The reverberations from the last-minute changes to the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program continue. But, since the new BEAD plans were unveiled, industry expert Blair Levin — policy adviser to New Street Research — has had time to refine his assessment.
“Our initial reaction was that the new rules would shift funds from fiber to satellite, a negative for wired providers… We still think that but in talking to numerous stakeholders, that magnitude of the shift may be less than we initially thought.”
In a research note Monday, Levin reviewed the impact of the rules and provided a new analysis. The process, he wrote, may be chaotic in a similar manner to the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) auction. He also suggested that states may be able to salvage more of their original BEAD plans than was originally thought likely.
That, by no measure, means that the changes will be easy to navigate. A big change is the inclusion of wireless ISPs (WISPs) in the BEAD toolchest. WISPs are self-certifying to the 100 Mbps download/20 Mbps upload speeds required by providers. Such a process could lead to thousands of locations being taken out of the map despite no real proof that the WISP doing so can offer the promised service.
Another issue is uncertainty around the challenge process. This could add time to the process “that the new rules do not appear to contemplate,” Levin suggested.
In addition, satellite and fixed wireless may be able to serve many areas — but not all the addresses within those areas.
There is a direct connection between BEAD and RDOF. Many winning RDOF bidders were incapable of fulfilling the obligations they took on; their failures are making BEAD more difficult. It is not a small challenge. More than one-third of the RDOF grants are in default. This fluid landscape could lead to changes in the maps used in the final round of BEAD bidding, Levin writes.
Not surprisingly, the late-game changes and new BEAD plans caused confusion and angst in many states. Since the new BEAD changes were announced, Telecompetitor spoke with the state directors of both Montana and Vermont about the impact of the new guidance on their plans.
