In 2023, about 15% of U.S. households still face limited, often subpar internet options, especially in rural areas. But thanks to the US Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, there’s hope that high-quality, largely fiber-based internet will soon reach even the most remote communities. However, recent developments suggest that this progress may be at risk.
Evan Feinman, the original architect of BEAD, reveals that before being pushed out by the Trump administration in March, three states were just one minor administrative step away from connecting their first residents. These states could have already started deploying fiber infrastructure if not for delays and interference from political appointees. Instead, the Biden administration’s review, led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, has introduced new hurdles. Lutnick has criticized BEAD as overly “woke” and laden with “burdensome regulations,” signaling potential shifts in how the program is implemented.
One major concern is the possibility that more funding could be diverted to private satellite internet providers like Elon Musk’s Starlink. While satellite internet can be a useful backup, it generally offers slower speeds, less reliability, and higher costs compared to fiber. For each home served by satellite, the quality of internet could be significantly inferior to what fiber connections might provide.
Think of BEAD as a modern successor to the nationwide telephone or electrification projects—an ambitious effort to connect every American to fast, reliable internet. Since the Biden administration launched the $42.5 billion initiative over three years ago, tangible results have yet to materialize, drawing criticism from political opponents. Feinman explains that delays have often stemmed from states requesting to slow down or alter the process, citing concerns about speed and implementation.
Most of the groundwork—such as selecting service providers and planning infrastructure—has already been laid. According to the latest data, 38 states have made progress in choosing providers or are close to finalizing contracts, with states like Nevada, Delaware, and Louisiana awaiting federal approval to begin construction. West Virginia, for example, had a plan to provide fiber to every home, with significant funding remaining, but recent political maneuvers threaten to shift focus away from fiber toward satellite solutions.
Lutnick’s push for a “tech-neutral” approach aims to give equal footing to various internet technologies, but critics worry this could favor satellite providers at the expense of fiber. Feinman warns that a nationwide cap on build costs, if set too low, would favor satellite internet providers, potentially diverting hundreds of thousands of locations from fiber to satellite.
Feinman, who left the program amid these changes, warns that these moves could leave rural America with worse internet options and benefit only a few private interests. Despite his departure, state officials remain eager to move forward. West Virginia, for instance, has secured a 90-day extension to reopen bids, potentially delaying fiber deployment plans. Meanwhile, Nevada is prepared to start connecting residents with satellite internet as early as summer, highlighting how delays and policy shifts could reshape the program’s future.
While satellite internet like Starlink isn’t a complete substitute for fiber—offering lower speeds and higher costs—it can serve as a vital bridge in underserved areas. Starlink, which provides speeds around 100 Mbps with latency just over 100 milliseconds, is a decent backup but falls far short of fiber’s capabilities, which can reach speeds of 5 Gbps or more.
Cost is another factor. Starlink’s monthly fees often range from $80 to $120, with hefty upfront equipment costs, making it more expensive than fiber options available from providers like AT&T, which offers gigabit speeds at competitive prices.
Despite these challenges, bipartisan support for broadband expansion remains strong. Both political parties and local officials generally favor faster, more reliable internet for their communities. However, recent policy debates threaten to slow progress, with some lawmakers urging caution against major changes that could delay deployment by years.
Feinman emphasizes that the original vision for BEAD was broadly supported across political lines, aiming to connect everyone efficiently. He remains committed to raising awareness about the program’s importance and warns that recent actions might undermine its potential. He argues that with continued support, much of the country could have high-speed internet by summer, but political and administrative interference risks turning this promise into a delayed, less effective reality.
As the debate continues, the future of broadband expansion in the U.S. hangs in the balance—potentially impacting millions of Americans’ access to reliable, affordable internet for years to come.
