WISPA Claims Kentucky Regulators Misinterpreted BEAD Rules
Wireless internet providers may be in trouble.
WASHINGTON, July 18, 2025 – Some states may not be adhering to new federal broadband funding guidelines, according to WISPA – The Association for Broadband Without Boundaries.
In a letter sent Thursday to a top Commerce Department official, WISPA accused the Kentucky Office of Broadband Development of misinterpreting crucial aspects of the new June 6 Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program guidelines.
WISPA argued this mistake could unfairly disqualify many areas served by Unlicensed Fixed Wireless providers from receiving critical broadband expansion funds.
“In our view, KOBD has misread Appendix A of the June 6, 2025, Policy Notice, to the detriment of ULFW providers that have had thousands of locations they serve deemed eligible for BEAD funding,” the letter said to Adam Cassady, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Deputy Administrator. “This approach also is inconsistent with the technology-neutral goals of the BEAD program, which the Department of Commerce has wisely embraced.”
Under Appendix A of the new federal BEAD rules, NTIA determined that ULFW technology should be permitted to participate in BEAD applications and outlined a set of technical benchmarks that ULFW providers must meet to qualify.
Under the new rules, if a ULFW provider already serves an area, the state must notify them and give them a chance to prove their service meets technical standards outlined in Appendix A. WISPA argued that Kentucky was not honoring this process.
Particularly, WISPA expressed concern that Kentucky was setting impossible standards for ULFW providers by measuring internet speeds in a way that wasn't consistent with how the networks actually work.
Three issues were most concerning, WISPA wrote: “(1) a flawed interpretation of NTIA’s requirement that providers “demonstrate the ability to provide at least 5 Mbps (100 Mbps downstream service – to be scaled for higher speed commitments) of simultaneous capacity to each BSL in the project area,” (2) overly narrow and technically insufficient review of interference mitigation techniques, and (3) an apparent misreading of the “network equipment manufacturer best practices or guidance” example in Appendix A.
“This makes it much harder for wireless providers to qualify, and such standards are not applied to fiber networks, which is unfair,” WISPA stated.
“While these are industry standards for some radio equipment, many other well-understood techniques can be effective to ensure reliable signal transmission and must be equally evaluated,” the letter stated.
WISPA was now asking NTIA to step in before other states follow Kentucky’s lead.
WISPA has been vocal about ensuring states meet the requirements to qualify for BEAD funding.
Member discussion