if the Competitive Grant program restarts.

There is also a big concern that the Administration has recommended no funding for this program in next year’s budget, so the entire program could quietly die through lack of funding, even if NDIA prevails in this lawsuit.

There is a ray of hope here, and digital inclusion folks should continue to hope and should continue lobbying Congress to keep the funding alive and to press NTIA to make the awards. But I can’t foresee anything happening quickly, even if the Court clears this off its docket in August.

Comcast to Spin Off Entertainment

Comcast recently announced plans to spin off its entertainment businesses. The newly created NBCUniversal will include the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks, Bravo, Peacock, the European media business Sky, along with theme parks and other businesses. The Peacock subsidiary has been actively buying rights to sporting events. Comcast had begun the spinoff of entertainment subsidiaries early this year when it spun off cable networks, including MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network, E!, Syfy, Oxygen, the Golf Channels, and digital brands like Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes into the Versant Media Group. A Comcast shareholder will get a share of each new business. Comcast says it will retain a 19.9% share in NBCUniversal for at least a year.

The post-split Comcast will retain the core broadband, cellular, and cable TV business lines. The company will also retain Comcast Spectator, which owns the Xfinity Arena in Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Flyers, and the FreeWheel tech ad business. The public announcement said that the company no longer sees any synergies or financial benefits from operating two distinct lines of business. Wall Street instantly applauded the move with an upward bump in the Comcast stock price.

This should allow Comcast to concentrate on the increasingly competitive communications business. The company has been steadily losing broadband customers every quarter since 2023. It’s seeing competition from fiber overbuilding, FWA cellular, and even satellite. The cable TV business has continued its long, downhill slide. Comcast has seen significant growth in the cellular business and is approaching 10 million cellular customers.

The news instantly set off speculation about how both of the new businesses are attractive M&A targets now that they are separate. I saw speculation that Netflix, Amazon, and Disney/Paramount/Fox ought to be interested in NBCUniversal. I saw instant speculation that SpaceX, Charter, or one of the big cellular companies would be interested in a standalone Comcast.

I could never understand the presumed benefits of combining ISPs and media companies. When Comcast purchased the entertainment businesses, the reason given at the time was to take advantage of the content. But I never understood this since an ISP already delivers all kinds of content.

The other attempts in the industry to combine an ISP with content were big failures. The biggest failure of all was AT&T’s $85 billion purchase of Time Warner in 2018. Within a few years, in 2022, AT&T spun off Warner Media to Discovery for $43 billion. This bad deal was bad for AT&T in many ways. CEO Randall Stephenson, a champion of the merger, stepped down in 2020. AT&T’s stock took a huge hit during the time that it owned Time Warner, and AT&T had to slash its dividend in half.

Verizon also took a shot at buying content. The company purchased AOL in 2015 for $4.4 billion, a price that startled the market. The company then purchased Yahoo in 2017 for $4.48 billion. Verizon repackaged the two companies into a new subsidiary called Oath, which was later renamed Verizon Media. Verizon eventually sold Verizon Media to Apollo Global Management for $5 billion. Before that sale, Verizon had separately sold HuffPost, Tumblr, and MapQuest.

The Comcast sale means there are no ISPs left with big content businesses. Combining the disparate businesses never made sense since Verizon’s purchase of AOL, and hopefully, the Comcast spin-off ends this failed experiment.

The Blueprint for Equitable Digital Participation

Today’s blog is about a report titled The Blueprint for Equitable Digital Participation that was sponsored by Public Knowledge, UnidosUS, and NDIA. It’s a lengthy report that takes a deep dive into issues related to digital inclusion and digital equity and looks at the problems experienced by homes that don’t have or can’t afford broadband.

The report is based on seven focus groups conducted in Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, and Ohio. The focus groups included households with annual incomes no greater than $70,000, with many far below that. The focus groups were followed by a more detailed nationwide survey based on questions developed during the focus groups.

The report documents the same kind of findings that have come from many other sources. It’s worth reading the report just for the 60 footnotes that lead to a lot of other research in this area. The report documents the primary reasons why homes don’t have adequate broadband.

  • The issue for many unconnected homes is the ability to afford a monthly broadband subscription.
  • The focus groups included folks who settle for low-cost broadband alternatives that are too slow to meet household needs.
  • There were people in the focus groups who lived in places with no good broadband infrastructure.
  • There were focus group participants who have a hard time affording computers and devices to use the Internet.
  • A lot of folks admitted to not having the skills needed to use computers and navigate the Internet.

The report reached some key findings and recommendations.

  • The research found that many people without broadband have a sophisticated understanding of what they need to use broadband, but face systematic barriers to having a monthly broadband subscription.
  • Being on the wrong side of the digital divide compounds other challenges facing struggling households. Lack of broadband contributes to problems with housing stability, healthcare, employment, and education.
  • Programs to tackle the digital divide have to meet people where they live instead of being done at a statewide or county level.
  • The report concludes that the size of the monthly subsidy needed to get broadband into homes has to be around $40 per month. This could come from the Universal Service Fund or some other mechanism. The report concludes that this is enough to get broadband into most homes.
  • Federal broadband projects in the future should concentrate on network resiliency and ISP operational support, and not just on building infrastructure.
  • There needs to be federal or state support for broadband adoption programs for digital skills training, digital access, and culturally responsive digital training and digital navigation.

The conclusion of the report is worth thinking about: The digital divide is fundamentally about power and resource distribution. Closing it requires not just building infrastructure but ensuring people can actually benefit from networks through comprehensive adoption support, community ownership models, and policy frameworks that prioritize human dignity over corporate profits. The communities most affected by digital exclusion possess the wisdom to drive solutions—they just need the resources and power to implement them.

 

The Spectrum Auction Winners

After a four-year hiatus, the FCC recently held a spectrum auction of 200 licenses for AWS-3 spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands. The last FCC auction was in 2022 for 2.5 GHz spectrum. The FCC lost the ability to hold spectrum auctions when its Congressional authority lapsed and was not renewed. This spectrum was touted by the FCC as being 5G-grade. The license areas included in the auction covered over 100 million people across 48 states and two US territories, and included major markets like New York, Chicago, Boston, Tampa, and Charlotte. The FCC announced before the auction that much of the proceeds will be used to continue to fund the rip-and-replace of Chinese electronics from Huawei and ZTE.

The winning bidders collectively bid more than $3.57 billion. The winners are as follows, from largest to smallest:

  • Verizon Wireless: $3,162,445,000 for 82 licenses in 82 markets
  • T-Mobile: $277,787,000 for 102 licenses in 102 markets
  • AT&T: $120,774,000 for 10 licenses in 10 markets
  • SpaceX: $8,490,200 for two licenses in two markets
  • Blue Ridge Wireless II LLC: $2,090,000 for one license in one market
  • Conundrum Wireless, LLC: $1,228,000 for two licenses in one market
  • Citizens Band License Company, LLC: $75,000 for one license in one market

Not surprisingly, 99.7% of the spectrum was claimed by the three big cellular carriers, with Verizon snagging 88.5% of the awards. Folks might be surprised to see SpaceX as the fourth-largest winner. The company is looking for spectrum to enhance its direct-to-cell mobile services. Analysts speculated that this auction was a trial run for the company to learn about the auction process since the company has already agreed to buy $2.6 billion in spectrum in the AWS-3, AWS-4, and H-blocks from EchoStar.

Verizon was using the auction to fill holes in its spectrum portfolio and spent almost $2 billion of its winning bids in New York, Chicago, and Boston. AT&T’s biggest focus was for Charlotte. T-Mobile dropped out of all of the expensive markets, but still won the most licenses spread across small metropolitan areas.

ike many actions by the federal government these days, there is also an interesting backstory to this auction. The spectrum that was included in this auction originally came from EchoStar (originally Dish Networks). Two companies, SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless, originally purchased the spectrum in the 2014 AWS-3 auction for $3.3 billion. When the FCC learned that Dish was the secret backer of the two companies, the FCC voided the awards. The FCC ruled that when this spectrum was eventually reauctioned, that Dish would owe the FCC any shortfall if the new auction raises anything less than $2.9 billion.

Roger Entner of Recon Analytics says that EchoStar bid up the current auction to save itself from having to pay for any shortfall in the auction. EchoStar entered the recent auction with almost as many bid credits as Verizon. Entner claims that EchoStar was in the auction for no other purpose than bidding up the price, and in doing so, increased the proceeds of the auction from $2 billion to the final $3.57 billion. He says that EchoStar stayed in the auction until the auction reached the threshold where the company was off the hook for paying for the shortfall. In the next two rounds, the company dropped out of every market except for two licenses it got stuck with in Guam. The company is no longer in the cellular business, and Entner expects it will sell this spectrum at a discount to a local cellular provider or just ride out the build-out shot clock until the FCC is forced to reclaim the spectrum.

It’s going to be interesting to see if the three big carriers take any action against EchoStar for driving up the prices. I don’t have the slightest idea if EchoStar did anything illegal, but its bidding actions were certainly shady.

FCC Proposes New Permitting Rules

The FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments. The stated purpose of the proposed new rules is “to cut red tape and excessive fees imposed by some state and local governments in the public rights-of-way for wireline deployments”. There are several important provisions in the new rules.

First, the FCC proposes a 120-day shot clock for local governments to approve a request for rights-of-way. If the local government doesn’t respond in that time frame, then the application is presumed to be approved. That may seem like a reasonable time frame when you first hear about. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask a local government to approve or reject a right-of-way request to build fiber on a single street or a small neighborhood. But consider if a fiber overbuilder requests rights-of-way for an entire city. Such requests are complicated. Such a request would include residential neighborhoods and business districts. A city would have to consider a lot of factors, like planned road relocations or rebuilds, other construction activity that is already occurring, and issues related to the condition of existing rights-of-ways that might already be overcrowded with other utilities.

The docket also proposes to limit fees to a reasonable approximation of the government’s actual, direct costs of managing the rights-of-way with respect to a particular application. This implies the FCC will only allow fees associated with establishing the original right-of-way and will not allow fees to cover some of the costs for managing the right-of-way over future years.

The FCC plans to establish safe harbor fees for rights-of-way. For those not familiar with that term, a safe harbor fee generally means a standard rate or affordable guideline. The problem with safe harbor rates is that they don’t recognize the difference between a right-of-way fee in a small rural town and one for the biggest metropolitan areas of a state.

The new rules will count in-kind compensation as part of any fee. Local governments often negotiate in-kind contributions with fiber builders. For example, they might grant a right-of-way and ask the fiber builder to provide a few free fibers to connect between government buildings. The FCC new rules will mandate that any such in-kind contribution be counted as part of the fee. That would mean putting a dollar value on the in-kind contribution and subtracting it from the fees. That may sound reasonable, but this is being done in the context where the local government has to prove its fees are cost-based while a fiber builder will not. I have many clients who have been handed inflated estimates from cable companies for providing short fiber routes.

Finally, the new rules will prohibit a local government from charging higher fees when the proposed infrastructure will support multiple purposes. An example would be a fiber route that is being built to bring fiber to a neighborhood and also serve a cell tower.

The most interesting thing about the docket to me is that FCC Chairman Carr said when he took the job that his philosophy was “light touch regulation”, meaning he didn’t foresee the FCC implementing a lot of new regulations. Instead, this and other FCC proceedings are adding a lot of new federal regulations. Many of the other FCC proceedings are similar to this one in that the FCC wants to wrest away any regulatory authority from states and localities and regulate everything at the federal level.

I’m sure that industry comments will include some horror stories from fiber builders about cities that have stonewalled new fiber construction or that charge a lot of fees. My guess is that these are the exception rather than the rule since most communities want more fiber and are willing to work with anybody willing to invest in their market.

Satellite Shorts July 2026

Accelerated Satellite Regulatory Approvals. The FCC announced that it will vote at its July 22 meeting to overhaul the regulatory process for satellite broadband. The proposed rules are in an order titled Space Modernization for the 21st Century. The proposed rules are to meet four specific goals: to improve the speed of processing applications for new satellites, to provide more predictability to applicants and licensees, to provide more flexibility for innovation, and to still meet the FCC’s responsibilities. It’s one of the longest FCC orders I can recall, at 296 pages.

The new rules would eliminate a lot of old regulations and replace them with new rules intended to speed up the paperwork process by applying “bright-line” criteria for approving new satellites. For those not familiar with that term, a bright-line regulation is one with a clear, objective rule or standard that leaves no room for subjective interpretation or exceptions, that is designed to create highly predictable outcome. A bright-line approval process would list specific requirements, and any applicant who meets those requirements would be approved. Perhaps I’m naïve, but I would expect that approving new satellites should include a thorough engineering review at the FCC. There should also be an opportunity for other satellite providers to note any problems with an application. I’m all for improving the processing time at regulatory agencies, but changing from today’s through review to a set of bright-line rules is going too far in the direction of simplification and assumes that satellite companies won’t propose any bad or unworkable ideas.

100,000 Satellites for Starlink? Perhaps this is a coincidence for the FCC wanting to simplify satellite applications, but Starlink filed an application to expand to 100,000 broadband satellites to its constellation, up from the 12,000 that will be in orbit at the end of this year and the 15,000 total that have been authorized by the FCC. The application includes a request to get access to new spectrum in the W and D bands between 92 and 275 GHz. The filing says that the new satellites will be the new Gen3 that will be capable of speeds up to several gigabits per second. Never one for modesty, the filing from Elon Musk says that SpaceX has a goal of handling the majority of the world’s internet traffic.

Rocket Lab Buys Iridium. In an $8 billion deal, Rocket Lab is acquiring the satellite company Iridium. Iridium currently operates a constellation of 66 satellites that provide a range of services that include phone and data services using the L-band spectrum, positioning services, and navigation and timing services. Rocket Labs is a launch service that hopes the deal will make the company into a full-service provider that both launches and operates satellites. The company hinted earlier this year that it was interested in developing its own constellation but said it’s not ready to announce specific plans and services until it acquires the needed spectrum.

NASA Warns About Launch Site Capacity. A report from the inspector general of NASA warns that the increasing number of space launches is posing problems for spaceports. The report warns that the Kennedy Space Center in Florida and the Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia are approaching operational capacity and will hit their limits between 2028 and 2029. The prediction is that the number of launches will grow from the current 109 annual launches to 268 per year by 2030, which will overstrain the launch facilities that were constructed years ago to support the Apollo program. The report warns that an investment of at least $1 billion is needed to future-proof the sites. The launch sites are controlled under the NASA budget, and the administration has proposed a 24% cut in NASA’s budget for the next fiscal year, which includes eliminating forty scientific programs.

Premium Fees from Starlink? A recent article in Futurism reports that SpaceX is charging some users a demand surcharge of $500 to $1,500 because their address is within a high-demand area. The article cites several customers who have been hit with the surcharge, and who complain that it’s nearly impossible to fight the issue through the company’s slim customer service process.

The article notes that the congestion charge was quietly reintroduced in 2024 at a one-time fee of $100 for high-congestion areas. PC Magazine reported in 2025 that the fees had been increased to as much as $1,000. As of last month, there are reports of surcharges of $1,500 in parts of Alaska.

Meanwhile, Starlink has increased prices. While it now offers usage-capped plans for $55 or $85 in selected areas, the price for normal unlimited Starlink broadband was increased from $120 to $130.

Behind the Scenes at T-Mobile

There is some interesting corporate maneuvering happening behind the scenes at T-Mobile. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall) talks about the plans that Timotheus Höttges, the CEO of Deutsche Telekom, has for his company. The company is already the biggest cellular company in the world with over 273 million mobile customers in fifty countries.

Höttges is now trying to orchestrate a full merger between the two firms. Deutsche Telekom currently owns 54% of T-Mobile, and during his twelve years in charge of the company, he’s changed T-Mobile from a company that perpetually lost money to one of the most recognizable brand names in the industry. He thinks a merger is needed to give T-Mobile the resources it needs to fully succeed.

T-Mobile recognizes that the key to success is to own a large number of both fiber and cellular customers. The company has been engaging in partnership deals to gain a share of fiber overbuilders. A few years ago, the company purchased a 50% stake in Metronet, a Midwest fiber overbuilder. The company engaged in a joint venture with EQT to acquire Lumos. More recently, T-Mobile purchased 50% of i3 Broadband, GoNetspeed, and Greenlight Networks. The company bought all of the ownership of US Internet in the Twin Cities.

The Wall Street Journal reports that T-Mobile is financially constrained from growing through big acquisitions and deals. The current T-Mobile corporate structure makes it impossible for the company to buy companies by issuing stocks without diluting the ownership of Deutsche Telekom, and it’s limited on how much debt it can take on.

Höttges believes that combining Deutsche Telekom and T-Mobile into a giant $300 billion company will allow T-Mobile to take on the debt needed to grow. He thinks T-Mobile should be competing with AT&T and Verizon, and that’s going to take big acquisitions.

Höttges apparently has his work cut out for him. Current T-Mobile shareholders might not be interested in gaining ownership of the lower-margin Deutsche Telekom. He also needs to convince the German government, which owns a 28% share of Deutsche Telekom. And if he can pull off those steps, he has a lot of work to do to gain regulatory approval in the U.S. and Europe.

You have to wonder where an unconstrained T-Mobile would look for growth. There are still additional mid-sized and smaller fiber overbuilders it could pursue. The largest cable company that could be on the market is Altice, which is mired in a lawsuit against Apollo Global Management, Ares Management, and BlackRock that accuses the companies of trying to force it into bankruptcy.

The only other large companies that might make sense for a merger with T-Mobile would be Charter or Comcast. I’ve been reading several analysts lately who think the big blockbuster mergers are inevitable. But some think a more natural suitor for these companies would be SpaceX.

There is a lot that has to happen for Deutsche Telekom and T-Mobile before any big blockbuster deal can be contemplated.  For those of us who enjoy watching the big boys maneuver, the next few years are going to be very interesting.

Is AI Changing Traffic Patterns?

Mitch Wagner of Fierce Network recently published an article that claims that AI is blowing up 30 years of traffic network assumptions. He claims that AI traffic is smoothing the daily peaks and dips in network traffic that all ISPs are familiar with. While every ISP is a little different, any ISP that serves a lot of end-user customers expects traffic peaks in the evening, smaller peaks during the daytime, and very low levels of network traffic at night.

Network engineers have always paid close attention to the peaks, which were the main factor in determining the size of network connections. Nobody wants to have a network that restricts bandwidth when customers want to use it the most. The cable companies learned this lesson the hard way during the pandemic when customers suddenly needed to work and school from home and found the broadband connections unable to meet their needs, particularly in homes where more than one person wanted to use the network at the same time. Every network engineer I know can cite the busy hour, busy day, and busy week on the networks they manage.

Wager says the peaks in traffic are evening out and that networks are seeing a more consistent demand throughout the day. Wagner cites Ed Fox, the CTO of MetTel, from an interview given for a Fierce Network Research report.

I have no reason not to believe Mr. Fox. However, MetTel is an ISP that operates in major urban centers and likely serves the kinds of businesses that have become heavy AI users. It’s not hard to imagine that an urban ISP serving businesses might be seeing a drastic change in traditional network traffic patterns. But I have to think that MetTel and other urban business-centric ISPs didn’t have the same traffic patterns as other ISPs before the advent of AI.

I work with a number of ISPs and I have not heard anybody talking about a big change in traffic patterns. My clients work in a variety of markets, from rural to urban, but none concentrate on the urban market business that MetTel is experiencing in places like New York City.

However, I appreciate the article, because if it’s true, then most ISPs, except for fully rural ones, might eventually see some shift in traffic patterns due to AI. I am curious to get feedback from this blog from IPS to hear if anybody is seeing anything like the big changes being experienced by MetTel.

The Wagner article also claims that upstream bandwidth is growing faster than downstream, reversing a 30-year design assumption built around heavy downloads. This is something that has been well documented by OpenVault. They’ve been shown that upstream usage has been growing faster than download usage starting in 2024. In the first quarter of 2024, national average upload usage increased by 13.2% compared to 7.7% for download. In the first quarter of this year, average upload growth was at 19.8% while download growth was at 7.8%. OpenVault credits most of the growth in upload usage to computer software synching with data centers.

Wagner claims the upsurge in upstream usage comes from AI inference traffic moving towards the edge, particularly for video processing. What he means by that is big growth coming from uses of video cameras for functions like AI-driven video surveillance at retail locations, camera-equipped wearables, and cloud-based operational technology in applications like oil and gas asset management. I hope that the big national companies that monitor traffic begin tracking this issue. I’d love to hear more about the trends in specific traffic, like video surveillance and wearables.

Network engineers all understand that upload traffic is usually a tiny fraction of download usage, with average download usage a dozen times more than upload. With the possible exception of cable companies, upload usage is largely an afterthought for network engineers, who barely consider it when sizing and designing networks.

I have no doubts that there are localized situations where AI traffic is making a big difference in network traffic. But for ISPs that mostly serve residential and small business customers, I still have to think it’s a tiny, possibly unnoticeable blip.

The Future of State Broadband Offices

Kathryn de Wit and Jake Varn of Pew recently wrote an article that cautioned that States Must Consider Future of Broadband Offices. They note that some states have a sunset date embedded in the enabling legislation that will mean the end of State Broadband Offices if state legislatures don’t act.

I’ve also been thinking about this lately. States have been busy in recent years overseeing broadband grants that were funded by the Capital Project Fund. Many legislatures augmented those grants with funding from ARPA for additional grant funding. Both of those programs are finished this year, other than a few waivers to extend funding until July of next year. Before these two programs, the States oversaw the use of CARES Act funding, which was used for a wide variety of purposes. A handful of legislatures also funded broadband grants out of the state coffers.

Most States are busy right now trying to get BEAD grants in place with ISPs, although a few States have only minuscule outlays for BEAD. For unknown reasons, NTIA has still not agreed to the grants for Illinois and California. BEAD grant construction is supposed to conclude in four years, and States are on the hook to verify that construction meets the BEAD specifications.

There were two other sources of federal funding that were supposed to feed through the States. The biggest source is the BEAD non-deployment funds, which is whatever is left over from the $42.5 billion grant program after funding infrastructure. This was originally a relatively small amount, and in 2024, thirteen States told NTIA that they would probably have excess funding left over after infrastructure grants. However, when NTIA implemented the Benefit of the Bargain rules, it slashed infrastructure grants, and non-deployment has ballooned to over $21 billion. There is still no assurance that this money will ever be given to States to spend. NTIA has repeatedly pushed off the date when it will disclose the use of these funds. The U.S. Treasury continues to refer to these funds as net savings, implying they won’t be spent.

The other funding that is still up in the air is the $2.75 billion in grants that were funded by the Digital Equity Act. A lot of this funding was to be administered by the States to provide computers and training to take advantage of the new infrastructure being built through federal grants. The administration abruptly canceled this grant program, supposedly because it included the word equity in the title. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) sued the administration over the end of the grant. It’s possible that this funding still has legs. The DOJ told a court last week that the government might remove its objections to the grant program if all references to race were removed. But there is probably still a long road to seeing this funding since the administration’s proposed budget for next year eliminates these funds.

I have to wonder what happens to State Broadband Offices if non-deployment or Digital Equity Grants are never funded. They will be left overseeing the invoices for BEAD. States are on the hook to measure speeds on grant programs for another decade – but will that be enough to convince legislatures to keep funding broadband offices?

Some States will fund new grant programs to bring infrastructure to the places missed by BEAD. Wisconsin has already announced a new state grant program, and there will probably be another half dozen states that issue grants to continue to close the broadband gap. But a lot of States now believe they are mostly covered with decent broadband, and there won’t be any incentive for those States to continue to pay for a broadband office.

Pew suggests activities that broadband offices should pursue after BEAD. This includes setting broadband goals, collecting and mapping broadband data, and providing technical assistance to communities and stakeholders. I would extend that list to suggest that States focus on digital inclusion and affordability efforts to make sure that everybody can actually use the broadband networks that have been built.

But I have to wonder how much traction these goals will generate in States that are looking at meager and tight overall budgets in the foreseeable future. Is broadband going to remain enough of a priority at State legislatures to attract funding when so many other important functions are losing federal funding? Will States that think broadband has been solved care about maintaining a broadband grant office? We have to remember that, before the CARES Act many States did not have a formal broadband office. I suspect that when the sunset date hits for broadband offices, that some States will let the function lapse in favor of other priorities. I can’t see the States caring very much about NTIA requirements to measure broadband speeds for BEAD networks once those networks are funded and operational.

Why Are We Building 6G?

I was recently reading the preliminary specifications for 6G, which led me to wonder why the cellular industry is willing to make a huge investment in a new technology that is likely not going to drive a lot of new revenue opportunities. I’m admittedly not a wireless guy, so perhaps I’m missing something. But consider the claims being made for 6G.

Faster Speeds. 6G will support peak data rates at speeds between 50 and 100 Gbps. Is there really a market for faster cellular speeds? Are cellular customers crying out for faster speeds than can be supported by 5G (supposedly 10 Gbps)? What’s not said is that the highest speeds touted by the specification can only come through deployment of superhigh spectrum, which also comes with severe distance limitations outdoors.

Lower Latency. The 6G spec targets latency between 0.1 and 1 milliseconds, which is better than the 4 millisecond goal of 5G. But are there many customers willing to pay extra for that level of low latency?

Enables Immersive Communications. 6G is said to enable technologies like immersive eXtended Reality (XR), remote multi-sensory telepresence, holographic communications, haptic sensors and actuators, and multi-sensory interfaces. While these all sound supercool, and will certainly have proponents, is there enough revenue opportunity from these technologies to justify a massive upgrade of cell towers? Over the last five years, we’ve seen Meta completely fail to convince the world to use the metaverse using fiber connections. Technologies like smart glasses have been a total flop.

These technologies all require significant bandwidth, implying that we’d have to bring cell towers closer to users. Are cellular carriers suddenly going to invest in the small cell network that largely never materialized with 5G? Cellular carriers love the advantages of small cells, but they don’t want to pay for the fiber connectivity needed to support towers everywhere.

Connections for Smart Machines. This means things like autonomous factories and robots. 5G promised smart factories, and there have been some built – but there was not nearly enough revenue from these to support the huge investments in ubiquitous 5G. It’s a very different technology to broadcast 5G inside a factory than from every cell tower. Maybe I have a faulty crystal ball – does anybody see the country swarming with robots in the next decade?

Ability to Connect to Massive Numbers of Devices. This was the big hope for 5G. Cell carriers thought that every car would have a separate cellular subscription. They assumed that farms would be using massive numbers of cellular sensors. They assumed that our homes would be filled with smart appliances and devices connected to 5G.

But this didn’t happen. Iain Morris, the International Editor of Light Reading, recently published an article that cautioned that cellular carriers will be repeating their past commercial failures if they pin their hopes on 6G capturing big revenues from IoT.

The article reminded me of some of the early predictions related to IoT. Dave Evans of Cisco predicted in 2015 that the world would have 50 billion IoT devices by 2020. According to the recent Ericsson Mobility Report, the world had 22.3 IoT devices at the end of 2025, massively short of the 2015 prediction. It’s still an impressive number, since it means there are now almost three IoT devices for every person on earth. But as Morris points out, very few of these devices use 5G. WiFi and other technologies like Loran have captured the IoT market.

The issue that killed the IoT market for 5G hasn’t changed for 6G. It’s still far too costly to use cellular technology to monitor devices that only periodically connect to the Internet. And that is before considering the cost of a cellular subscription.

What’s most troublesome to me about the advent of 6G is that it will be accompanied by the sunsetting of 4G. In the U.S., that is going to mean that rural cellular coverage is going to shrink to a tiny percentage of what is covered today as I discussed in a recent series of blogs. 5G has proven to be a wonderful urban technology. 5G was a mandatory update for cellular companies since 4G was unable to support the increasing numbers of urban cellphones, particularly when customers increased the use of cellular data. But I’m having a hard time seeing the same need for the expensive upgrade to 6G. I know cellular carriers must be quietly having this same conversation.