House Small Business Hearing Focuses on Fiber vs. Satellite

Republican lawmakers at the hearing focused on USF oversight, while Democrats took aim at the Trump administration over changes to the BEAD program to make it technology-neutral. The White House de-emphasized fiber “in favor of an untested technology cornered by Elon Musk,” which will lead to BEAD projects focusing more “on cheap work than on good work,” said Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y.

Rep. Dan Meuser, R-Pa., argued that a great deal of federal money has already been spent on broadband, with little improvement in coverage. “The management of it is awful.”

Three out of four hearing witnesses -- all fiber broadband providers -- said that technology was a better use of federal dollars than satellite. “Fiber is the do-it-once, do-it-right technology,” said Jimmy Todd, CEO of Kansas provider Nex-Tech.

Fiber is “scalable” and will keep up with the demands of AI, said Consolidated Telephone CEO Kristi Westbrock. “I also want to make sure that in the BEAD program the dollars are spent well and that we're not back asking for additional dollars because one of the technologies didn't stand up for the long haul.”

Satellite is less reliable and not as fast, said Karen Jackson-Furman, CEO of the West Kentucky and Tennessee Telecommunications Cooperative. “We also have the issue of needing to replenish the constellations every approximately five years with satellite, and there are unknown environmental concerns with those satellites coming back down.”

The fourth witness, Jeff Vander Werff, owner of agribusiness and farm VWF, didn’t mention a preference for fiber but emphasized the need for reliable rural broadband. “From the connectivity of our precision agriculture software to the use of cloud-based billing systems for our agribusiness, reliable high-speed internet is a necessity,” he said.

Rep. Morgan McGarvey, D-Ky., said the Trump administration created “chaos” for state broadband programs by reworking BEAD to be technology-neutral, and both he and Rep. Kelly Morrison, D-Minn., asked witnesses what those changes meant for deployment. Jackson-Furman said satellite providers were able to beat out fiber providers for BEAD funds in some areas. That will “create a landscape of haves and have-nots for fiber connectivity,” she said. “So some folks will be left with an inferior service, and that's unfortunate.”

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., questioned the effectiveness of past federal broadband access programs. “It is unacceptable, in my opinion, that 7 million homes and businesses, primarily in rural areas like central Missouri, still lack access to broadband.” He said many of his constituents still don’t have service, despite the Biden administration spending billions. Pointing to the 15 agencies and more than a hundred programs that are involved in broadband access, Alford asked if the efforts could be streamlined. Todd said programs could be made more consistent and uniform rather than each one having different rules.

Jackson-Furman noted that each program meets a different need, and federal funding was required to meet the need for rural broadband. She also said that to sustain the USF program, its payor base should be widened to include edge providers and all ISPs. Westbrock agreed: “The modernization of USF is critical for our rural communities.” They both cited permitting as a major delaying factor for broadband buildout.

Rep. Brad Finstad, R-Minn., asked about the accuracy of broadband maps. Westbrock said those currently available inaccurately show households as having access roughly eight out of 10 times, mistakes that stem from companies over-reporting their coverage. “They may serve someone in that area, but they're recording the entire census block.” Alford also asked witnesses about consequences for companies that accepted federal broadband dollars but didn’t accomplish the buildout they promised, but Westbrock said there aren’t any. “The programs have given money to companies that don't follow through on the work that they say they're going to do.”