BEAD Program’s Success Hinges on Reform
Eliminating the program seems unlikely, considering the NTIA is already far along in awarding grant money to the states.
Nate Scherer

As the incoming Donald Trump administration's telecom policy priorities crystallize, it is increasingly evident that certain government subsidy programs could face heavy scrutiny by an administration that has publicly expressed a desire to roll back regulations and slash spending.
One program likely under the microscope: the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s $42.45 billion broadband subsidy boondoggle known as the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program. Designed to expand high-speed internet access to all Americans, the program instead sits dormant. Fortunately, policy reforms can help get it up and running.
In recent months, lawmakers have criticized various aspects of BEAD, including that no projects are underway more than three years after the program’s creation. Some senators are now even calling on the incoming Trump administration to “pull the plug” on the program.
While eliminating the program seems unlikely, considering the NTIA is already far along in awarding grant money to the states, serious reform is in order. Congress should direct the NTIA to axe unnecessary program requirements and adopt a technology-neutral approach to deployment.
The BEAD program has admirable aspirations. An outgrowth of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the program aims to connect the 24 million Americans still without high-speed internet access. It hopes to do so by awarding federal money to states and territories which they can then use to administer grant programs within their borders.
Unfortunately, the program includes a wide range of political wish list items that have little to do with universal connectivity and have had the practical effect of slowing its implementation. Last year, Senate Republicans described many of the most problematic in a letter sent to NTIA leadership.
For instance, Republicans demanded to know why the program included requirements related to hiring union labor, preferencing government-owned networks, favoring fiber technology for projects, and other unrelated items. Lawmakers rightly expressed concern that the inclusion of these requirements “divert resources away from bringing broadband service to rural America” and are, in some cases, inconsistent with the agency’s statutory authority.
In a more recent letter sent to the agency in November, Texas Senator Ted Cruz reiterated many of these same concerns, noting that the agency had hoarded “BEAD funding to build a central planning bureaucracy” that imposed unnecessary requirements on states that prevented them from delivering internet access to unserved communities on time. He also called out the NTIA’s “extreme technology bias in defining ‘priority broadband projects’ and ‘reliable broadband service,’” the agency’s push for rate regulation, indifference toward high per-location connection costs, and excessive expenditures to operate the program.
The NTIA has vigorously defended itself and the BEAD program from such characterizations, with agency head Alan Davidson recently calling Republican criticism “Election-year politics" during a Politico Tech podcast. Program proponents have also noted the complexity of implementing a multibillion-dollar program and argued that the program was always envisioned to be 10-year project.
But politics aside, there is no denying that the program includes requirements not directly related to the goal of connecting Americans—including some like climate change provisions that make that important task much more difficult. Those requirements have likely contributed to the program's slow rollout.
For example, incoming Chair of the Federal Communication Commission Brendan Carr noted earlier this year how the NTIA has previously rejected state BEAD proposals that include too much flexibility over prices—actions that appear to run afoul of the IIJA’s prohibition on rate regulation. Some program requirements have also likely driven up costs. For instance, the NTIA recently acknowledged that the Biden administration spent $250 million in BEAD funding alone on hiring government workers and contractors.
While the NITA has recently taken steps to remedy some of lawmakers concerns about the program, such as by acknowledging the important role “alternative technologies” like Low-earth orbit satellites play in helping BEAD connect unreached communities, problems remain and are unlikely to be resolved without further action.
With major leadership changes soon coming to Congress and the NTIA, now is the time to enact major reform. Congress should not be afraid to continue asking tough questions and require the NTIA to eliminate non-essential BEAD program requirements and adopt a technology-neutral approach to future deployment. Better yet, the NTIA should act on its own accord to reform the program before Congress is forced to decide how to proceed. BEAD’s goal of closing the digital divide is important, but its success hinges on long overdue reform.
Nate Scherer is a Policy Analyst with the American Consumer Institute where he researches and writes about a diverse range of consumer issues. He previously served as a Policy Analyst at the Reason Foundation and has also worked for several other nonprofits including the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Leadership Institute. More recently, he worked an educator for Fairfax County Public Schools and performed research for Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab. This Expert Opinion is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.
Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.