Draft BEAD program update would give states more leeway to use LEO, FWA services using unlicensed spectrum when more economical than FTTP.

In a March 2023 interview, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said, “If we're going to connect every American, including the tens of millions of Americans who now don't have the internet, we're going to have to lay fiber all across this country.” But $43.5 billion in construction subsidies appropriated in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 appears insufficient to bring fiber connections to most every American doorstep as with copper telephone lines in the previous century.

Instead, Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite and fixed wireless service (FWA) using unlicensed spectrum may have to suffice to fill the many thousands of holes in the Swiss cheese deployment of landline advanced telecommunications infrastructure over the past three decades. That has left a considerable number of discrete locations lacking it or served by older telephone and cable infrastructure that falls short of current federal standards for reliable internet protocol-based voice, video and data service.

That’s the upshot of draft Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program guidance issued this week by the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Those voids are seen on splotchy federal and state “broadband maps” of existing service where investor owned providers bypassed discrete locations they determined would not produce an adequate return on investment or profit.

While the draft guidance reiterates a preference for fiber to the premise (FTTP) projects in existing program guidance, it permits state subgrants to LEO satellite service providers and ground-based fixed wireless providers using unlicensed spectrum for projects where FTTP would require such a large degree of subsidization (up to 75% of project costs) -- or a lack of interest from service providers -- that states would be challenged to connect all premises to service meeting specifications for minimum throughput and reliability as required by the BEAD program. Accordingly, the draft revised guidance states these “alternative technologies” can to be used when it would be “less expensive” to do so.

Moreover, the draft guidance would bar states from funding projects where LEO satellite or fixed wireless service meeting minimum service specifications already exists or is being subsidized by another government program, which could potentially render large portions of the nation ineligible for BEAD subsidies.

The draft guidance would authorize states to use their grant funds to make subgrants to these providers to help customers pay for non-recurring installation and premise equipment costs, which for LEO service can run several hundred dollars. However, it’s unclear whether these services would meet the existing BEAD program guidance requiring states to ensure subgrant funded projects offer service at rates affordable to low and middle income households.

California legislation would adopt definition of digital discrimination

Proposed California legislation would codify in state law a definition of “digital discrimination of access.” AB 2239 would define it as “policies or practices, not justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility, that differentially impact consumers’ access to broadband internet access service based on their income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin, or that are intended to have a differential impact.”

That mirrors the Federal Communications Commission’s Preventing Digital Discrimination rulemaking adopted in November as mandated by section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA). Section 60506 defines equal access as “the equal opportunity to subscribe to an offered service that provides comparable speeds, capacities, latency, and other quality of service metrics in a given area, for comparable terms and conditions.”

The FCC’s Preventing Digital Discrimination rulemaking is predicated on the notion that business decisions on where to deploy infrastructure and offer advanced telecommunications services can disadvantage households based on these demographic factors, even if not intentional. But Section 60506 gives deployers the ability to defend their infrastructure and service offerings based on technical and economic feasibility. That can easily trump any claim of discriminatory impact -- intentional or not -- in the nation’s market-based and predominately investor owned advanced telecommunications infrastructure.

Since IP telecom is currently classified as lightly regulated optional information service under Title I of the Communications Act and not as a common carrier utility, providers are free to deploy delivery infrastructure wherever they wish and at rates of their choosing. Naturally, they are going to prefer denser, higher income neighborhoods that will produce faster return on capital investment (ROI) and where households are less price sensitive and more inclined to subscribe to higher priced services, thereby maximizing average revenue per unit (ARPU).

Notably, California’s Digital Equity Bill of Rights that took effect in January, states public policy that “to the extent technically feasible, broadband internet subscribers benefit from equal access to broadband internet service within the service area of a broadband provider.”(Emphasis added) Notably, that omits the economic feasibility defense of the FCC’s Preventing Digital Discrimination rulemaking and proposed by AB 2239. 

That's an important difference from AB 2239 because technical feasibility is a far broader term comparable to the federal government's definition of a "broadband serviceable location" as “a business or residential location in the United States at which fixed broadband Internet access service is, or can be, installed." That definition is used in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) subsidy program. A location may be serviceable. But building infrastructure to serve it may not be economically feasible if the business case justifying deployment isn't present.

Groups urge NTIA’s Davidson to adhere to preference for FTTP in BEAD subsidies

America’s adversarial Pinata telecom policy is heating up. Three telecom trade groups urged the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to resist calls for alternative technologies and maintain a long term focus that prioritizes grant funding of fiber to the premises (FTTP) advanced telecommunications infrastructure in its Broadband Access, Equity, and Deployment (BEAD) program.

The organizations also called on the NTIA “to establish metrics going forward to track whether States and Territories have fulfilled their responsibilities to connect all eligible locations to high-performance broadband service and maximize all-fiber builds, the critical communications infrastructure for the 21st Century.”

While the groups didn’t specifically mention fixed wireless access (FWA) as an alternative to FTTP, their joint letter is clearly intended to head off arguments by FWA providers that they can get more locations connected faster and cheaper than constructing FTTP. Another FTTP alternative is extending coaxial cable plant that comprises the majority of the delivery infrastructure used by cable companies, the dominant providers of landline IP telecom.

“Too often, as federal broadband funding programs have moved from concept to implementation, there has been a tendency to seek to support broadband infrastructure that is ‘just good enough’ for the moment,” the NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association, the Fiber Broadband Association and ACA Connects–America’s Communications Association wrote the NTIA’s Alan Davidson in a February 2, 2024 letter.

“Under these prior programs, initial lofty goals of giving every American robust and affordable connectivity that will last for generations have given way to delivering the bare minimum to satisfy user demands here and now – leaving consumers and communities vexed and resulting in the need to establish yet more programs to address the needs left unaddressed.”

The basis for the groups’ position is the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) authorization allowing Davidson to develop technical criteria that prioritizes advanced telecommunications infrastructure eligible for BEAD funding based on throughput, reliability, and consistency in quality of service. The rationale as stated in the IIJA is to “ensure that the network built by the project can easily scale speeds over time to meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses” and provide backhaul for wireless technologies and other advanced services. The NTIA in its Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the BEAD program specifically defined that as “end-to-end fiber-optic facilities to each end-user premises.”

Need for sell and buy side subsidies points up advantage of government, coop owned fiber networks

Testifying before Congress back in May, NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson confirmed that a failure to fund the ACP will negatively impact BEAD. "As we build out our broadband networks, we want providers to know that there's some certainty that they'll have customers, particularly in these rural areas, particularly in areas where there's lower-income Americans, they need to know that those Americans are going to be able to afford to get online. The ACP plays a major role there," he said.

How ACP negotiations might shake out

This statement clearly points up market failure and the need for a lower cost alternative model for advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Davidson is in effect saying without both seller subsidies -- delivery infrastructure subsidies such as the NTIA's Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program and buy side subsidies based on household income (the Affordable Connectivity Program), market failure will result. In short, providers won't be able to to connect American homes and consumers won't be able to afford their monthly bills since providers have to price in a profit margin and allow for income taxes. Even then, it's hard to make it pencil out. Jeff Luong, AT&T’s vice president of network engineering, reportedly said at the recently held Fierce Telecom U.S. Broadband Summit that even with AT&T spending about $20 billion per year on infrastructure, “we cannot build out in all the areas we deem as economical.”

This situation clearly points up the need for lower cost alternative and one more likely to avoid the problem of uneven deployment by investor owned providers that must carefully segment where they build fiber that leaves many homes unconnected: fiber optic networks owned by governmental entities and consumer utility cooperatives. Neither must generate profits or pay income taxes.

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 marked start of fundamental shift in U.S. telecom policy

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 marked the beginning of a fundamental shift in how the United States regards what it termed in the 1996 Telecommunications Act as advanced telecommunications based on Internet protocol (IP). It’s evolving from a commercial information service as it’s currently regarded and lightly regulated by the Federal Communications Commission to critical infrastructure.

But not fully. It’s still referred to in the IIJA as “broadband:” the incremental evolution since 1998 in throughput from narrowband dialup and changing FCC definitions of it since then. With those definitions based on the business models of the large telephone and cable companies that market bandwidth in price tiered increments.

As might be expected with evolving public policy, it reflects both old and newer thinking. Current policy regards advanced telecommunications as critical infrastructure on one hand as expressed by the IIJA and as a commercial information service -- with access to information priced on the bandwidth of the connection to access it, i.e., “broadband by the bucket” on the other. 

Authorized by the IIJA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) subsidy program eligibility guidance increases the bandwidth base level from 1990s narrowband dialup to first generation ADSL (i.e. <25/3 with latency > 100ms) and explicitly favors fiber to the premises (FTTP). The latter is an infrastructure versus a throughput-based standard, although the IIJA continues to utilize a minimum coaxial cable throughput standard (100Mbps down/20Mbps up). Locations not offered that level of throughput are secondarily eligible for BEAD subsidization as “underserved.”

Notably, AT&T is urging states to allow it to qualify for BEAD subsidies for contiguous projects to upgrade both generations of copper delivered Digital Subscriber Line (DSL): first generation ADSL (as unserved) and VDSL (underserved). That’s because locations in AT&T’s service area fall into both categories and are often in proximity -- a function both of the limited technological range of each generation of DSL over decades-old legacy twisted pair copper as well as AT&T’s decisions on where it deployed DSL. 

Some neighborhoods were never offered ADSL while others were, provided they were sufficiently close to telephone central offices and remote DSLAMs. Second generation VDSL is even more limited in range and was deployed to serve denser, cherry picked neighborhoods where cable is often also available. BEAD program rules would allow AT&T to propose projects comprised of a mix of "unserved" and "underserved" locations down to the individual address since the rules define an eligible project as one of just discrete number of addresses or even a single address.

In the not too distant future as advanced telecommunications becomes increasingly FTTP infrastructure-based, the notion of "broadband" bandwidth that bears relevance for legacy metallic landline delivery infrastructure will become obsolete.

States struggle to devise solid, actionable plans to achieve universal service

“Maine's existing internet infrastructure is largely a patchwork of individual private networks. The infrastructure behind these networks was generally not created to support the goal of universal broadband access throughout the state. While public and private investments over the last decade have added essential infrastructure to support this goal, the job is not done, and too many areas of Maine remain unserved.”

That excerpt from Maine’s Five Year Action Plan required by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program describes every American state and territory, encapsulating the fundamental problem of the nation’s highly fragmented advanced telecommunications infrastructure that falls short of universal service, leaving many without quality, affordable connectivity.

Consistent with current federal policy of subsidiarity leaving it to the states to establish universal service like that for landline telephone service, BEAD requires states to devise plans to provide universal service reaching every doorstep. The Five Year Action Plans must include timelines, cost estimates and funding sources to bring it about, with a subsidy funding preference for fiber to the premises (FTTP) delivery infrastructure.

The NTIA characterizes the $43 billion in BEAD subsidies largely targeted to exurban and rural areas deemed unworthy of investment by investor owned providers as a once in a generation initiative. “We are writing the next chapter of the great American infrastructure story,” said BEAD Program Director Evan Feinman. “But this is going to require a true whole-of-society effort” involving federal and state officials, local governments, providers, co-operatives, and communities.

However, a review of BEAD Five Year Action Plans filed with the NTIA as of this week shows states are struggling to devise solid, actionable plans to achieve universal service. Most are largely aspirational. Several note that BEAD subsidies alone cannot fully fund universal service along with an alphabet soup of other federal and state grant programs put in place over the past few decades. That’s implicit in BEAD program guidance that require the plans to include federal, state, and local funding sources to attain it. But nearly all the plans don’t identify state or other local funding sources to address the deficit in federal funding. Others point to the continued use of FTTP stopgaps such as fixed wireless and satellite service along with the expectation investor owned providers will build out their infrastructures.

The state plans generally point to a prolongation of the historical pattern of incremental construction that will leave universal service out of reach for the foreseeable despite the state plans stating advanced telecommunications infrastructure will reach all residents by the end of the decade. One off grant funding has encouraged the incrementalism since it only nibbles away at the infrastructure deficits rather than eliminating them, producing what analyst Karl Bode aptly describes as “half built,” incomplete infrastructure.

A single, long term, low interest federal loan program for lower cost government owned and consumer utility cooperative-owed FTTP infrastructure is a better option than the current confusing mix of grant programs. It would have program integrity built in via loan underwriting standards and collateralized network assets to protect public dollars – dollars that would go further with these lower cost deployers and attain universal service more rapidly since they don’t bear the burden of generating profits and dividends for investors as well as income taxes.

In sum, the state Five Year Plans reflect no true “uni” in the BEAD universal service initiative: one single guiding program policy principle and sufficient dedication of resources to close the infrastructure gaps and bring about universal service.

U.S. should create authority to administer long term, low interest loans for open access advanced telecom infrastructure

Concerns have been raised regarding access to grant funds for advanced telecommunications infrastructure appropriated in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) specifically the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program that administers the funds. To ensure program integrity – that grant funds subsidize the construction of infrastructure – the NTIA requires a 25 percent match as well as a bank letter of credit that would allow the NTIA to claw back monies not used for that purpose.

In 2022, the U.S. Government Accountability Office identified a patchwork of more than 100 federal programs administered by 15 agencies that could be used to expand access. The GAO recommended the NTIA identify key statutory limitations to program alignment and develop legislative proposals as appropriate. The NTIA agreed with its recommendations, the GAO reported, and agreed to report to Congress by May 31, 2026 on barriers and statutory limitations that limit broadband program alignment and offer legislative proposals to address them.

Earlier this year in prepared Congressional testimony, the GAO called for national strategy needed to coordinate fragmented, overlapping federal programs, noting fragmentation and overlap can lead to the risk of duplicative support. Three months before, the Federal Communications Commission reported to Congress the Broadband Interagency Coordination Act, which directed the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to take a whole-of-government approach to advanced telecommunications infrastructure deployment. The FCC reported an interagency agreement among them “significantly facilitated efficient use of federal funds” and “established a consistent, robust channel for communications among the agencies concerning their respective funding programs.”

The NTIA is finding and will continue to find administering the BEAD program to be challenging. Questions over the accuracy of “broadband maps” created by the FCC to map marketed bandwidth to determine funding eligibility threaten to tie up timely disbursement of funds to the states in addition to the aforementioned concerns over the letter of credit requirement. While opponents see the letter of credit requirement as a way of favoring large investor-owned telephone and cable companies and locking out nonprofit and public sector applicants, it builds in a measure of program integrity to protect public dollars from misappropriation. The downside is by favoring the large investor incumbents along with the eligibility requirements based on their current Swiss cheese service offerings, it will promote continued limited, discrete infrastructure builds (they can be as small as one address under NTIA’s program guidance) that conflict with the expressed intent of the guidance that states develop plans for universal service for all their residents.

Here's what NTIA should recommend to Congress -- and not wait until May 2026 but do so ASAP:

• All existing federal grant programs be eliminated and uncommitted funds placed under a federal 501(c)(1) nonprofit Advanced Telecommunications Authority to administer low interest loans with terms of 30 or more years to state and local governments and 501(c)(12) consumer telecom cooperatives to construct universally available, open access fiber to the premises transmission and delivery infrastructure as well as middle mile transmission infrastructure.
• State and local governments and 501(c)(12) consumer telecom cooperatives would be authorized to issue transparent and fair competitive requests for proposals and qualifications for entities to design, build and operate the infrastructure similar to road and highway projects.
• Since the funds would be structured as loans, the authority should be authorized to develop program rules to mitigate the risk of loan defaults and ensure fully (and not partially) built infrastructure, extending loan funds via regional offices as project milestones are complete and meet construction and quality of service standards.
• States would be authorized to create interstate regional advanced telecommunications infrastructure authorities to enhance economies of scale and access to labor and materials and to ensure timely construction of essential middle mile transmission infrastructure.
• States would be encouraged to expedite permitting approvals and access to rights to way for both new aerial poles and underground infrastructure.
• The publicly owned infrastructure built by the regional authorities would be authorized to charge only nominal access fees to end users. They would be authorized to assess access fees on service and content providers offering services on the infrastructure to defray operational and maintenance costs.

Critics of these measures would likely argue they cannot attain universal, affordable access. But the current market and bandwidth (versus infrastructure)-based strategies clearly cannot in a timely manner. Market-based competition has a role. But in order to serve the public interest, government must take the lead to harness market forces and ensure public funds are used for public purposes.

California BEAD Five Year Action Plan: Substantially greater funding needed for universal FTTP.

California is unable to assure the timely construction of universal fiber to the premises (FTTP) infrastructure – estimated to cost $9.78 billion including infrastructure hardening in areas with high wildfire risk – because less than half that amount is available as federal and state subsidy funding.

That’s according to the state’s draft Five Year Action Plan required by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. BEAD requires states to file “a comprehensive, high-level plan for providing reliable, affordable, high-speed internet service throughout the (state) including the estimated timeline and cost for universal service.” Additionally, the plans must include an estimated timeline and cost for universal service and planned utilization of federal, state, and local funding sources to pay for it.

“This estimate assumes no re-use of existing infrastructure (e.g., poles, conduit, manholes, etc.) in the total investment,” the draft plan prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission states. “The timeline for universal service with fiber-to-the-premises would extend beyond the BEAD funding timeline and require additional federal and state funding.”

The draft plan cautions given the Golden State’s large size, it may be challenging for BEAD-funded subgrantees to deploy infrastructure within the required five-year timeline. Additionally, “the CPUC recognizes that developing sufficient capacity may be a challenge for some potential subgrantees, including small ISPs and localities and other entities” as well as permitting challenges.

Oregon’s draft Five Year Action Plan similarly concluded that state’s BEAD funding allocation would not sufficiently subsidize universal FTTP. Like Oregon, California’s draft plan calls for the possible use of alternatives funded by the state’s $1.86 billion BEAD allocation. Those deemed “reliable” by the NTIA include hybrid fiber-coaxial cable, digital subscriber line (DSL) technology and terrestrial fixed wireless utilizing entirely licensed spectrum or using a hybrid of licensed and unlicensed spectrum.

Vermont draft BEAD Five Year Action Plan: FTTP to all on grid addresses by year end 2028.

The state of Vermont expects fiber to the premises (FTTP) advanced telecommunications infrastructure will reach every location connected to the electrical grid by the end of 2028. That’s according to a draft Five Year Action Plan setting a timeline and budget to achieve universal service in the state as required by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program.

“Vermont shares NTIA’s strong preference for deploying end-to-end fiber connectivity to all unserved and underserved locations, as well as all eligible CAIs. Aligned with the VCBB’s statutory mandate, this approach prioritizes quality, scalability, and reliability,” the draft plan states.

The draft plan anticipates all remote off grid locations will be reached by other technologies deemed “reliable” by the NTIA: hybrid fiber-coaxial cable, digital subscriber line (DSL) technology and terrestrial fixed wireless utilizing entirely licensed spectrum or using a hybrid of licensed and unlicensed spectrum.

The draft plan estimates the cost of extending fiber to all of Vermont’s approximately 50,000 locations not served by fiber excluding locations where the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has allocated grants to subsidize infrastructure under its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) at $500-$700 million. The plan anticipates subsidies under BEAD, the American Rescue Plan Act’s Capital Projects Fund, subgrantee matches, and other funding sources will cover this cost.

The estimate is based on road miles. The upper estimate accounts for the risk of project cost overruns due to inflation, supply chain challenges, and labor shortages. The draft plan notes additional, more extensive analysis will be required to develop a more precise cost estimate. The state intends to refine the estimate in its initial proposal to the NTIA for BEAD infrastructure subsidy funding.

The plan notes the Vermont Community Broadband Board (VCBB) will continue its support of efforts by Communications Union Districts (CUDs) organized under state law to submit and gain approval for applications for grants to extend their end-to-end fiber networks. CUDs are two or more towns that join as a municipality to jointly build telecommunications infrastructure.

Oregon draft BEAD Five Year Action Plan: Federal allocation insufficient to attain universal FTTP

The Oregon Broadband Office has posted its draft Five Year Action Plan required by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program authorized by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The program mandates states develop the plan this year including “a comprehensive, high-level plan for providing reliable, affordable, high-speed internet service throughout the (state) including the estimated timeline and cost for universal service.” Additionally, the plans must include an estimated timeline and cost for universal service and planned utilization of federal, state, and local funding sources to pay for it.

The draft plan indicates Oregon would need nearly five times its $689 million BEAD allocation to build universal fiber infrastructure at an estimated cost of $3.3 billion deployed over a five year period.

“Long-term planning is likely to require additional federal and state funding beyond the BEAD funding because the cost estimate for universal service under a universal fiber-to-the-premises model…exceeds NTIA’s BEAD allocation,” the draft plan states. “In the interim, the state will plan to use its BEAD allocation of $688,914,932.17 in the most cost-effective manner by using a mix of technologies.” The draft plan’s estimate for universal fiber to the premises (FTTP) infrastructure includes a total of 26,347 miles of new fiber construction reaching 158,152 locations. That is estimated to be 71.9 percent underground infrastructure and 28.1 percent aerial using existing poles.

While BEAD program guidance prioritizes FTTP given its reliability and technical flexibility to expand to accommodate future demand, the guidance allows use of non FTTP infrastructure in areas states designate as extremely high cost that exceed a state designated threshold for subsidy dollars to connect eligible locations. Those include hybrid fiber-coaxial cable, digital subscriber line (DSL) technology and terrestrial fixed wireless utilizing entirely licensed spectrum or using a hybrid of licensed and unlicensed spectrum. According to the draft plan, Oregon intends to award its federal BEAD allocation “to potential subrecipient partners to achieve universal service.” The draft plan states Oregon “will look to maximize this allocated funding through a mix of technologies to serve as many Oregonians as possible.”

AT&T likely to seek BEAD subsidies for fixed wireless serving “extremely high cost” locations

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2023 – AT&T is set to be competitive in the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment subgrant process, said CEO John Stankey during the company’s second-quarter earnings call Wednesday, adding fixed-wireless technology will be key to connecting hard-to-reach areas using the subsidies.

* * *
Stankey estimated that fixed-wireless services will be in demand following the allocation of BEAD funds despite the program’s preference for fiber connection, saying that fixed-wireless is the only way to connect every address in hard-to-reach geographies. He expects that AT&T’s fixed-wireless offerings will be a competitive offer in broadband builds for decades to come.

https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/07/att-expects-fixed-wireless-itself-to-be-competitive-in-bead-applications/

AT&T appears to be targeting fixed wireless access (FWA) to what are defined in the NTIA’s BEAD program guidance as “extremely high cost” locations. Those are addresses where deploying fiber would exceed a subsidy amount threshold “above which (a state) may decline to select a proposal if use of an alternative technology meeting the BEAD Program’s technical requirements would be less expensive.” (Given materials and more recently labor pool constraints, those costs are likely to be considerably higher than they would have otherwise been with a more timely and orderly migration from copper to fiber.)

Those technical requirements define “reliable” service by throughput (at least 100/20Mbps with latency less than or equal to 100 milliseconds) as well as delivery infrastructure (fiber, hybrid fiber-coaxial technology; digital subscriber line (DSL) technology or terrestrial fixed wireless technology utilizing entirely licensed spectrum or using a hybrid of licensed and unlicensed spectrum).

For extremely high cost locations, BEAD program guidance allows states to choose fiber alternatives involving a less costly technology for that location “even if that technology does not meet the definition of Reliable Broadband Service but otherwise satisfies the Program’s technical requirements.” (Emphasis in original)

That gives those proposing FWA-based BEAD deployments an out. However, as Doug Dawson writes at his POTS and PANS blog, the quality of fixed wireless service varies considerably based on the distance from the radio transmitting it and the amount of mobile wireless traffic. In addition, the challenging topography likely to exist in extremely high cost locations as well as tall trees pose propagation challenges to line of sight FWA signals.

Stankey acknowledges these limitations as he was quoted in this Light Reading analysis:

"It's going to be key in certain parts of our consumer segment as we work through the next phase of our cost-reduction efforts," Stankey said. "It is [also] a means for us to begin finding a good catch to shut down other infrastructure and still serve customers." He added that one big caveat is ensuring that there's ample wireless capacity for Internet Air to deliver the kinds of speeds that customers require.

As for shutting down “other infrastructure,” Stankey is apparently referring to its legacy copper outside plant built for voice telephone service. AT&T is petitioning state telecom regulators to relieve it of Title II Carrier of Last Resort requirements in high cost areas to get out from under the high cost of maintaining this deteriorating, decades old delivery infrastructure. They mandate telephone companies provide landline voice service over the legacy copper to all customers requesting it.

BEAD requires states to plan for universal service. But it doesn't fully subsidize it, necessitating states to develop their own funding sources.

As required by the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, each CUD must come to the state with a universal service plan to serve every address in their jurisdiction with high-speed internet. This is especially important for solving climate change, said Hallquist. “We have to get fiber to every address to solve climate change,” she said. Fiber is critical because it reduces latency and allows for faster reaction times. The smart grid enables faster responsiveness to electrical outages, even issuing warnings when equipment is about to fail.

Unfortunately, there are several barriers implemented in the BEAD program that may affect CUDs ability to use BEAD funds in their deployment, said Hallquist. The letters of credit requirement, which mandates that grantees receive a 25 percent letter of guaranteed payment from a bank on top of the 25 percent match requirement affects CUDs and smaller providers while favoring large, established providers, she said.

 Vermont’s Unique Communications Union Districts Support BEAD Outlays

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program – part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) targets capital cost subsidies to high cost areas. They are primarily limited to addresses based on the bandwidth advertised to them; those with 80 percent of addresses not advertised at least 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up with latency exceeding 100ms are eligible. Public entities building fiber to the premises (FTTP) infrastructure such as Vermont's Communications Union Districts (CUDs) should thus regard them as a limited, supplemental, one time opportunistic funding source.

Notably, BEAD requires states to develop “a comprehensive, high-level plan attain universal service.” But the program contemplates states develop their own funding sources to finance it. In other words, while BEAD requires states plan for universal service, it is not intended to fully fund the construction and operational costs of universal FTTP. States and regional entities like the CUDs can do this via bond funding and utilize end user fees to service the bond debt.