States: Technological Priority Puts BEAD at Risk
The NTIA’s $42 billion BEAD plan goes pretty much all-in on a single technology to eradicate the digital divide – fiber.??
While the majority of WISPs use fiber to connect customers where it makes sense, none use a one-size-fits-all approach to deliver access to their communities.?Many approaches are involved because no single solution works everywhere.??
Thankfully, a number of states are beginning to see the light on this all-of-the-above approach, and what it may mean for their BEAD projects in the coming years.?
Recent statements from several broadband offices charged with implementing BEAD seem to indicate that, though BEAD support represents a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," the NTIA’s restrictive, one-size-fits-all requirements, if religiously followed, may actually undermine the goal of getting all online.???
California began shining the light on the matter first.?"The CPUC estimates it has approximately $4 billion [in state and federal] funding available, [which] while significant…will not enable deployment of broadband infrastructure to all unserved locations in the State." The state estimates the entire process of getting all online will cost more than $9 billion, including over $2 billion to harden fiber aerials from fires.
North Carolina came next, noting "The estimated total cost to achieve universal service is $3.078 billion.”?The state was allocated only $1.5 billion in BEAD funds.
In Minnesota, an official there said that though BEAD awarded the state $652 million to bridge its divide, “our dollar amount, we just know, is not going to be enough.”
Similarly, New Mexico got a $675 million allocation, but state officials believe that while that is “a lot of money, the preliminary estimates indicate that it’s not going to be enough to get the job done in New Mexico, regardless of the type of technology that we're looking at.”
Sitting right next door to New Mexico, Texas got $3.3 billion for its BEAD allocation, but it says it will take $10 billion to connect everyone.
Expect more of these pronouncements to come along in the ensuing months as more states reveal their BEAD plans to the NTIA.
That noted, is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
Perhaps yes.
领英推荐
Pennsylvania shines a headlight on the challenge, and solution.?“Limiting the technology used to deliver broadband will only increase costs and thus limit the reach of a build to help grow high-speed internet access within Pennsylvania.”?They add, “As future funding is planned, new technologies [such as cost-effective, unlicensed wireless technologies] should be considered.”
Others may be seeing the light, too.
Idaho will receive $583 million in BEAD dollars, but its state broadband program manager thinks it will take over a $1 billion to connect the state’s unserved and underserved locations to underground fiber,?unless other alternatives can be used.?
Echoing Idaho, Arizona officials estimate the state’s $993 million BEAD allocation will fall short to cover all with fiber,?though they believe the state will have a 70-to-30 split between fiber and wireless or other alternative technologies to get those in the divide broadband access.
Along the same lines, Oregon says it will cost the state about $3 billion to get all online via fiber, though NTIA only allocated $689 million. “Oregon projects…it cannot achieve universal service with BEAD program funding alone.”??Somewhat optimistically, however, the state notes it will “look to maximize this allocated funding through a mix of technologies to serve as many Oregonians as possible.”?
One hopes all states can be as flexible (or more so) because the NTIA's fiber-priority framework has preordained an outcome which will leave many without broadband.?
The laws of telecom economics – born of massive, diverse geographies, topographies, and sparse population densities which make up the heart of the universal coverage challenge – cannot be served through an inflexible, glass-only model.??
True tech-flexibility, and an administrative process which invites more solutions, especially from small, local ISPs, remain the only answers to bridging the divide with limited state support.?
The NTIA doesn’t need a search light to see this.?Some states have already lit the way.
Africa's Digital Infrastructure Expert | Datacenters | Connectivity | Fiber Networks | Energy Solutions for the Mining, Heavy construction and Oil&Gas sectors.
1 年The?Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, provides $42.45 billion to expand high-speed internet access by funding planning, infrastructure deployment and adoption programs in all 50 states, Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Virgilio Fiorese (VICO) $42.5 billion is mucho dinero, amigo
Africa's Digital Infrastructure Expert | Datacenters | Connectivity | Fiber Networks | Energy Solutions for the Mining, Heavy construction and Oil&Gas sectors.
1 年Virgilio Fiorese (VICO) this is the typical example of state sponsored industrial policy. You start with a plan and a budget. As the market sees how much money is on the table, they shift their position to gain an advantage. If the U.S. known bureaucracy wasn't enough of a problem, here comes competition. Greg Whelan Case in point: BEAD is fiber-based. The wireless guys come to the table to say: We need some of this money for us. Enter the lobbysts of WISPA. Pretty soon we will have the first court case. Ajit Pai can you come back in 2024, Sir?
Principal, TheAIAnalyst.com @ainews_wire Fastnet.news
1 年I agree wireless is the right choice in some locations, especially where it can offer a reliable 100/20. But the numbers in this article are pure bs unless you believe spending $100,000 per home is right when can do a reasonable job with satellite. 1 and soon 3 LEO Sats can deliver 50/10 reliable 100/20 common. The US Broadband Commission discovered 0.45 of 1% of homes are prohibitively expensive to reach. We assumed they would be served by satellite but didn't say so for political reasons. (Think two families on an island or two farms 15 miles away from everyone else with mountains in the way.) RUS approved one project at $30,000 per home past and another at $60,000. Serving the last 1% with satellite will often cut the cost in half. In addition, using inflated deployment cost estimates also drivea up estimates like these. Small carriers often pay 3 times as much for equipment as large carriers. The FCC figures are apparently based on very small carrier costs. Telcos at economic sizes would pay much less. States want more money so have incentive to exaggerate the numbers. Good reporters insist on confirming estimates with a neutral source.
Revangel
1 年https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite
Vice President of Technology & Communications at Irby Utilities
1 年Almost all of these states have the majority of their underserved locations in area where topography an foliage make most types of fixed wireless a non workable solution. While fiber cannot be the only answer for every broadband need please stop pretending that FWA is the easy button that is being overlooked.