New Radio over Coax

Charter, Rogers Communications, and CableLabs have collaborated on a new technology they are calling new radio over coax (NRoC). The immediate goal of the new technology is to use a cable company’s coaxial network to transmit 5G signals. In Charter’s case, the company wants to use new bandwidth to take advantage of Charter’s CBRS spectrum.

The technology to make this happen relies on opening up new spectrum inside the HFC (Hybrid fiber coaxial) network at frequencies higher than 1.8 GHz, which is the current bandwidth needed to implement DOCSIS 4.0. Much in the same way that DSL transmits broadband at a higher frequency on telephone copper, NRoC will transmit at a higher frequency that won’t interfere with the current network transmissions of video and broadband.

There are numerous potential uses for a cable company by opening a new data path on an HFC network. Charter wants to turn neighborhood HFC nodes into small cell sites using CBRS spectrum. Charter purchased a substantial amount of CBRS spectrum in 2020 and has already deployed several hundred CBRS transmitters in neighborhoods in North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Charters wants to use its own CBRS spectrum to provide cellular relief in neighborhoods with high cellular demand and to reduce the MVNO cellular minutes it buys from Verizon.

Charter says that NRoC can transform the cost of small cell deployment. The company already has huge numbers of existing neighborhood nodes where the network transitions from fiber to coaxial cable. This technology would enable Charter to add a new small cell site at any node for a significantly lower cost than adding a traditional small cell site. Deploying NRoC radios takes advantage of existing networks and don’t require new backhaul or fiber construction.

Having a second data path across the whole network opens up a lot of other possibilities.

  • The extra bandwidth might be a good place to house AI software used to maximize the performance of the network.
  • The extra bandwidth could be used for new products, such as supporting communications with IoT sensors.
  • An intriguing possibility would be to use the extra bandwidth as a way to distribute earthbound traffic from direct-to-satellite cellular communications.

Charter hasn’t disclosed any details about the CableLabs development, but it’s not hard to envision dozens of market uses for a second data path for networks that are already routed into every neighborhood in urban and suburban markets.

Comparing American and British Broadband Prices

I’ve regularly heard that U.S. broadband prices are a lot higher than European prices. I found a way to check this when I ran across this article from ISPreview that has a long list of gigabit broadband prices across the UK.

The article includes the listed prices for 41 British ISPs for 2022, 2023, and current 2025 prices. This is not an exhaustive list and there are 140 ISPs in the UK that offer gigabit broadband today. The list includes the ISPs that ISPreview has been tracking since 2022.

The article includes only residential broadband prices. The ISPs use either hybrid fibre coax for cable companies or fibre. (notice the British spelling of fiber). The ISPs range from large to small, and urban and rural. The list includes nonprofit community ISPs, open-access ISPs, and commercial ISPs.

The prices in the article include the VAT (value added tax), which is administered the same as a sales tax. The VAT on broadband in the UK is 20%, so the ISPs only collect 80% of the prices shown, with the 20% going to the government.

Just like in the U.S., ISPs in the UK often have specials and promotions and sell broadband for less than the lost prices. Some of the prices in the article’s list show both the regular and the promotional prices.

The average list price for the UK ISPs in 2025 is £50.9, which is $67.70 in current dollars. Because of the VAT, ISPs only collect the equivalent of $56.42 today.

The main point of the article is that list prices have been dropping. Twenty-three ISPs on the list have lower list prices in 2025 compared to 2022. Twelve ISPs have higher prices. The rest have the same price as 2022. Overall, the average price in pounds dropped from £56.68 in 2022 to £50.9 today, an average drop in dollars of $7.68. The authors of the article found this drop to be extraordinary considering the inflation over the period and attributed the dropping prices to competition.

How do the UK list prices compare to U.S. list gigabit prices in 2025? The following table shows the list prices for gigabit broadband from some of the largest ISPs in the country. I got these prices from broadband labels. In some cases the U.S. prices include extra fees that are part of mandatory billing.This list of large U.S. ISPs has an average monthly list price rate of $93.87 in 2025. Many of these ISPs have far lower promotional rates for new subscribers, such as the new $70 gigabit offered by Comcast that’s guaranteed for five years. However, it’s still eye-opening to compare the average list price in the U.S. of $93.97 to the list average list price in the UK of $67.70, which is only $56.42 after removing the VAT tax. British gigabit list prices are 40% less expensive than U.S. gigabit broadband.

Comcast’s Woes

On the recent Comcast quarterly earnings call, the company’s President, Mike Cavanagh, admitted the company is having problems and said that Comcast isn’t ‘winning in the marketplace”. There are probably not a lot of people who will read this blog and shed a tear for Comcast. For much of the last decade, Comcast, along with Charter, thrived by taking customers away from telephone companies.

Comcast lost 199,000 net broadband customers in the first quarter. The losses may not seem significant for a company with 31.6 million customers, but if this quarterly loss is sustained the company will drop 2.5% of broadband customers for the year.

It’s obvious that both fiber overbuilders and FWA wireless are taking customers from Comcast. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon added 913,000 new FWA customers in the first quarter of 2025 and haven’t slowed down on customer acquisition as some have predicted. It’s a little harder to quantify the additions to fiber in the quarter since dozens of companies are building fiber to compete with the big cable companies in various markets. But everything I hear says that in every new market where fiber appears, the fiber ISP is snagging a quick 30% to 40% market share.

Cavanaugh says there is a disconnect between the strength of the Comcast networks and the inability to win or keep customers. The company has concluded that the two primary causes for their problems are price transparency and predictability.

It’s clear that Comcast has been counting on having better broadband speeds as a lure to attract and retain customers. The company has been working to increase upload speeds in the current DOCSIS 3.1 networks, and the company announced in September 2024 that it was ready to go full bore on upgrading to DOCSIS 4.0, which will bring multi-gigabit upload and download speeds.

But that doesn’t seem to be impressing customers in the way the company hoped. I’m not sure what Comcast means by price transparency, but it’s clear to customers that Comcast has been the most expensive of the large ISPs. The company’s published list prices for 300 Mbps or faster broadband all pushed or exceeded $100 per month after counting the $15 monthly fee for a WiFi modem. Comcast list prices are far higher than FWA, priced at $55-$65 and also significantly above what most fiber ISPs charge.

It’s not hard to understand price predictability. Customers paying full prices for Comcast broadband have surely been dismayed to see the company continually lowering promotional prices as the company has tried to be more competitive. It seems like Comcast prices have been different every time I checked them in the last year.

It looks like Comcast is going to bite the price bullet. On the earnings call the company announced new pricing of 400 Mbps for $55 per month that includes the WiFi modem and is guaranteed for five years. The new price won’t require a customer contract. Comcast is also throwing in one line of cellular for free for a year.

This is going to be a drastic change for the company. In the third quarter of 2024, the company’s ARPU was $73.78 per customer per month, and these new prices will knock that lower. It’s going to be a grand experiment to see if guaranteed low prices can turn the corner for the company. I have to imagine millions of existing customers are going to ask for that price, and it’s going to be hard to say no to them.

Lower prices will not change the fact that urban broadband is growing increasingly competitive. Comcast thrived for years by charging high prices in noncompetitive markets to offset lower prices in competitive ones. But noncompetitive markets are becoming a thing of the past.

Comcast did have one piece of good news in the first quarter. The company added 345,000 new cellular customers. That puts them on par with the other big carriers. T-Mobile added 495,000; AT&T added 324,000; Charter added 514,000; and Verizon added 94,000.

Full Speed Ahead

State Broadband Offices have seemingly aligned to put pressure on the federal government to get the BEAD awards made and the construction process started this year. While there might be a few exceptions, most State Broadband Offices have accelerated the grant review process and are either ready to make BEAD awards now or soon will be in a position to do so.

This is an interesting strategy because it seems to be coupled with getting State and local officials to lobby for a rapid conclusion of the grant process. County Boards and governors have been asking federal elected officials to let the BEAD process play out.

This is not to say that folks don’t want to see some changes in BEAD. For example, there are popular ideas in the federal SPEED for BEAD Act that would make it easier for ISPs to build. Those kinds of changes could be incorporated into BEAD contracts with grant winners without slowing down the process. Grant Offices and local officials fear a total reshuffling of the rules will force States to start the process all over again. If the decision at NTIA is to change grant scoring metrics, then it probably means changing the BEAD Volume 2 rules and having ISPs file all over again for the BEAD grants. It’s hard to imagine that a change like that won’t add six months to a year to making grant awards and would kill the chance of any broadband construction in 2025.

One of the most convincing things I’ve seen on the topic is a letter published by Broadband Communities Magazine. The letter was written by Josh Etheridge, the Co-Owner of EPC, a fiber construction firm. He pleads with officials to release the BEAD funding in Louisiana and says that delays have already forced him to start laying off some of his 160 full-time staff and an equal number of subcontractors. He makes the convincing argument that BEAD money ultimately gets spent supporting jobs in local communities – which was the stated purpose of the IIJA legislation that created BEAD.

NTIA says it will hopefully be ready to provide new guidance on BEAD around mid-May. So far, everybody associated with the NTIA BEAD process has been completely noncommittal about what changes might be coming. The only thing of substance that has been hinted at is that BEAD awards ought to be more technology-neutral to cut down on amount of grant funding needed. It’s that statement that has the whole industry on edge and on hold.

The BEAD grants were allocated to States in an extremely uneven manner since money was allocated using faulty FCC maps. Some States have enough BEAD money to mostly fund a fiber solution, as has been done in Louisiana. But even there, some of the money went to alternate technologies to serve remote locations. Other states are going to have to make substantial grants to non-fiber technologies to make the numbers work.

Broadband Offices and State and local officials all want to see the grant funding awarded to their states to build as much fiber as possible while still assuring that all BEAD-eligible locations get some better broadband solution. I think the big fear is not only that more funding will go to satellite, but that ‘excess funds’ will be reclaimed by Treasury and not spent on broadband. The phrase ‘once in a generation’ funding has probably been used too often for BEAD, to the point that people don’t really hear what it means. States are doing a magnificent job of spreading the BEAD money to bring as much public benefit as possible – and they are all asking to be left alone to finish the job.

We’ll find out in a few weeks if the strategy of plowing forward will be convincing. It’s certainly the fastest way to turn BEAD grants into construction projects.

Tariff Uncertainty

This is a blog about uncertainty because it’s hard to know what else to say about the impact of tariffs on the broadband industry – other than we know there will be an impact. Right now, the tariff situation is in utter turmoil. Every ISP I talked to about the issue had the same concerns. They are all hoping for certainty. They can deal with price increases, but they can’t deal with not knowing the situation for building a year from now.

ISPs generally plan a year ahead. The networks they are building now were planned in 2024, and many ISPs are paralyzed about what to plan for 2025. I’ve been through other periods of economic uncertainty during my career, and every time, the most common reaction to uncertainty from ISPs has been to take a pause until the uncertainty ended. If the tariff situation doesn’t soon become predictable, I would expect 2025 construction to slow significantly, particularly for smaller ISPs.

The first place I would normally go to get a feel about the impact of any big changes for the whole industry is to see what big ISPs have to say about it. The big ISPs have quarterly earnings calls, and Wall Street expects them to talk about expected changes in their company in the next quarter and next year. I listened to the recent earnings calls for Comcast, Charter, and T-Mobile, and the companies were all coy and noncommittal on the tariff topic.

Perhaps the easiest way to think about tariffs is by industry segment. I’ve been thinking about what will happen if tariffs settle in at something like the original announcement of 10% tariffs across the board.

Fiber ISPs would probably have the smallest impact of tariffs – but it’s not zero. Fiber is made domestically. Fiber electronics will be shielded from tariffs to some extent since the major electronics vendors established US manufacturing to prepare for BEAD grants. But those factories still rely on some imported components. Perhaps the biggest impact will come for non-grant construction since those ISPs have continued to buy cheaper imported electronics. It will be interesting to see if the new U.S. factories can supply everybody. I suspect they can’t. But even if they can, U.S. electronics are more expensive than the imported electronics before tariffs.

Cable companies are not going to be so lucky. Companies like CommScope and Vecima Networks that make cable electronics have already said they will have big hits from tariffs. We’ll have to see if this results in a slowdown of upgrades of cable networks to DOCSIS 4.0 or mid-splits. Day-to-day components like settop boxes are mostly manufactured overseas.

WISPs and cellular carriers are likely to see a hit from tariffs since most of their electronics are imported. There are American makers of towers and related equipment. Cellphone prices would increase from tariffs, but for now those tariffs have been reversed.

All ISPs are going to see a hit on WiFi gear, which is almost all imported.

ISPs and carriers buy a lot of vehicles, and it looks like the cost of new vehicles will be climbing.

The surprising increases are going to come on the little stuff like the small hardware needed for all kinds of network construction. The worry is not just that those prices might climb, but that there will be supply chain interruptions.

Any ISP that is building a network funded by grant dollars has to be worried since grants awarded in past years will not be increased, and the ISP will have to absorb the full impact of tariff increases. I have to wonder if this will put more pressure on defaults for RDOF and other previous grants if ISPs see grant projects becoming unviable. I won’t be shocked if some of the companies winning BEAD grants change their mind by the time they are asked to sign a grant contract later this year.

The bottom line is that uncertainty is not good for the industry, and I think the reactions we’ll be seeing from ISPs will be more a reaction to uncertainty than to cost increases.

Project Kuiper Finally Here

After several delays due to bad weather, Amazon’s Project Kuiper finally launched its first batch of low-orbit broadband satellites on April 28. The company says it is in communication with all 27 new satellites. Amazon used a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket launched from Cape Canaveral.

Amazon is under pressure to get the launches going and has a commitment to the FCC to launch 1,618 satellites by July 2026. That’s half of Project Kuiper’s first satellite fleet of 3,232 satellites. The company has seven more scheduled launches using the Atlas V rocket, 38 launches scheduled for ULA’s larger Vulcan Centaur rocket, and 30 launches scheduled on Arianespace, Blue Origin, and SpaceX.

The company’s name refers to the Kuiper Belt, a region of the solar system that exists beyond the eight major planets. The Kuiper Belt is named after the late Dutch astronomer Gerard Kuiper, one of the fathers of modern planetary science.

Project Kuiper’s stated mission is to provide fast, affordable broadband to communities around the world that are unserved or underserved with broadband. The company says it will offer three sizes of customer terminals that will support three tiers of service at 100 Mbps, 400 Mbps, and 1 gigabit. No prices have been announced yet for the receivers. The industry is waiting to find out what Amazon means by affordable broadband. It will be interesting if Project Kuiper significantly undercuts the prices charged by Starlink.

Project Kuiper is currently part of the Devices and Services division of Amazon that is also the home for devices like the Kindle, Echo, Fire TV, eero, Ring, and others. The company is headquartered in Redwood, Washington, and the satellites are manufactured at nearby Kirkland, Washington. Amazon claims the factory will be able to crank out five new satellites per day.

Launching a satellite fleet isn’t just about satellites, and the company is building earth stations around the world to communicate with the satellites as well as sites that can track the telemetry and keep satellites operating in the right orbits.

The satellites will be parked in a narrow band between 590 and 630 kilometers (367 and 392 miles) above Earth.

It’s going to be interesting to see what a second major LEO satellite provider means for the U.S. broadband market. There is a movement currently underway to divert more of the $42.5 billion in BEAD grants to LEO satellites. It will be interesting to see how much of that might go to untested Project Kuiper.

There have been no announcements when Project Kuiper would begin offering service. Starlink began a beta test service in the U.S. in July 2020 when the company had 595 satellites. Starlink has 1,260 satellites when it began retail broadband service in early 2021.

Increased Attacks Against ISP Networks

Netscout recently released its latest Threat Intelligence Report that documents DDoS attacks in the second half of 2024. As has been the trend for many years, the largest target of DDoS attacks has been ISP networks. There were over 8.9 million DDoS attacks documented in the second half of last year, up 12.75% over the first half of the year.

The report shows that the largest number of DDoS attacks came against wired ISPS and carriers. In the second half of 2024, there was 524,445 attacks against wired network, with the second most attaches against computer infrastructure providers at 197,221. This is not hard to understand since attacks against an ISP is the easiest way to make an attack against a specific target.

The report shows that the average DDoS attack against wired networks lasted for 33 minutes and that the maximum attack for the period used 937 Gbps during the attack.

Wireless carriers saw 24,433 attacks in the second half of 2024, with an average duration of 86 minutes and the maximum size of the attack measured at 119 Gbps.

Netscout noted that DDoS attacks are now outpacing other kinds of cyberthreats. DDoS attacks are launched by sending huge amounts of requests for connection to a specific network, often at critical times. The purpose is to effectively knock the network out of service for a while.

The report notes that a lot of the attacks are politically motivated. Attacks against Israel were up 2,844 percent last year, and attacks against Georgia were up 1,478 percent. The report notes that DDoS attacks are not just a cybercriminal tool but have become a dominant tool in geopolitical intimidation.

The report notes some of the regional causes for attacks. For example, in Kenya, a lot of attacks were launched to protest finance bills. In Mexico, the attacks spiked to coincide with elections.

The attacks are often launched by linking low-power Internet of Things (IoT) botnets with high-performance enterprise servers and routers, which amplifies the efficiency of the attack. Netscout notes that artificial intelligence automation is helping to prolong the attacks. Attackers are using a variety of methods including carpet-bombing, IPv6 abuse, ISP masking, and geo-spoofing. Unfortunately, many of the tools used to fight back and end DDoS attacks are losing effectiveness.

FCC Loses the Ability to Levy Fines

On April 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to levy fines. The case under appeal came from an AT&T fine issued by the FCC in 2024 against the company for violating customer privacy by selling customer location data. AT&T appealed the FCC ruling and said that the FCC had violated the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution by not allowing AT&T to have a jury trial.

The Fifth Circuit sided with the AT&T appeal and said that the FCC had acted as prosecutor, judge, and jury in deciding that AT&T had broken the rules and in setting the fine.

The Court ruling was not particularly kind to AT&T and is worth a read. The Court recounted the facts of the case and said that AT&T was, at a minimum, guilty of negligence since it assumed that those who purchased its location data would protect consumer’s privacy rights.

The Court’s opinion relies in the 2023 Supreme Court Decision in SEC v Jarkesy that ruled that the SEC had no authority to levy civil fines. Since then, many lawyers have assumed that the ruling would apply broadly to all federal agencies, and this ruling affirms that opinion. The two cases together seem to affirm the inability of federal agencies to fine the companies they regulate.

This ruling will stand unless the FCC appeals it. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr and Commissioner Nathan Simington both objected to the original fines against AT&T. However, the FCC has issued fines since 2023 against others, including a $4.5 million fine levied this year against Telnyx LLC related to making imposter robocalls leading up to last year’s elections. The FCC already wrote a letter to other courts that are reviewing cases involving FCC fines and asked those courts not automatically follow this decision.

The case also brought into question the process by which the FCC decides that its rules have been broken. The Court found that the FCC had essentially judged AT&T as guilty without giving the company the chance to defend itself. This might mean that the FCC and other regulatory agencies will be limited to gathering facts and forwarding cases to the DOJ without making any findings of wrongdoing. I don’t want this to sound like an overexaggeration but that philosophy seems like it would largely take the FCC out of the regulatory business. It would mean that the agency can set rules but can’t decide that a regulated company has broken its rules, since doing so would be a finding of wrongdoing without a trial.

I’m not a lawyer, and there are nuances to this ruling that I am probably missing. But this doesn’t seem to bode well for the FCC and many other regulatory agencies. The ruling would seem to curtail the ability of Chairman Carr to pursue a lot of the topics on his 2025 wish list.

Technology Equality

There was an article published last week by Dr. Christopher Ali in Tech Policy.Press that asks if we should be making widespread broadband grants to Starlink and other low-orbit satellite technologies. Dr. Ali is Professor of Telecommunications in the Bellisario College of Communications at Penn State.

I highly recommend reading his paper. I was particularly taken by his conclusion. He says, “There is an important difference between technological neutrality and technological equality. LEO and fiber are not equal, and any policy that treats them as such will widen the very divide we have spent decades trying to bridge.”

I have been making this same observation about almost every grant program in the last decade, but just not as eloquently as Ali. As Ali points out, his comments are not a criticism of Starlink. Like him, I’ve talked to dozens of rural folks who absolutely rave about Starlink. For rural households, finally getting access to working broadband twenty years after the rest of the country has been a revelation. They can finally work at home, join Teams calls, and take online classes – things that the vast majority of Americans take for granted. Starlink should absolutely be a part of BEAD to reach remote locations, but should it be deployed to other locations?

Ali’s real issue is with the folks who set grant rules. Consider BEAD. The rules were established in 2020, and grants were not expected then to be finally completed until the end of 2028. Consider how much broadband has changed in the country just between 2020 and 2025.

  • In 2020, Ookla said the median broadband speed in the country was 86 Mbps download and 12 Mbps upload. In March of this year, Ookla says that median broadband speeds in the country has increased to 287 Mbps download and 53 Mbps upload.
  • In the second quarter of 2020, OpenVault said the average U.S. household used 359 gigabytes per month of download data and 25 gigabytes of upload data. OpenVault says at the end of 2024 that consumption had grown to 652 gigabytes of download and 46 gigabytes of upload.

The policy folks who set the BEAD rules set the broadband target performance for BEAD just a hair above the national average broadband performance in 2020. We’re only half way to the completion of BEAD grant construction and the country has already more than doubled the 2020 national broadband speeds and consumption. It’s not a stretch to predict that by 2028 the average U.S. home will be consuming more than a terabyte of data each month.

If the authors of the BEAD grant rules had looked just a decade forward, they would have set the BEAD performance standard to something like 400/100 Mbps. It doesn’t seem like a big policy stretch to think that valuable grant money ought to build networks that match the average market performance when they are completed. As Ali mentions, the biggest issue with LEO satellites isn’t even speeds, but capacity. Will the LEO companies be able to provide broadband to the many millions of households who will have no other broadband options?

It’s obvious why the folks in Congress picked wimpy BEAD standards. They are politicians and were under tremendous pressure from ISPs to not be excluded from BEAD dollars – and even under more pressure to not declare cable company networks as underserved. I remember the furor from cable companies in 2020 that lobbied hard against the BEAD upload speed requirement of 20 Mbps. That was because, at that time, most of them had upload speeds closer to 10 Mbps. It’s amazing what only five years of market pressure has done, and cable companies are upgrading urban upload speeds to 100+ Mbps with quick mid-split upgrades and have plans to get to gigabit upload speeds with DOCSIS 4.0.

WISPs didn’t have the same market power as cable companies in 2020, but they fought hard to make sure that the requirement for BEAD didn’t climb above 100 Mbps. But after only five years, they got access to a lot of new spectrum and can buy gear that will deliver 500 Mbps or faster broadband.

As ALI points out, LEO technology barely meets the 2020 definition of broadband that was codified in BEAD, and it is not a forward-looking technology – it is not equal to fiber or even to fixed wireless. And yet, the NTIA is doing mental gymnastics using an argument about technology neutrality to give more money to satellite technology. Perhaps the critics of satellite technology will be proven wrong, and satellite providers will improve technology so that by 2028, they will be delivering forward-looking speeds and coverage. But if not, we’ll be making grant awards in 2025 to implement 2020 broadband.

Four Trends in Infrastructure Spending

There is an interesting article from the Brookings Institute that documents four trends in infrastructure funding. The conclusions of the report surprised me and I suspect they will surprise others.

Infrastructure Spending is Up, But Spending as a Share of GDP is Down  

Total infrastructure spending has been climbing steadily over the last fifty years. Infrastructure in the early 1970 was a little over $300 billion per year, and since 2015 has been between $600 and $640 billion per year. However, the comparison of infrastructure spending to gross domestic product shows a slight decline over these same fifty years. In the early 1970s, infrastructure was 2.5% to 2.7% of GDP and in the 2020’s has dropped to 2.2% to 2.3% of GDP.

Gross domestic product is the measure of a country’s total economic output, expressed as the monetary value of all goods and services produced. The ratio of infrastructure spending to GDP shows the amount of national wealth that is reinvested in infrastructure. Seeing this ratio drop in recent years is an indication that, over time, the country is not reinvesting at the same level as in the past. Brookings says that most of the spending drop is related to highways, with the other categories of infrastructure spending the same or higher over time.

State and Local Governments Fund Most Infrastructure Spending

This is the finding that surprised me the most. The percentage of infrastructure spending that is funded by State and local governments has climbed steadily since the 1970s. In the 1970s, State and local government spending paid for 67.9% of infrastructure, and that has climbed to 77.5% since 2020. The percentage of federal spending has dropped even with what feels like huge infrastructure spending from the Infrastructure Investments Job Act and other federal programs.

To show the magnitude of the shift, in the 1970s, the federal government spent $1 trillion on infrastructure while State and local governments spent $2.2 trillion. In the 2010s, federal spending had increased to $1.3 trillion while state and local spending more than doubled to $4.6 trillion.

The Share of Infrastructure Spending on Maintenance is Climbing

The percentage of infrastructure spending to maintain existing infrastructure is climbing, meaning the percentage of spending for new infrastructure is dropping. In the 1970s, 44% of infrastructure spending was to maintain assets like roads and buildings, and that has grown to 57% since 2020.

State And Local Revenues More Important than Federal Grants

State and local revenues are paying for an ever-increasing percentage of infrastructure spending. This means state and local taxes and user fees. In the 1970s, 59.5% of infrastructure was funded by local taxes and fees and that’s up to 71.6% in 2023. This is also a surprise because of IIJA funding, and Brookings speculates that increased federal grants drive State and local government to fund more money than normal to use as grant matching funds.