Trust the States: Move BEAD Forward Without Disruption

This post is adapted from an original piece by broadband expert Dustin Loup, published by Benton. For a deeper dive into how to implement these changes while keeping BEAD progress on track, read the full article here.

Let States Lead: Keeping BEAD on Track

Over the past two years, state broadband offices (SBOs) have worked tirelessly to ensure BEAD funding is deployed efficiently, expanding access to unserved communities while prioritizing scalable, future-proof networks.

But recently proposed changes introduced by the SPEED for BEAD Act and signaled by the Department of Commerce threaten to derail this progress. These modifications risk delaying implementation, limiting state flexibility, and weakening BEAD’s overall impact.

To achieve the program’s mission, we believe that any changes should accelerate deployment, not force states to backtrack.

BEAD’s State-Led Process is Working

From the start, BEAD was designed to avoid the pitfalls of past broadband funding programs by prioritizing accuracy, oversight, and efficiency. The FCC’s National Broadband Map now provides a more precise, location-based assessment of service availability, and states have conducted rigorous challenge processes to ensure funding reaches truly unserved areas. Instead of defaulting to the lowest-cost option, states are prioritizing high-quality, scalable networks that will meet future needs.

This commitment to smart infrastructure investment has been reinforced through extensive public engagement, with broadband offices gathering input from local communities, providers, and other stakeholders. States have also streamlined grant allocation by implementing pre-qualification requirements, reducing administrative hurdles and ensuring a smoother selection process.

These efforts are already delivering impressive results. Forty-seven states have completed the challenge process, and 34 have begun selecting subgrantees. Among the states that have released Round 1 data, participation is strong, competition is high, and cost-efficiency is evident in several early examples:

• Arkansas: 98% of eligible locations received bids, with 82% seeing 2+ bids.
• Indiana: 94% of locations covered, with 82% receiving multiple bids.
• Virginia: 2,000+ applications from 24 providers, covering 92% of eligible locations.
• Delaware, Louisiana, and Nevada have achieved near-universal coverage with fiber-optic projects optimized for cost-efficiency.

The Risks of Changing BEAD Midstream

Despite BEAD’s effectiveness, new legislative and administrative proposals could disrupt implementation. Any proposed changes must be carefully evaluated to ensure they do not:

• Require state plans to be overhauled.
• Alter location eligibility, scoring, or subgrantee selection.
• Force states to restart or delay their programs.
• Introduce legal risks.

If a proposed change triggers any of these concerns, it must be avoided, or implemented with precision to prevent unnecessary disruption. Some of the proposed changes that present the greatest risk to BEAD include:

1. Redefining “Reliable Broadband Service”

Expanding the definition of reliable broadband service may sound beneficial, but doing so without careful planning could introduce major setbacks. States have spent months refining challenge data to ensure accuracy. Any changes should:

• Preserve the integrity of existing challenge process data.
• Prevent disruptions to subgrantee selection already in progress.
• Maintain symmetrical speed requirements for critical institutions like schools and hospitals.
• Ensure cost-efficiency without compromising long-term network quality.

2. Removing Incentives for Affordable Pricing

The SPEED for BEAD Act proposes banning price as a consideration in grant selection. Currently, every state evaluates applications based on affordability to keep broadband accessible. If this change is implemented:

• It could remove incentives for providers to offer lower-cost options.
• States may be forced to overhaul selection criteria, delaying implementation.
• Higher consumer costs could result, reducing broadband adoption in underserved areas.

3. Prohibiting Subgrantee Award Conditions

Preventing states from enforcing bid scoring and reporting requirements could create inconsistency and delays. States have designed rigorous, transparent selection processes, and changing the rules midstream could:

• Lead to legal challenges from providers who applied under different conditions.
• Reduce competition by discouraging provider participation.
• Disrupt ongoing selection processes, delaying broadband expansion.

4. Imposing a Per-Location Spending Cap

A federally mandated spending cap could force states to prioritize cheaper, lower-quality broadband solutions over more effective, future-proof options. States have optimized their funding to balance cost and coverage. A rigid, or overly restrictive cap could:

• Undermine states’ ability to deploy the best long-term solutions, particularly in rural areas.
• Disrupt ongoing projects that were designed under existing budget models.
• Delay broadband expansion by forcing states to rework funding allocations.

Keeping BEAD on Track

BEAD’s success depends on trusting the states to execute their plans. Any legislative or administrative modifications must enhance, rather than hinder, progress, allowing states to maintain momentum and deliver on the promise of universal broadband access.

The path forward is clear: Let states lead, keep BEAD on track, and ensure broadband expansion continues without unnecessary obstacles.