Broadband Experts Give Biden's Internet Legacy Mixed Remarks
The $42.5 billion BEAD initiative emerged as the administration's greatest achievement though its implementation drew mixed reviews.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10, 2025 — The Biden administration's handling of broadband policy earned mixed reviews from telecommunications experts on Wednesday, with most giving the administration a "B" grade for its efforts to expand high-speed internet access while noting significant delays in fund distribution.
During a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event, panelists highlighted the administration's historic $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program as both its greatest achievement and a source of criticism due to its slow rollout.
"The lasting benefit is that broadband now and in the future is going to be considered part of infrastructure," said Andrew Lipman, partner at Morgan Lewis. "The digital equity plan was a huge benefit and mapping is improved... but they fell short on a number of instances."
Andrew Lipman
Lipman pointed out that the timeline issues were already baked into the program's structure.
“If it were me, I would have collapsed the interim reports into a final report,” he said. “That could have saved six months.” He also pointed to the challenge process and state-federal back-and-forth as inherent roadblocks.
The program's overly broad ambitions may have been its downfall, according to Joe Kane, who directs broadband and spectrum policy at the Information Technology Innovation Foundation.
"Sort of like the everything bagel," quipped Kane.
While he doesn't blame the Biden administration for the sluggish process Congress created, Kane noted that additional hurdles made things worse.
"That fundamental structure was always going to take a long time, but the NTIA added unnecessary requirements like 'Buy America' and workforce rules that slowed things further," he said.
Blair Levin, non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, echoed the same sentiments.
"One of the most important but misunderstood things about what the Biden Administration was trying to do is they were trying to solve the problem to the 100% level," Levin said. "Solving a problem to the 100% level is about twice as hard as solving it to the 98% level."
Previous missteps also cast a long shadow over the program's design. "RDOF was a complete disaster," Levin explained, referring to the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund under the previous administration. This failure pushed Congress to add extra safeguards to BEAD, significantly extending its timeline, he said.
The program's focus on fiber technology also raised additional concerns, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness, Kane added, noting that some states are "putting out plans that involve paying $70,000 per location to build fiber to places that could be served by a $600 terminal."
Armand Musey, president and founder of the Summit Ridge Group, attributed the preference for fiber to political considerations. "Politicians love fiber because it creates jobs in every congressional district,” he said.
However, Musey defended some of the BEAD program's delays, citing the unique challenges of rural deployment.
"These are extremely rural areas,” he explained. “We're not talking about building out in McLean, Virginia. We're talking about really tough areas where there are not really many providers, there's nobody with a crane. Just getting reliable estimates of what it's going to cost to build out in some of these areas is not easy to do."
Panelists also criticized the administration's handling of spectrum policy. According to Lipman, the White House missed an opportunity to resolve disputes with the Department of Defense and expedite the release of spectrum for commercial use.
“We lost valuable time by not knocking heads together,” he said.
Kane noted that while the Trump era had seen substantial spectrum auctions, progress stalled under Biden due to lapsed auction authority.
Regarding the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides monthly internet subsidies to over 23 million low-income households, panelists criticized the administration's failure to secure its future before funding runs out early this year.
"A deal could have been cut on ACP," Lipman said, suggesting the administration could have been more aggressive in negotiations with Congress.
Levin proposed that the administration missed an opportunity to create a more sustainable program through Medicaid. "We could have replaced the ACP program with a voucher program based in Medicaid, making it much more difficult to get rid of but also saving the government money," he said.
Looking ahead to a second Trump administration, panelists urged continuation of certain Biden initiatives, particularly data collection and affordability programs.
For all its shortcomings, Levin credited the Biden administration for backing its broadband promises with financial commitment.
"The most important thing was they put their money where their mouth was, and that was more than other administrations," he said.
