In an action that falls under, “ You can’t keep track of the game without a scorecard”, NTIA released guidelines on how States are to incorporate alternate technologies into BEAD. NTIA originally ruled that alternate technologies like satellite and unlicensed fixed wireless were not eligible for BEAD. Then last year, NTIA issued voluntary guidelines on how States could allow satellite broadband. This new set of rules is mandatory for all States, other than those that have already made grant awards.

Unlicensed Fixed Wireless (ULFW – a new acronym!). NTIA made it very clear from the start that grant money cannot be used to build unlicensed fixed wireless networks, and NTIA declared from the start that the technology does not meet the reliability test described in the legislation. BEAD still can’t be used to build ULFW. However, there are now circumstances where the presence of ULFW could block another ISP from getting a BEAD grant.

• BEAD can’t be awarded if there is an outstanding grant award to build ULFW, and that grant includes a requirement for future proof of speeds. This has to be a fairly rare circumstance.
• Before awarding BEAD grant, a State must look at the FCC map to see if a WISP is claiming unlicensed wireless speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps. If they are, the broadband office must give the WISP an opportunity to prove it is capable of meeting the speeds – and if it can, then BEAD will not be awarded.

I find this to be an outrageous change. My outrage is due to NTIA making this change in January 2025. If this was going to be the rule, it should have been done two years ago. Had this been the rule from the start, then other ISPs and local governments would have taken a harder look at unlicensed fixed wireless providers during the BEAD map challenge. But nobody did, because unlicensed wireless wasn’t part of the BEAD universe. With this change, NTIA has given unlicensed WISPs veto power over competing BEAD grants.

I don’t envy State broadband offices that have to somehow judge the speed claims of WISPs – something that most broadband offices will struggle to do. I’ve seen dozens of counties where WISPS claim huge coverage areas with unlicensed spectrum – and nobody ever bothered to check if the coverage is real since it hasn’t mattered for BEAD. But presto – it now matters since 100/20 Mbps ULFW can block another ISP from winning a BEAD grant. I see this as another last-minute disincentive for ISPs to apply for BEAD.

LEO Satellite (Starlink and Kuiper). States can make BEAD grants to the LEO satellite providers, and the first states to make awards have done so. A satellite provider isn’t eligible to receive the funding until it can certify that it is capable of connecting everybody in a given grant area within ten days of a request for service. The satellite provider has up to four years to make this declaration and to start the funding. The satellite provider will then have to conduct the same ongoing speed tests as other BEAD winners for ten years.

There are two tricky parts to giving BEAD to a satellite provider. The satellite company must demonstrate that it has set aside the capacity to serve the study area – since the cost of reserving the capacity is what BEAD is paying for. I’m doubtful that any broadband office is capable of understanding the complexities of the capacity of a worldwide satellite network to be able to judge the satellite company claims.

I’m also curious about all of the satellite customers already served in a grant area. A consultant for the Fiber Broadband Association recently estimated there are already 215,000 Starlink customers in BEAD areas – I can’t imagine how they could know the number. I’m curious when a State makes a BEAD grant for satellite how it will deal with the existing customers.