A Well-Intentioned Challenge to Rural Broadband Progress

First and foremost, let me commend the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) deserves commendation for its commitment to public engagement. By issuing a Notice of Inquiry and actively seeking comments from the broader community on its proposal to raise baseline internet speeds, the FCC has demonstrated a worthy dedication to inclusive and transparent policymaking. This approach ensures that voices from across the spectrum – from industry giants to rural communities – have the opportunity to shape the future of America’s internet infrastructure. The FCC’s openness to diverse perspectives is precisely why it’s crucial to examine critically the potential consequences of their proposed speed increase. While the intent to improve America’s broadband capabilities is admirable, the proposal to raise baseline internet speeds to symmetrical 100 Mbps presents a complex challenge that could inadvertently undermine other vital initiatives, particularly the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The BEAD program, a cornerstone of the Biden administration’s infrastructure plan, promises to revolutionize internet access across rural America. Its goal is to connect the unconnected and improve service in underserved areas. The program’s flexibility in speed requirements – initially set at 100/20 Mbps – was designed to balance ambitious goals with the practical realities of deploying broadband in challenging rural terrains. Enter the FCC’s potential new proposal, which threatens to throw a wrench into this carefully crafted plan. By mandating symmetrical 100 Mbps speeds as the latest performance baseline, the FCC risks creating a regulatory environment where many BEAD-funded projects could be deemed insufficient before breaking ground. This misalignment between the FCC’s aspirational speeds and BEAD’s pragmatic approach is more than a mere bureaucratic delay. It’s a potential threat to the very communities BEAD aims to serve, a concern that should be at the forefront of our discussions about broadband access.

1. Increased Costs, Decreased Coverage: If the FCC’s higher speed benchmark becomes the new standard, BEAD funds that could have connected multiple communities might only stretch to cover a fraction of the intended areas. The result? Fewer rural Americans connected, directly contradicting BEAD’s primary goal.
2. Discouraging Smaller Providers: Many BEAD applicants are smaller, local ISPs who have historically served and are deeply committed to serving their rural communities. The prospect of being unable to meet the FCC’s new benchmark could deter these vital players from participating in BEAD altogether, reducing competition and innovation in rural broadband deployment.
3. Technology Limitations: While fiber optic networks can quickly reach symmetrical 100 Mbps speeds, other technologies crucial for reaching remote areas—such as fixed wireless—may lag in meeting the new standards. This could lead to a bias towards fiber deployment, even in areas where it’s not economically feasible, potentially leaving the more remote regions behind.
4. Shifting Goalposts: BEAD applicants have begun planning based on the program’s original guidelines. Changing the benchmark now would force a wholesale reevaluation of these plans, causing delays and potentially making some projects unviable.

The irony here is profound. In its passion to push America’s internet into the future, the FCC risks handicapping the program designed to make that future a reality for all Americans. The BEAD program’s nuanced approach recognizes that some internet access is better than none and that improvements can be made incrementally. The FCC’s one-size-fits-all proposal threatens to undo this thoughtful strategy.

Instead of this potentially counterproductive speed mandate, the FCC should consider aligning its goals more closely with the BEAD program’s flexible, pragmatic approach. It should first focus on expanding access to unserved areas and then work on incrementally improving speeds as technology and economics allow. This approach would truly serve all Americans—urban and rural, big ISPs and small.

The path to universal high-speed internet is not through arbitrary benchmarks but through thoughtful, flexible policies that recognize the diverse challenges of our enormous nation. As the FCC continues to gather input from the community, it’s crucial that they carefully weigh the potential impacts of this proposal on existing broadband initiatives and rural communities.

The FCC’s openness to public comment provides an excellent opportunity for all stakeholders to contribute to this important discussion. It’s now up to us—industry experts, community leaders, and concerned citizens—to provide the FCC with the insights it needs to make a decision that will genuinely bridge the digital divide and fulfill the promise of connectivity for all Americans.