In FCC’s High-Cost Modernization Docket, SpaceX Stands Alone
SpaceX wants the FCC to sunset ‘high-cost’ rural broadband subsidies – almost no one else agrees.
WASHINGTON, August 6, 2026 – SpaceX asked federal regulators again Tuesday to eliminate the government’s High-Cost broadband subsidy programs, arguing the programs have “outlived their purpose” and the money would be better spent elsewhere.
But virtually every other stakeholder opposed SpaceX’s proposal. Rural telephone cooperatives, cable operators, fiber associations, wireless infrastructure firms and carrier groups urged the FCC to modernize the programs rather than eliminate them, arguing the subsidies remain essential to keeping broadband available and affordable in high-cost, rural areas.
The dispute centers on the Federal Communications Commission’s High-Cost program modernization proceeding, opened May 21. The program spends about $4.5 billion each year to build and maintain rural broadband networks, and has more than 15 programs under its umbrella.
The public draft of the proposal asks how the FCC should consider its rural broadband subsidies in light of the burgeoning low Earth orbit satellite connectivity offerings from SpaceX and Amazon. Stakeholders’ comments were due Tuesday, August 4.
In its filing, submitted by Joseph Bissonnette, SpaceX’s principal for satellite policy, argues the market failure the programs were designed to fix no longer exists.
The company says Starlink has grown to more than 12 million subscribers and that independent measurements show its median U.S. speeds now exceed the 100 * 20 Megabit per second (Mbps) benchmark used in some High-Cost programs, with next-generation satellites expected to expand capacity later this year.
The company wants the roughly $4.5 billion spent annually on High-Cost programs redirected to the FCC’s Lifeline affordability program instead, which it says addresses the bigger remaining problem: cost, not availability.
Nearly all other stakeholders pushed back against that framing, with rural carrier and cooperative groups being the most direct in resisting cuts.
The Rural Wireless Association, represented by outside counsel Carri Bennet, argued in comments satellite should be treated as “a supplement to, not a substitute for” terrestrial broadband, and that the FCC’s broadband maps aren’t yet reliable enough to justify cutting support.
WTA – Advocates for Rural Broadband devoted an entire section to satellite’s limits, writing in comments that LEO service is not the “magic solution” to rural connectivity gaps, and cited SpaceX’s own IPO risk disclosures on collision risk, spectrum sharing, and financial exposure.
The Wireless Infrastructure Association, filing through senior counsel Stephen Keegan, backed a “technology-neutral, but not technology-blind” approach, arguing satellite remains a complement to terrestrial networks given its capacity and latency limits.
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, in comments submitted by Regulatory Affairs Director Erin Fitzgerald Dobozy, went further, framing its members’ fiber-based cooperatives as offering superior, scalable service and arguing satellite is an “insufficient substitute for robust terrestrial infrastructure.”
Rural providers call for ongoing support
Another question before the FCC is what to do as several of its largest High-Cost support mechanisms approach the end of their authorized terms.
A-CAM I, the original Alternative Connect America Cost Model, which provides fixed support to rural carriers to build and operate broadband networks, is scheduled to sunset at the end of 2026. Revised A-CAM I and A-CAM II are scheduled to sunset at the end of 2028.
The FCC is also considering the future of legacy operating-support mechanisms which help carriers recover the unusually high costs of serving sparsely populated areas, such as Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support and High-Cost Loop Support.
Several commenters said letting that support lapse, without something to replace it, would land directly on rural customers’ bills.
The Oklahoma Rural Telecommunications Coalition, filing through attorneys Ron Comingdeer and Dustin Murer, supplied anonymized rate data suggesting members’ customers could see monthly bills rise by as much as $1,169 if support disappeared without a replacement mechanism.
NRECA called for a new ongoing operating expense support program.
“Providers serving areas with the lowest population densities and toughest terrains may face difficulty financing network maintenance and upgrades only using revenue from customer rates once support ends,” NRECA’s filing states.
The Competitive Carriers Association, filing through general counsel Angela Simpson, asked for a multi-year transition for carriers facing reduced support as legacy programs sunset, and continued funding for network operating costs.
USTelecom, filing through Vice President Lynn Follansbee, asked the FCC to hold off on permanent changes and instead extend current programs through 2030 while the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program, and other federal investments play out.
Stakeholders call for higher broadband standards
Several commenters used their filings to argue the FCC’s underlying speed benchmark – 100 * 20 Mbps in most current programs, and as low as 25 * 3 Mbps in others – is already outdated and should be raised as part of any modernization.
The Fiber Broadband Association, filing through President and CEO Gary Bolton, made that case on statutory grounds.
FBA pointed to Section 254 of the Communications Act, which directs the FCC to consider “the extent to which” a service has “been subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers” when deciding what to subsidize.
Citing OpenVault subscriber data, FBA said the most popular speed tiers nationally are now between 200-400 Mbps and 1 Gbps or faster, while tiers of 100 Mbps or less made up just 7.4 percent of subscriptions in late 2025, down from 8.8 percent a year earlier.
On that basis, FBA argued the current High-Cost benchmarks fall well short of what a substantial majority of Americans already buy, and said the FCC is legally obligated to move the threshold up.
NRECA similarly pushed for a 100 Mbps symmetrical minimum – meaning equal upload and download speeds – for any network receiving support.
NRECA cited its own benchmarking survey with the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative finding that nearly half of rural cooperative customers already choose plans faster than 475 Mbps symmetrical, and pointed to accelerating upstream usage growth.
The group argued that tying support to the current 100 * 20 Mbps benchmark “serves only to perpetuate dated and/or sub-par network infrastructure in rural America.”
Some agreement?
SpaceX wasn’t entirely alone. Two commenters lined up, at least partially, with its call to wind down legacy support.
NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, filing through Pamela Arluk and Steven Morris, came closest to SpaceX’s position among the industry groups in the docket.
NCTA urged the Commission to let A-CAM programs “sunset on schedule” and to phase out or substantially reduce legacy operating-support mechanisms like CAF BLS and HCLS.
But its reasoning was different from SpaceX’s: NCTA argued that newer fiber and hybrid-fiber networks funded through BEAD and other programs have lower operating costs than the legacy copper networks the High-Cost program was built to sustain.
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation went further, aligning most closely with SpaceX's bottom line.
In comments, ITIF argued the FCC “should eliminate legacy high-cost support mechanisms” and “should allow A-CAM programs to sunset as scheduled,” writing that private investment, technological innovation, and other federal deployment programs “have substantially narrowed the broadband deployment gap” since those mechanisms were adopted.
Rather than backing elimination, WISPA, representing fixed wireless providers and filing through Vice President of Policy Louis Peraertz, proposed consolidating legacy mechanisms into a single technology-neutral, cost-model-based program open to any terrestrial technology, with satellite eligible only as a narrow fallback for locations where terrestrial buildout is proven infeasible.
