Post Election Broadband Redux

Now that the election has been settled, many in the broadband space are wondering what, if anything, will change with the incoming Trump administration.

Of course no one has a crystal ball, but there are a number of telecommunication policy developments we will be tracking, which include numerous fronts where there will likely be changes.

What those changes will be exactly will only become apparent sometime next year.

BEAD and DEA

The BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment) program and Digital Equity Act (DEA) programs are at the center of the universe in the national effort to ensure everyone has high-speed access to the Internet.

Image

However, in the run-up to the election, GOP leaders were highly critical of the BEAD program, saying it was taking too long to dispense funds to build new networks, questioned the NTIA favoring the building of fiber networks, and criticized aspects of the effort they consider to be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

(Also, in a letter signed by 11 Senate Republicans sent to NTIA Assistant Secretary Alan Davidson in April 2023, they specifically called out the BEAD program for giving “favorable treatment to government-owned networks over private investment,” mirroring the language used by community broadband opponents in dark money campaign attacks on publicly-owned, locally-controlled broadband networks.)

Laying aside the fact that the bipartisan infrastructure law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) mandated various time-consuming steps to be taken before states could issue BEAD grants (creating a less terrible broadband availability map to target funding where it’s needed most, for example) – as well as the undeniable fact that fiber networks are the gold standard of Internet connectivity – we still have to entertain the possibility that BEAD will change substantially.

It is not out of the question that a large share of BEAD funds that would have gone to fiber network builders will instead be awarded to Elon Musk’s Starlink and Amazon's Project Kuiper. As Ted Hearn, the former VP of the cable trade association ACA Connects, wrote the day after the election:

“The $42.45 billion BEAD program – under heavy GOP criticism for failing to fund a single broadband project in three years and for favoring fiber over other technologies – is likely to get a facelift, with more funding allocated to unlicensed fixed wireless, Elon Musk’s Starlink, and Amazon’s Project Kuiper once operational.”

President-elect Trump himself hinted as much in his interview with Joe Rogan a week before the election:

“And I call Elon …They said, (Starlink is) better than the wires … We're spending a trillion dollars to get cables all over the country, right up to upstate areas where you have like two farms…Elon can do it for nothing … (Rogan: They spent $42 billion. They could have gotten Starlinks to everybody) … for almost nothing.”

Image

Starlink does not have the capacity to provide high-speed Internet service to serve everyone without “the wires.”

Even with the massive increase in satellites that are planned, it does not appear feasible to connect all the locations needing access.

Make of that what you will, but it seems a number of would-be BEAD funded fiber projects may not get built in favor of Starlink and possibly Amazon. That may mean substantially less money going to the likes of AT&T and Charter Spectrum.

Of course, affordability is another issue in rural areas where BEAD funds are mostly directed towards. Broadband affordability is a major barrier to access in rural areas, as evidenced by the millions of rural households who had enrolled in the now expired Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). Starlink is not cheap. There is $350 in equipment costs and standard service is $120/month – and that’s just today. Musk’s companies have a history of testing the limits of how much those locked into its service platforms are willing to spend on continued service.

For further discussion on exploring why Starlink isn’t a cure-all listen to our recent Community Broadband Bits podcast Episode 621.

Universal Services Fund Reform?

Many digital equity advocates have been calling for Universal Service Fund (USF) reform and see it as a way to permanently fund an ACP 2.0. In the new administration, we may see USF reform with a new but much more stringent ACP program.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who was also re-elected on Tuesday, has been a leading critic of the USF, arguing that instead of relying on fees from broadband providers or big tech companies to fund the program, the funds should come from Congressional appropriations.

Image

Widely expected to be the next chair of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, in his “Blueprint for Universal Service Fund Reform,” his view is that the Lifeline program and ACP “are duplicative and should at the very least be combined.”

“Further,” he wrote, “they should be streamlined and reformed to target subsidies to those who truly need them to get online. If low-income broadband subsidies are to continue, it also makes sense to abandon ACP’s overly broad eligibility criteria in favor of more limited enrollment rules.”

If you recall six months ago, the $14.2 billion Congress appropriated for the ACP was depleted, which highlights the danger of relying on appropriated funds for these programs.

There are many hundreds of ISPs who have loans from public and private sources that depend on future USF allocations that were considered definite when the loans were created.

Changes Ahead At The FCC

Most observers expect FCC commissioner Brendan Carr to be the next FCC chair. As Fierce Network reported this week, “though Trump hasn’t specified his choice for FCC chair, Carr is the most senior Republican on the Commission and analysts have singled him out as the probable pick.”

Image

It should be noted that Carr authored a Project 2025 chapter outlining what he thinks the FCC should do when Trump takes office.

In it, he calls for the elimination of Section 230 protections for Internet companies; wants to force certain large tech companies to contribute to the USF (which contrasts with Sen. Cruz’s view); expand the list of companies deemed to pose a security risk to the U.S.; and fully fund the Rip and Replace program to remove “insecure network gear to ensure that it did not remain a threat lurking inside our systems.”

As Fierce Network goes on to report, “Carr also advocates for the FCC to free up more spectrum for wireless service, though it’s unclear how it would do this given the agency’s auction authority lapsed in March 2023 and has yet to be renewed.”

“Carr also indicated Republicans should eliminate policies which allow broadband funding to be used for overbuilding and improve coordination on spectrum policy and infrastructure spending.”

Just to be clear: “overbuilding” is a term that industry-insiders use to describe an area that has more than one broadband network, which is what most people refer to as competition; something that millions of Americans want to increase. The term also obscures the differences between fiber networks, cable networks, satellite and DSL networks. (Imagine a community that has dirt roads and cobblestone streets and suggesting that the funding of modern, freshly-paved streets and highways is “overbuilding.”)

In any case, we will continue to track broadband developments as a new regime takes power in the nation’s capital and how it may alter the digital landscape.

Header image of White House courtesy of Freerange Stock, CC0 1.0 Universal

Inline image of Elon Musk courtesy of Free Malaysia Today, Attribution 4.0 International

Inline image of FCC building courtesy of Rob Pegoraro, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Inline image of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr courtesy of Flickr user Gage Skidmore, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic