The NTIA just released proposed Guidance rules for State Broadband Offices to consider if they want to make BEAD grant awards to alternate technologies (specifically unlicensed fixed wireless and low-orbit satellite service). These are draft rules, and comments are due back to NTIA by September 10.

This is an issue that has been discussed for the last several years. Since states are under an edict to find a broadband solution for every unserved and underserved location before they can award any grants, it’s been obvious for a long time that States would have to rely on alternate technologies to reach everybody. I find it perplexing that NTIA would just get around to addressing the issue this late in the game. A majority of States have already started the 365-day shot clock to award grants, and the proposed rules introduce an entirely new set of processes and timelines to layer onto the hectic BEAD process that is already underway. I’m picturing State Broadband Offices pulling their hair out when they read these proposed rules.

In order for a State to consider an alternate technology, it must invite fixed wireless and satellite providers to basically apply for grant funding. During that process, the alternate providers must be allowed to propose to serve specific locations. Alternate providers must meet a different set of requirements than other applicants related to technical and operational capability. Alternate providers will still be on the hook for many BEAD requirements, like having a letter of credit or meeting any low-rate requirements.

Alternate technology providers must also prove that they have the network capacity to reach everybody in a proposed service area within ten days of a request for service. That will require technical proof that the network has the capacity to provide at least 5 Mbps simultaneously to every home in a service area or be able to provide 2 terabytes of usage per home per month. Grant offices are going to have a huge challenge judging this kind of claim from an ISP. Such a proof will be highly technical and is something that is hard to prove.

There are extra rules for low-orbit satellite providers (which has to mostly be Starlink). A satellite provider can ask for the funding needed to make sure its network will have the capacity to serve BEAD locations during the four-year term of the BEAD grant process. I can’t imagine that there is anybody at a State Broadband Office who will be able to judge such a claim. It also looks like the NTIA is thinking of extending the funding window for satellite broadband up to ten years, but this part of the rules are fuzzy. The document suggests that satellite providers might best be reimbursed for each connected BEAD location, but it holds out other alternatives.

All of this is going to add time and effort for a Broadband Office. A State that wants to do this must first modify its Volume 2 rules to adopt the alternate technology rules. They will have to figure out what questions they want to ask potential applicants and figure out how to interpret the responses. They will have to figure out how to determine the cost of expanding networks to meet the capacity requirements for the next four years. They are going to have to figure out what it means to keep the funding window open for ten years for satellite broadband. And they have to do all of this while trying to hurry through the normal BEAD process.

One of the key requirements for this Guidance is that any funded alternate technology “meets the BEAD Program’s minimum technical requirements of speeds of not less than 100 Mbps for downloads and 20 Mbps for uploads and latency less than or equal to 100 milliseconds.” From what I’ve seen from Starlink speed tests, upload speeds are going to be a problem – average speeds seem to be in the range of 10 Mbps. The download speeds for Starlink seem to vary widely by geography, with some parts of the country seeing median speeds over 100 Mbps but others seeing slower speeds.

One big problem with this new process is that it is being done after most states have finished the map challenges. This Guidance calls for a new process for alternate providers to claim where they can serve – but without an additional chance for others to dispute their claims.

States are not required to participate in this, but since they are required to find a solution for every BEAD-eligible location, many of them will be forced to tackle this. Add this to the list of inexplicable bureaucratic decisions by NTIA that will further delay grant awards.