The BEAD Bottleneck: Untangling Why the Broadband Revolution is Stuck in Slow Motion

America took on an endeavor of such national importance that Congress allocated $42.45Bn based on the recognition that access to reliable high-speed broadband is a necessity for full participation in modern society.  It provides educational opportunities to our kids, telehealth access for our elderly, and economic opportunities for our families and businesses.  Yet, politicians are using this moment to foment frustration capitalizing on BEAD’s “slow rollout,” leading some to question whether this ambitious vision will ever truly materialize.

While it’s easy to point fingers at bureaucratic inertia, the complexities of administering such a massive federalized program, or even the headwinds of inflation, a deeper examination reveals more entrenched and deliberate obstacles. At the heart of these delays lies the enduring influence of incumbent broadband providers, clinging to outdated data and leveraging their lobbying power to maintain a status quo that has persistently failed unserved and underserved communities. Coupled with the persistent inaccuracies in our broadband maps and the looming threat of state preemption laws against municipal broadband, the path to universal connectivity is proving to be a more arduous journey than initially anticipated.

The Lingering "Tyranny of Form 477": A Lesson in Cartographic Deception

For years, federal broadband policy has been tethered to a dataset known as Form 477, self-reported coverage data submitted by broadband service providers to the FCC. This data has historically served as the primary compass for determining which areas lack adequate broadband service, but its inherent flaws have been spectacularly beneficial to incumbent providers while actively hindering competition.

The most notorious of these flaws is the infamous census block problem. Under previous funding programs that utilized Form 477 data, if a provider self-reported that they could, potentially, someday, maybe, serve even a single household or non-residential location within a census block, the entire block was deemed “served” and thus ineligible for funding.  With this crude methodology, a provider could claim to be able to serve backhaul to a cell tower and deny families and businesses access to broadband.  

The Mapping Maze: A Potential Dead End for BEAD Funds?

The BEAD program was designed to break free from Form 477. Recognizing its fundamental shortcomings, Congress mandated the FCC to create a new, more accurate broadband map under the Broadband DATA Act. This new map, based on location-level data rather than broad census blocks, should, in theory, provide a much clearer and more granular understanding of broadband availability.

However, while these new FCC maps represent a significant improvement, broadband serviceable locations are still undercounted, meaning that homes and businesses in need of service might not even appear on the map. The FCC definition of a Broadband Serviceable Location (BSL) counts multi-unit apartments and commercial buildings as one BSL, not including the secondary address information.  That one BSL might represent hundreds of families without access to reliable high-speed broadband.  

State Preemption Laws: The Municipal Broadband Wildcard

Adding another layer of complexity to the BEAD rollout are the state preemption laws that restrict or outright ban municipal broadband initiatives. These laws, often the direct result of heavy lobbying efforts by incumbent ISPs fearing competition from local governments, create a potential legal and political minefield for the BEAD program.

While BEAD explicitly designates municipalities as eligible entities for funding, these state laws could create significant roadblocks for communities desperate for reliable broadband. Imagine a scenario where a municipality petitions the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for BEAD funding to build its own fiber network, only to be met with an objection from the state citing its preemption laws.

Under the BEAD rules, if a municipality faces such a blockage, the state is obligated to publicly justify its decision to the NTIA. This creates a potentially uncomfortable situation for state governments: do they uphold protectionist laws that favor well-funded incumbents, risking public backlash from their constituents who are yearning for better internet access? Or do they relent and allow municipalities to compete for broadband funding, potentially opening themselves up to legal challenges from those very same incumbents? The potential for protracted legal battles and further bureaucratic delays in these scenarios is substantial, precisely the kind of delays that incumbents often desire, buying themselves more time to maintain their monopolistic grip.

Beyond the Incumbents: The State and Local Capacity Challenge

While incumbent providers have their role to play in the delays, we cannot ignore the capacity challenges faced by state broadband offices. Many of these offices, often understaffed and relatively new, are tasked with developing comprehensive broadband plans, managing complex grant applications, and overseeing intricate deployment projects. They are building the plane while flying it. The sheer volume of work, coupled with the need to navigate federal regulations and stakeholder expectations, is immense.

Furthermore, BEAD has opened the door to a diverse range of eligible entities, including tribes, municipalities, and startups. While this inclusivity is commendable, it also presents a significant expertise gap. Many of these newcomers lack the experience and resources needed to navigate the complexities of broadband deployment. They may struggle with grant writing, network design, project management, and ongoing federal program compliance.

The Expertise Deficit: A Nationwide Scramble

The broadband industry is facing a nationwide shortage of skilled workers. From fiber technicians to network engineers, the demand for expertise far outstrips the available supply. This expertise deficit is particularly acute in rural and remote areas, where the costs of deployment are highest and the pool of skilled workers is smallest.

The "Last Chance" Imperative

The understanding that BEAD is likely the last nation-scale initiative in universal digital infrastructure funding adds a layer of urgency and pressure. If we fail to get this right, the digital divide will widen, and the negative consequences felt for decades as we lag behind the world’s best countries in economic development and modernization.

The Real-World Consequences of BEAD Delays

While the intricacies of broadband policy might seem abstract to some, the consequences of these delays are anything but. We’ve seen defaults and failures in previous funding programs due to the glacial pace of getting funds to the infrastructure builders. Every day that BEAD funding is held up translates to tangible hardships for communities across the country:

• Rural communities remain stranded without reliable internet, hindering access to vital educational resources, telehealth services, and economic opportunities.

• Small businesses in underserved areas struggle to compete in an increasingly digital economy.

• Families are forced to endure overpriced, low-quality broadband from monopolistic incumbents with little to no competitive pressure to improve.

• The digital divide, the very chasm BEAD was designed to bridge, remains stubbornly wide.

The Path Forward: A Call for Urgency and Accountability

If BEAD is to truly succeed in its mission, policymakers must take decisive action to dismantle these roadblocks and ensure that funding reaches those who need it most.

1. The FCC must prioritize fixing the broadband maps with utmost urgency. The challenge process needs to be transparent, efficient, and robustly resistant to manipulation by incumbent providers seeking to protect their turf.

2. State governments must cease shielding monopolies and embrace a more competitive landscape. If a municipality can provide better, more affordable service to its residents, it should be empowered to do so without undue interference.

3. The NTIA must vigorously enforce the intent of the BEAD program. The agency must ensure that funds are directed to genuinely unserved and underserved areas without unnecessary delays, pushing back against frivolous challenges and restrictive state policies.

4. Incumbent providers must be held accountable for the accuracy of their coverage claims. If a provider asserts an area is served but fails to deliver adequate service, penalties should be imposed, not further subsidies rewarded.

The broadband revolution cannot afford to be held hostage by outdated data, entrenched interests, and self-serving policies. BEAD represents a once-in-a-generation, perhaps even a last-chance, opportunity to finally bring universal, reliable broadband to all Americans. The stakes are simply too high to allow this crucial endeavor to be bogged down by the lingering “Tyranny of Form 477”, the persistent efforts of incumbents to maintain their grip on the digital landscape, and political maneuvering. It’s time to untangle the threads of delay and forge a path toward a truly connected nation, where digital equity is not just an aspiration, but a reality.