Photo credit: arstechnica.com
Contentious Federal Broadband Funding Rules Drawn into Spotlight
Recent objections from Republican lawmakers and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have emerged regarding the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) enforcement of legislative requirements that mandate federal-funding broadband providers to offer at least one low-cost service for qualifying subscribers. Although integral to the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program’s legal framework, critics claim the Biden administration’s NTIA overreached by recommending a standard rate of $30 per month for this low-cost offering.
During a recent event hosted by the Federalist Society, speaker Arielle Roth expressed strong disapproval of the NTIA’s approach, arguing that enforcing a uniform low-income rate across states represents merely one of many extralegal stipulations imposed. Roth articulated concerns that additional regulatory demands—such as those regarding climate change, union requirements, and wide access regulations—are misaligning the program’s core aim of bridging existing broadband gaps. She warned that such mandates could hinder the program’s cost efficiency and overall effectiveness.
In a show of support for Roth, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr highlighted her potential as a strong leader at the NTIA. Carr, who has openly criticized the Biden administration’s actions regarding BEAD, noted Roth’s previous experience at the FCC during the Trump administration, where she served as a legal advisor in the Wireline Competition Bureau and as a wireline advisor to Republican Commissioner Michael O’Rielly.
Push for Alternative Rules from Industry Lobbyists
The BEAD legislation outlines priority broadband projects as those designed to adapt and scale network speeds over time to meet the changing needs of users, while also supporting the rollout of 5G and other advanced technologies. In assessing this mandate, the Biden NTIA determined that only end-to-end fiber-optic networks fulfill these requirements. The NTIA claims that fiber-optic systems are inherently more adaptable and cost-effective for upgrading, thus promoting the growth of 5G and sophisticated wireless services that rely heavily on fiber infrastructure.
These conclusions have spurred backlash from lobby groups representing non-fiber ISPs, who are advocating for a reversal of this decision. Following Roth’s nomination, the America’s Communications Association, representing cable operators, declared optimism about collaborating with her to redirect the BEAD program more effectively. The group emphasized their eagerness to work alongside Roth in refining the program’s trajectory.
Furthermore, the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association expressed their enthusiasm for Roth’s past collaboration with Senator Ted Cruz on the BEAD initiatives. They remarked that her insights could help recalibrate the program’s objectives, advocating for “tech-neutral” funding criteria to enhance grant opportunities for fixed wireless ISPs.
Source
arstechnica.com