Tag Archives: NTIA

BEAD Non-deployment Complications

The NTIA should be getting close to approving all of the state BEAD initial grant proposals. Once that has been done, one of the last big steps will be for NTIA to announce how States can receive and use the BEAD non-deployment funds. When NTIA initiated the Benefit of the Bargain rules, the amounts of BEAD allocated to infrastructure plummeted, and the non-deployment funds mushroomed to over $20 billion, almost half of the original $42.45 billion BEAD funding.

NTIA will hold a listening session soon to hear ideas from State Broadband Office on how they would like to use the funding. Most States had specific proposals for using the funds, but States may not have specific plans for the increased amounts of non-deployment created by the Benefit of the Bargain changes.

The nondeployment process got complicated when the White House issued an executive order that said that NTIA “must provide that States with onerous AI laws … are ineligible for non-deployment funds, to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law.”

A number of State Attorneys General have expressed a willingness to sue NTIA should they be denied non-deployment in general, but also specifically if they are denied because they have state AI regulations. There is a great article, written by Lawfare, on the legal issues involved if this issue is taken to court. The article concludes that States have a great argument to question if NTIA or an executive order can overcome the intent of Congress when it passed the original BEAD rules.

One interesting observation in that article is that the White House is relying on a claim that State AI regulations may harm the development and deployment of AI. The argument is that AI applications drive demand for the Internet, so any State regulations that threaten the use of AI also threaten the value of BEAD-funded infrastructure. If that line of reasoning is deemed to be valid, it would imply that NTIA could withhold funding related to any other web applications that uses a lot of broadband.

The AI issue got more interesting when 22 states and the District of Columbia filed comments with the FCC in December that ask that the agency to not preempt any State AI regulations. While many of the States in the filing are blue, the filing included Arizona, Tennessee, and Utah.

The final interesting aspect of the issue is legislation introduced by two republican Senators, Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), titled the SUCCESS for BEAD Act. The legislation is viewed as a way to negate the Executive Order and would require States to receive full funding and to distribute non-deployment funds through a competitive subgrant process. This would require grantees to provide a 25% match. The non-deployment funds could be used for six purposes: infrastructure improvement in rural areas, the enhancement of public safety and/or national security, network resiliency and cybersecurity protections, federal or military facilities, improving network latency, and the advancement of AI and related technologies.

Meanwhile, NTIA is still referring to non-deployment funds as savings, although there has been an acknowledgement that some of the funds should be distributed to States. I suspect that if NTIA does anything less than full distribution of all of the funds, we’ll see some combination of legislation and lawsuits to gain access to the funds.

BEAD Rule Changes for Permitting

NTIA issued new General Terms and Conditions dated November 2025 that include dozens of changes to the BEAD rules for recipients, but also changes that impact state Broadband Offices that have wider implications on States. I’m not listing all of the changes here, but there is a great summary of the changes done by the Benton Institute on January 14. This blog will look at the issues related to permitting that have repercussions far outside of the BEAD grant recipients.

In Section 13.D of the revised NTIA Terms and Conditions, State Broadband Offices (SBOs – which are described as Grantees by the NTIA) have a lot of major new obligations related to permitting.

SBOs must “establish procedures to ensure that broadband-related permit applications are promptly accepted, and requests are approved or denied within 90 days”.

In general, SBOs don’t hold a position of authority in State governments to impose rules on anybody other than recipients of grants. Permits for BEAD will mostly mean getting permits to build along existing roads. SBOs are going to have to agree to this requirement, but it’s hard to imagine how an SBO can impose rules for State roads, County roads, Township roads, Municipal roads, roads through Tribal lands, and the biggest challenge – roads passing through federal lands. The goal of getting permits completed within 90 days is great, but it’s hard to think that the small number of people working in SBOs even know the identity of the many permitting authorities in a state, let alone can have any influence, other than perhaps begging, to get BEAD permitting authorities to meet the 90-day deadline. An even bigger challenge is permitting on private land, since a lot of rural roads are privately owned. What can an SBO possibly do to influence private permits?

SBOs must assist “state and local authorities in establishing a single, dedicated point of contact, which has knowledge of the application and review processes, for broadband-related permits.

The key word in this requirement is ‘assist”. Assuming that States even want to go through this process, they vary widely in how this would be achieved. There are States where a Governor might be able to do this. There are States where a State Regulatory Commission might have the authority to tackle this. But in many States, this might require action for a Legislature. What happens in States that don’t undertake the formation of a single, dedicated point of contact?

SBOs must provide technical assistance to permitting agencies to ensure sufficient capacity (e.g., Master Agreement and Consultant Reimbursement Agreement templates, surge support for permit processing, etc.)

This recognizes that local governments often will not have enough staff to quickly process all of the permits required by a BEAD project. SBOs must develop template contracts that can assist a locality if it wants to get help to speed up permitting. But this doesn’t address the issue and time required by local governments when hiring outside vendors. It doesn’t address if a local government has a budget for additional help. Interestingly, this extra funding could come in some states from BED nondeployment funds, assuming there is enough such funding for the purpose.

SBOs must provide “deference to the construction techniques chosen by BEAD Subgrantees (without seeking to influence those decisions), absent any identified safety concerns.

I don’t know if anybody, except perhaps for big ISPs that might have suggested this language to NTIA, really knows what this means, other than allowing construction practices that would otherwise not be allowed by pole owners or by the governments who control the rights-of-way for buried construction. SBOs are being directed to turn their heads to what would normally be non-compliant construction techniques. I’m not sure how pole owners and rights-of-way owners will be expected to comply with this.

SBOs must maximize “streamlined processing through permitting by rule; batch processing of substantially similar permit requests; and waiving or expediting duplicative or burdensome broadband permitting requirements where possible.”

SBOs can certainly promote language that allows batch processing. But, related to the staffing issue addressed earlier, how might a County with little or no staffing be expected to comply with big batches of permits? Even more confounding, are SBOs expected to look at local rules for permitting across the state to identify the ones that are duplicative or burdensome – and what do they do when they identify such rules?

SBOs must follow “FCC rules regarding timelines, rates, terms, and conditions for access to municipally owned poles and conduit for broadband projects – including provisions in the FCC’s rules providing for “one-touch make-ready” and “self-help” – and requiring BEAD Subgrantees that own poles (including cooperatives) to comply with FCC rules across their footprint.”

Around 23 states and D.C. have decided to have their own pole attachment rules, something that has been allowed by federal legislation. While most of these rules are largely the same as the FCC rules, many differ in substantive ways. How can an SBO in a state with its own pole regulation somehow force the State to suddenly follow the FCC rules. The specific requirement cites self-help and one-touch make ready, which are some of rules where States have taken a decidedly different stance than the FCC.

Overall impression of these requirements. SBOs will clearly try to follow these requirements since they must agree to them before they get BEAD funding. But these rules create huge problems for SBOs that don’t have the authority and muscle to impose these rules on the rest of the State and on the many entities that are involved in permitting. To some degree, the severity of these rules, when judged against the practical chance of an SBO accomplishing them, seems like a tool for NTIA to be able to say that any selected State has failed its obligations. I assume that if NTIA tries to withhold funding to a State based on these rules that it will be sued, but that means BEAD goes on hold in that State, to the detriment of the many rural residents relying on better broadband. Interestingly, none of these rules hinders satellite BEAD winners.

BEAD on Hold?

It appears that NTIA missed an important step when it generated the new BEAD rules in June in the BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice. That is the document that changed the scoring of BEAD grants from using a dozen different scoring criteria to choose grant winners to a new method that focused on the character of the proposed technology (priority or not) and the cost per passing.

On December 14, NTIA got a ruling from the GAO that the changes made by NTIA in the Policy Notice are outside of the scope of NTIA’s authority. According to the decision from the GAO, a major change like the one implemented by NTIA requires approval by both Congress and the Comptroller General.

Agencies like NTIA are subject to the Congressional Records Act (CRA), which defines the administrative process that government agencies must follow to change rules. The GAO says that NTIAs Policy Notice implements, interprets, and prescribes law or policy, which triggers provisions of the CRA. The Policy Notice not only affected changes within NTIA of how it administers the BEAD program, but it changed the process of how Eligible Entities (State Broadband Offices) go about seeking funding under the program.

The GAO letter lists the possible ways that NTIA could be exempt from seeking Congressional approval and concluded that none of the exemptions apply to NTIA’s Policy Notice changes. The key trigger for the GAO ruling was that the rule changes created a substantial effect on non-agency parties, meaning States and ISPs.

The conclusion of the GAO is as follows: “The Policy Notice is a rule for purposes of CRA because it meets the definition of a rule under APA and no CRA exception applies. Therefore, the Policy Notice is subject to CRA’s requirement that it be submitted to Congress and the Comptroller General before it can take effect.”

The bottom line of this ruling is that NTIA had no authority to unilaterally change the BEAD rules in such a drastic fashion. The BEAD rules in the IIJA legislation were specific, and the changes NTIA ordered with the Policy Notice were significant enough to require NTIA to seek Congressional approval before making the changes.

This is an interesting twist. In normal times, this would mean that NTIA would have to put BEAD on hold until this is resolved. NTIA would not be able to enforce the changes in the Policy Notice, and if Congress didn’t approve the NTIA changes, the BEAD program would probably reset to the status in June before the Policy Notice. It would mean that all of the changes to grant scoring and the requirements for States to determine priority technologies would be invalid. It would means all tentative grant awards made under the revised rules are invalid. States would probably have to re-score grant applications under the original BEAD rules for selecting winners.

But we don’t live in normal times, and this Administration is currently ignoring the rules of the Congressional Records Act in many other venues and programs. So what does this mean? It may mean nothing, and NTIA might just ignore this GAO decision. This might trigger action from Congress. There has been a lot of unhappiness that the amount of grant awards was trimmed so drastically. This decision certainly gives an actionable reason for anybody who wants to take NTIA to court to halt the BEAD process during litigation. Like everything associated with BEAD, awards made under the new rules are going to be under a cloud, and that makes everybody uncomfortable.

BEAD and Affordability

One of the big glaring weaknesses of BEAD was that the enabling legislation and the NTIA rules made it impossible to consider affordability as a criterion of selecting BEAD grant winners. A few states tried to stress affordability during the BEAD process, but were largely shut down by the NTIA. After the Benefit of the Bargain rules, consideration of affordability went out the door, along with all factors other than the construction cost per passing.

In a speech made to the Hudson Institute, NTIA Assistant Secretary Aerielle Roth was quoted as saying, “This administration does not want BEAD to become just another well-intentioned broadband program that falls short. Its mission is nothing less than to close the “digital divide” once and for all.”

Unfortunately, the BEAD infrastructure grants alone were never going to close the digital divide. When we talk about solving the rural digital divide, we’re really talking about several different issues. A primary element of solving the digital divide is broadband availability, which is what infrastructure grants tackle. BEAD focused on making sure that BEAD-eligible locations got at least one broadband option with a speed of at least 100/20 Mbps.

Solving the digital divide means two more things. First, it means making sure that people have computers and devices and know how to use them effectively. Finally, solving the digital divide means having broadband that people can afford.

Congress intended to tackle all these elements of the digital divide solution. The Digital Equity Act was intended to provide the funding needed to make sure that folks had devices and knew how to use them. That effort was going to be bolstered by BEAD non-deployment funds that didn’t get used for infrastructure. Unfortunately, NTIA and the Administration have refused to distribute the funding from the Digital Equity Act, and it appears likely that most or all of the non-deployment funds won’t be made available to States.

At the time that the BEAD legislation was approved, the ACP program was underway to provide low-income homes with a monthly $30 discount off broadband. The BEAD legislation mandated that BEAD winners enroll and use the ACP program. Unfortunately, Congress let that program lapse.

There were State Broadband Offices that tried to tackle the affordability issue through the scoring of grants. These States tried to assign a lot of grant points to ISPs that offered lower rates. For example, the proposed grant scoring in some states would have given an edge to a cooperative with $65 rates over satellite broadband priced at $120 or another ISP with $100 rates.

The BEAD legislation said that States couldn’t use BEAD rules to ‘set rates’, and there were a few States that tried to do that in their grant scoring and tried to force rates as low as $30 or $40. NTIA nixed State attempts to force lower rates even before this year’s Benefit of the Bargain rules.

It’s a shame that overall rates couldn’t be considered in BEAD, because household incomes are lower in rural areas than in non-urban areas, meaning that affordability is more of an issue in rural areas. This is not true for all BEAD areas, but many of the areas covered by BEAD are both rural and poor. According to statistics published by the Federal Housing Finance Agency at the end of 2024, 18% of rural homes have household incomes under $25,000 per year, compared to 15% in non-rural areas. There is also a significantly higher percentage of rural homes with household incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 (21% vs. 17%).

To me, the bottom line is that BEAD is not going to solve the rural digital divide since it focuses only on infrastructure. NTIA has to shoulder the blame for nixing the grant funding that would have provided devices and digital skills training. Congress has to take the blame for ignoring profitability when it required  ACP participation as a component of BEAD, and then let ACP lapse without a replacement.

AI and BEAD Non-Deployment

Yesterday, President Trump signed an Executive Order that gives the federal government the sole authority to regulate AI. The EO provides three justifications for asserting federal authority.

United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation.  But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.  First, State-by-State regulation by definition creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups.  Second, State laws are increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models.  For example, a new Colorado law banning “algorithmic discrimination” may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a “differential treatment or impact” on protected groups.  Third, State laws sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate commerce.

Within 30 days, the U.S. Attorney General is required to establish an AI Litigation Task Force with the sole responsibility to challenge State AI Laws. It seems likely this will result in a series of federal lawsuits trying to preempt any State AI regulations.

Of concern to the broadband world is that the EO includes specific language that singles out BEAD grant funding. The EO says:

Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, shall issue a Policy Notice specifying the conditions under which States may be eligible for remaining funding under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program that was saved through my Administration’s “Benefit of the Bargain” reforms, consistent with 47 U.S.C. 1702(e)-(f).  That Policy Notice must provide that States with onerous AI laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order are ineligible for non-deployment funds, to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law.  The Policy Notice must also describe how a fragmented State regulatory landscape for AI threatens to undermine BEAD-funded deployments, the growth of AI applications reliant on high-speed networks, and BEAD’s mission of delivering universal, high-speed connectivity.

In case you are wondering the extent of State AI regulations, the following map comes from BCLP, which is accompanied by a description of existing and pending AI regulations, by State. As this map shows, over half of the States already have some form of AI regulation, and only three states don’t have existing or pending AI regulations.

It’s been clear that NTIA has been seeking a mechanism for denying non-deployment funds, which are the portion of the $42.5 billion in BEAD that is not being spent on infrastructure. Current estimates are that non-deployment funds will be more than $21 billion. These funds are supposed to be distributed to States under the IIJA legislation. This EO gives NTIA the grounds for denying non-deployment funds for a lot of States.

If you read through the existing AI regulations, most are of two types. Many States have enacted legislation that makes it illegal to use AI to defraud people, adding AI to laws that already forbid using emails, telephone calls, and other forms of communication. There are also States that have legislation that tries to protect citizens privacy. There are a few States with other restrictions.

State Broadband Offices in States that have AI regulations do not have the power to overturn AI regulations, and State legislatures must act if they want to cancel AI regulations to preserve non-deployment funds. That may be a futile effort, because my best guess is that we haven’t seen the end of attempts to deny non-deployment funds and that this is only the first volley. For what it’s worth, there is opposition to overturning State regulation of AI in Congress, but it would be extraordinary for this Congress to override an Executive Order with legislation.

Mission Accomplished?

In my recent annual predictions for 2026, I predicted that the FCC or the NTIA would declare that the rural digital divide has been solved since everybody in the country now has access to adequate broadband.

We got an inkling of this from NTIA Assistant Secretary Arielle Roth in a speech she made to the Hudson Institute. She alluded to the end of the rural digital divide twice in that speech. First, she said, “This administration does not want BEAD to become just another well-intentioned broadband program that falls short. Its mission is nothing less than to close the “digital divide” once and for all.” Later in the speech, she said, “Being good stewards of taxpayer money means holding awardees accountable and making sure those who take taxpayer dollars will deliver on their promises. That is what will set BEAD apart and ensure that this really is the last broadband funding program.”

I can’t find any similar statements from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, but he has been a strong supporter of satellite broadband. He’s been a big proponent recently for easing the regulation of satellite broadband companies and also freeing up a lot of spectrum for them.

It’s obvious that any pronouncements about the end of the rural digital divide would be tied to the ubiquitous availability of satellite broadband. It would not be a stretch for regulators to say that the rural digital divide has been solved since everybody can buy satellite broadband.

Of course, pronouncing the end of the rural digital divide is not the same thing as it being true. Starlink told State Broadband Offices that it needs BEAD grant funding to grow the capacity to serve larger numbers of rural households. Starlink no longer has any waiting lists, but it does warn that new subscribers might have to pay a ‘demand surcharge” in areas that are oversubscribed.

Starlink is no different than any ISP in that there is a maximum number of customers that it can serve in a geographic area. Recent estimates are that the company has around 2.6 million U.S. customers. Only Starlink knows what its real capacity is, but it’s not an unlimited number of subscribers, particularly in the parts of the country where it will see a greater concentration of customers. It’s anybody’s guess what Amazon One will mean for the industry.

There are definite repercussions if federal regulators say that the rural broadband gap has been solved. Certainly, this would mean the end of federal broadband grants. Even if grants are created, like is happening with ReConnect at USDA, there will be no grants awarded if the federal government declares that satellite broadband means all households are considered to be served.

Such a declaration probably also puts pressure on maintaining federal subsidies in rural areas through the Universal Service Fund. It becomes easy to justify ending ongoing subsidies for rural ISPs if satellite broadband can pick up any customers left stranded by the end of subsidies.

Such a declaration would be a big disappointment to the millions of homes being missed by BEAD. The last two years of the BEAD process focused on eliminating BEAD-eligible locations, many of which still don’t have good broadband. For example, the map challenge process eliminated huge numbers of homes from BEAD that are claimed by WISPs using CBRS spectrum, with no real concern if the WISPs were actually delivering adequate broadband. Making this declaration would end up leaving these homes to satellite without any public declaration.

People who still don’t have good broadband are not going to stop complaining about it to local, state, and federal elected officials. A declaration that rural broadband might make it easy to ignore these folks for a while, but that will only last for so long.

Predictions for 2026

The following are my predictions for 2026. I noticed that after I wrote this, the overall tenor of the list is negative. I’m generally pretty upbeat, but I can’t find fault with any of the predictions.

Federal Regulators Will Continue to Ignore Congress. Federal broadband regulators will continue to ignore Congressional legislation. This past year, the FCC ignored a Congressional edict to lower inmate calling rates. NTIA is ignoring Congress by withholding grant funding for the Digital Equity Act, and is likely to provide little or no funding for BEAD non-deployment funds. Expect similar actions in 2026.

Further Erosion of BEAD. NTIA is not done trying to whittle down the size of BEAD grant funding. The agency already whacked funding with the Benefit of the Bargain rule changes, along with numerous other actions. I expect NTIA to pull more rabbits out of the hat and find more excuses to deny funding to some states for issues like net neutrality, state permitting rules, or state regulation of AI.

Major Spectrum Battles. Congress instructed the FCC to find 800 megahertz of mid-range spectrum for auction. That means potentially reclaiming CBRS spectrum used for rural broadband and 6 GHz spectrum that is just starting to be implemented for WiFi 7. Cellular lobbyists preempted the normal deliberations on spectrum management and got the biggest item on their wish list included in the Big Beautiful Bill. I don’t expect opponents of the spectrum grab to go down without a big fight.

FWA Will Have Another Strong Year. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon just had the biggest quarterly gain of new customers yet, adding over 1 million net new FWA customers in the third quarter of 2025. I predict the three companies will continue to add over 900,000 customers per quarter in 2026, and even more if we see a softening of the economy.

Universal Service Fund Reform Will Stall. Congress is considering badly needed changes to the Universal Service Fund. In the current political chaos in Congress, I predict that a USF bill will never make it through the legislative process.   

Big ISPs Will Have Record Cash Windfalls. There hasn’t been a lot of industry press about the bonus depreciation change included in the Big Beautiful Bill. This allows ISPs to quickly write off current fiber construction, which will cut tax liabilities and generate big cash bonuses for the biggest ISPs in 2026. I predict much of the windfall will be used to buy back stock rather than invest in new networks.

Big ISPs Will All Raise Rates. You might think that in a weakened economy, where the cost of living is the number one issue with the public, ISPs might hold off on rate increases. But the recent $5 across-the-board rate increase by AT&T for fiber will be the first of many significant rate increases during the coming year.

A Federal Regulator Will Declare that the Rural Broadband Gap has Been Solved. I don’t know if it will be the FCC or NTIA, but I expect one of the federal broadband regulators to declare that the rural broadband gap has been solved because of the many grant programs and because everybody can now buy satellite broadband. Arielle Roth already hinted at this when she said in a speech that the mission of BEAD “is nothing less than to close the digital divide once and for all”.

Grants Should Look Forward

State Broadband Offices had to go through a process this year of deciding if various technologies qualify for grant purposes as priority projects. A priority technology must meet the following requirement: Provide broadband service that meets speed, latency, reliability, consistency in quality of service, and related criteria as the Assistant Secretary shall determine; and ensure that the network built by the project can easily scale speeds over time to meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses and support the deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and other advanced services.

NTIA chose a speed of 100/20 Mbps as the metric for meeting the current test of a priority technology. This is convenient, since this was the declared speed that the legislation said a BEAD-funded technology must be able to deliver. Today’s blog asks if that definition is adequate.

One way to consider what the current speed of broadband should be is to look at historical trends. For many years, Cisco issued reports that regularly reported that the demand for speed was growing at roughly 21% per year for residential broadband, and a little faster for business broadband. Cisco and others noted that the demand for broadband speeds was on a relatively straight line back to the early 1980s.

It’s not hard to test the Cisco long-term growth rate. The following table applies a 21% growth rate to the 25/3 Mbps definition of broadband established by the FCC in 2015.This table is somewhat arbitrary since it assumes that broadband demand in 2015 was exactly 25 Mbps – but there was widespread praise of the new definition at that time, other than from ISPs who wanted to stick with the 4/1 Mbps definition. This simple table accurately predicted that we would be talking about the need to increase the definition of broadband to 100 Mbps download around 2022, which is exactly what happened. The FCC did not have a fifth Commissioner at the time and wasn’t able to make the change until March 2024 – but in 2022, the FCC wanted to change the definition of broadband to 100 Mbps download, which was at a 21% compounded annual growth rate from the definition of broadband the FCC had established in 2015.

I can’t think of any fundamental industry changes that would change the historical growth rate in the near future. We’ve certainly seen a big demand to buy faster broadband products. Consider the following chart that starts with the assumption that 100 Mbps was the right definition of broadband in 2022. Growing that number over time by the same 21% results in the following table. What does this table suggest for BEAD and other grant?. Consider the evaluation of Starlink, which is the technology that is closest to meeting or not meeting the needed speed. Ookla released a report in the first quarter of 2025 showing that the median speed on Starlink was 104.71 Mbps download and 14.84 Mbps upload, and that only 17% of Starlink customers in the first quarter fully met the 100/20 Mbps speed threshold.

The table above suggests that the current definition of broadband in 2025 should be something like 177/35 Mbps. It’s debatable if Starlink meets the 100/20 Mbps test today, but it clearly doesn’t meet a test based on the speed demand in 2025.

The BEAD future-looking test is challenging because nobody defined what future-looking means. I can think of two definitions of forward-looking that might make sense. One is to judge what speeds should be delivered when the grant project has been constructed, which for most BEAD projects will be at the end of 2029. The growth chart suggests that the speed for defining broadband in 2029 will be around 380/76 Mbps.

I think a better forward-looking test for a government-sponsored grant should be that a grant-funded network should still be relevant a decade after a grant is awarded. The chart suggests the desired speed should be 1191/238 Mbps in 2035.

Naysayers will argue that the 21% growth in speed demand can’t be sustained. Consider taking a more conservative approach that cuts the historical growth rate in half. That conservative approach would say that a target speed for a grant-funded project would be 195/30 Mbps in 2029 and 345/69 Mbps in 2035. I have nothing to go on except my gut, which tells me that 345/69 Mbps will feel inadequate in 2035.

Misaligned Priorities

We have several sets of broadband priorities at odds with each other in the country. The federal government is on a big push to move all transactions with the government to digital. The example that got a lot of press was when FEMA said it would only communicate with disaster victims through emails and its online portal. But government agencies across the board are pushing folks online to communicate.

The government is also clearly supporting an AI revolution where AI is supposed to revolutionize the way we work and live. According to federal government rhetoric, we are a little bit ahead of the Chinese in terms of AI development, and politicians seem to support the idea of doing whatever is needed to make sure that the U.S. wins the AI race.

At the same time that we are prioritizing AI and moving everything online, we seem to be deprioritizing broadband. NTIA cut the BEAD program funding in half to save money, at the expense of building new networks that would provide solid infrastructure for the next fifty years. The Administration outright killed the Digital Equity Act, which had the goal of getting computers into people’s hands and training them how to use them.

These goals are clearly at odds with each other. Consider the Digital Equity funding. There is a huge lost opportunity cost for not giving people the tools to enter the digital world that the government wants. What is the cost to society for people who aren’t given the tools to enter the digital world? Digital equity folks can rattle off tons of stories of folks who were given help with broadband who then went on to work in a tech field, start a business, become teachers, or otherwise thrive and contribute to society.

The disparity between these policies makes no sense to me. It looks to me like the Digital Equity Act was killed for the simple reason that it had the name ‘equity’ in its title. But digital equity never had any of the connotations that politicians classify as DEI. Digital Equity has always been an effort to help people learn more about and master computer technology and broadband. It makes no sense not to have digital equity as a goal if we want everybody to be able to use AI or communicate with the government online.

The BEAD grants were trimmed back for one reason only – to save money. The new Administration sent folks into every nook and cranny of the government to find ways to save money. On the surface, this isn’t a bad thing, and I have to think that many of the cuts to government expenses are good in the long run. But BEAD was never about spending money. BEAD is an infrastructure bill. There are reams of economic studies that show that spending money on infrastructure always returns more to the economy than the cost.

Just in my part of North Carolina, there are a bunch of counties where all of the BEAD awards went to satellite broadband. Set aside that Western North Carolina is mountainous and heavily wooded, and there will be homes that won’t be able to get adequate broadband from the satellites. Set aside that many of these counties have low overall incomes and many folks won’t be able to afford the satellite broadband.

The bigger issue is that building fiber is about a lot more than just bringing broadband to homes. When counties get a fiber network, they can start to get creative to find ways to leverage a new network to improve the local economy. Satellite broadband is finally starting to deliver the broadband that the average home needs to join the modern world. But satellite broadband isn’t going to support schools. It’s not going to enable a county to attract a new factory. Satellite is not going to enable a county to seek ways to improve cellular coverage. Fiber is the infrastructure needed to help the overall community, while satellite broadband just helps customers who can afford it.

I know this is probably coming across as another rant, but I know I’m right. BEAD and the Digital Equity Act were tools that could have made a big difference in rural communities. I’m pretty sure that by killing broadband programs that AI will not be coming to the rural counties in Western North Carolina. Folks here are going to fall through the cracks because they will be unable to communicate with FEMA and other government agencies. It feels like the government is making a conscious decision to exclude Western North Carolina. I don’t think this is deliberate, but unfortunately, by pursuing misaligned priorities, that’s exactly what is happening. The current government is making far too many decisions in a vacuum without considering the bigger picture.

FCC Raises Inmate Calling Rates

In what would normally be an extraordinary action, but which is becoming commonplace, the FCC thumbed its nose at Congress and raised rates for telephone and video calls placed from jails and prisons.

The FCC under Jessica Rosenworcel issued new rules in 2024 that lowered prison calling rates that came as a result of the Martha Wright-Reed Fair and Just Communication Act, enacted by Congress. Earlier this year, the FCC put the rate reductions on hold and recently ruled to make the reversal of the law permanent.

The FCC was reacting to heavy lobbying from the handful of companies that specialize in providing prison calling, along with lobbying from jail and prison officials who benefit by sharing in the revenues from inmate calls. The new Congressional Act not only cut rates but also eliminated the payment of commissions to jails.

The FCC didn’t only raise calling rates. The new order adds a 2-cent facility fee to each call. The FCC rules now allow the prison carriers to add a fee to cover “safety and security’ costs. The FCC also created a new category of even higher rates for extremely small jails that house fewer than 50 inmates. Finally, the FCC now allows prison carriers to add a 6.7% increase to rates for inflation.

The new FCC rules kept a few of the provisions of the original Act. Carriers can’t pay commissions to jails and prisons from Interstate calling. The Act also eliminated a lot of ancillary fees that were charged mostly to families of inmates.

I call the ruling extraordinary because I can’t recall an FCC in the past that so blatantly decided to ignore a law passed by Congress. The only other time I recall the FCC having a major issue with a law was when Chairman Mark Fowler in the 1980s took exception to Congressional rules related to the Fairness Doctrine, although there might have been other instances. The FCC was created as an independent agency by Congress, and it’s assumed that the Agency is required to follow explicit laws enacted by Congress.

This is not the only federal agency ignoring Congress. NTIA, at the behest of the Administration, is refusing to award grants from the Digital Equity Act. The NTIA is also mulling over sending excess BEAD funds, called non-deployment funds, back to the Treasury. These actions are in direct violation of the funding rules created by the IIJA legislation that funded BEAD and Digital Equity.

The obvious party to address a rogue FCC and NTIA is Congress, but for now, they seem to be ceding power to the Executive branch. It’s possible that the Courts could act to make the FCC and the Administration follow the law. There was a recent lawsuit filed by NDIA that challenges the ability of the Administration and the NTIA to kill the Digital Equity Act.

There are also Supreme Court rulings over the last few years that seemingly make it more difficult for federal agencies to act on their own. The Supreme Court ruled in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo  to effectively end the Chevron deference and said that federal agencies are on shaky ground when they make decisions that are not explicitly directed by Congress. In the 2025 ruling, McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that Courts can more easily disagree with rulings made by federal agencies. It would seem those two court decisions provide a lot of ammunition for attacking the FCC decision on prison calling rates.