New BEAD Rules Create 'More Uncertainty' for States, NATOA Speakers Say
NEW ORLEANS -- Recent changes to NTIA's $42.5 billion BEAD program are creating uncertainty for states, some broadband experts said during the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors’ annual policy conference here Tuesday. Concerns were raised about federal funds potentially supporting satellite broadband in areas where residents have shown little interest in it and about NTIA’s decision to remove its preference for fiber.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
States also face challenges interpreting BEAD’s low-cost plan rules and evolving definitions of digital equity, adding to what many described as greater uncertainty compared with last year. NTIA’s revision of what qualifies as a community anchor institution drew criticism as well, with stakeholders questioning the logic behind the change. Also discussed Tuesday was concern that the cable industry remains under pressure as other technologies expand home broadband services and states weigh adding taxes to recover revenue lost from traditional franchise fees.
Future of BEAD Remains Unclear
Nancy Werner of the law firm Bradley Werner noted that while NTIA's new rules offer room for satellite providers to participate, it's "interesting to me that BEAD money might go to [satellite] distribution" in areas where residents who already have access haven't adopted it. Best Best & Krieger's Gerry Lederer said NTIA rewrote the rules so that the "semi-finger on the scale in favor of fiber goes away" even as newer research suggests that satellite speeds aren't "sufficient to meet the scalability requirement" of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
Angeline Panettieri, legislative director for technology and communications at the National League of Cities, said it's important to figure out "how we as a community talk about what we used to call digital equity" in light of new NTIA definitions. These include that of "community anchor institutions" (see 2508110050). "It's terrible," Lederer said, since getting broadband to anchor institutions that in turn provide it to their communities is a "fundamental concept." Without a "logical answer" as to why NTIA revised the definition, Lederer said, "we're entitled to wonder what the political agenda is." Part of the problem is that NTIA has yet to make a decision on any states' plans yet, Panettieri said. So, "I don't think we're going to know until everybody has already submitted their plans and are actively in review and being kicked back for adjustments."
NATOA Notebook
Also discussed on Tuesday were cable franchise issues. Experts cautioned that additional federal obligations could further reduce local franchise fees, while emphasizing that state-level franchise negotiations continue to shape the quality of cable service (see 2410160034). Some states have proposed taxing broadband providers to "go after the [fee] revenue that you're losing from the traditional cable franchise model," he added. Cable is "struggling to keep their broadband investors," said Moss & Barnett lawyer Brian Grogan, as cable providers are "fighting with Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile, who are doing whole-house broadband and then selling streaming as a result of it." It may do more harm than good for local governments to advocate at the federal level for new cable operator rules and obligations, warned Alliance for Community Media President and CEO Mike Wassenaar. "It can actually be a monetary concern for them because franchise fees go down further," he said. CTC Technology & Energy CEO-CTO Andrew Afflerbach agreed and noted that how states set their franchise agreements contributes to the quality of services provided by cable.