Should LEO Satellite Services Like Starlink Qualify for Fiber-Equivalent Broadband Grants?

Winncom-170
As federal broadband funding ramps under programs like BEAD, a growing number of experts are raising concerns over whether low-earth orbit satellite services should be treated on par with fiber for grant eligibility. Critics warn that misclassifying LEO as equivalent could hinder progress toward future-proof digital infrastructure and deepen the digital divide.

Published: June 10, 2025
By AGL Information and Technology Staff Writers

As the U.S. government channels billions of dollars into closing the digital divide through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program and other federal initiatives, a sharp debate has emerged: Should low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite internet services like SpaceX’s Starlink be eligible for the same grant funding as fiber-optic infrastructure?

At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question about long-term broadband equity: Can performance parity between LEO and fiber truly be achieved, and should the two be treated as equals under federal grant standards?

The Rise of LEO

LEO satellite services have gained rapid traction as a means of connecting remote and underserved areas. Unlike geostationary satellites, which orbit 22,000 miles above Earth, LEO satellites orbit roughly 300 to 1,200 miles, significantly reducing latency. Starlink, the most well-known LEO provider, has more than 2.6 million subscribers globally as of Q2 2024, with U.S. coverage spanning nearly all rural zip codes.

Proponents argue that LEO can deliver download speeds exceeding 100 Mbps with latency below 50ms—metrics that meet or exceed FCC minimum broadband definitions. “For communities where fiber may not reach for years, LEO can provide an immediate solution,” said SpaceX representatives in their official comments to the FCC in late 2023.

Federal Program Criteria and Classification Concerns

Despite these advantages, federal programs like BEAD prioritize “reliable, future-proof” infrastructure, often interpreted to mean fiber. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) guidelines state that while alternative technologies may be considered, they must demonstrate scalability to gigabit speeds and consistency across varying geographies and weather conditions.

In a January 2024 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) emphasized that “LEO services, while innovative, do not consistently provide the same reliability, scalability, or upgrade potential as fiber-based networks,” cautioning against equating the two for public investment purposes.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also faced legal challenges over its decision to rescind nearly $900 million in Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) awards initially granted to Starlink. In its 2022 order, the Commission cited Starlink’s failure to “demonstrate that it could deliver the promised service speeds and performance reliability” over the full 10-year funding term.

Digital equity advocates warn that conflating stopgap solutions with long-term infrastructure could create two tiers of broadband access. “Fiber is future-proof; satellite is not,” said Gigi Sohn, a former FCC advisor and digital equity fellow at the Benton Institute. “If we pour public dollars into LEO for areas that could reasonably support fiber, we risk baking in inequality.”

Tech policy experts also note that weather interference, capacity limitations, and congestion can degrade satellite performance, especially during peak hours. A recent Ookla Q1 2024 analysis showed that while Starlink speeds remained competitive in low-density areas, urban and suburban tests revealed significant variance and slower upload speeds than cable or fiber.

Industry Pushback and Alternative Views

LEO advocates argue that denying grant access could delay critical connectivity in sparsely populated areas. The Satellite Industry Association has urged the NTIA and FCC to adopt “technology-neutral” policies that evaluate all services based on performance benchmarks, not delivery method.

Some state broadband offices, such as those in Alaska and parts of the Mountain West, have signaled interest in hybrid models, where LEO bridges short-term gaps until fiber deployment becomes feasible. “It’s not about picking winners,” said a Colorado Office of Information Technology official. “It’s about balancing time-to-service with infrastructure longevity.”

Policy Implications and the Path Forward

The implications of this debate go beyond one company or technology. As Congress evaluates long-term broadband funding strategies, it must grapple with defining “equity” in an evolving technology landscape. Should subsidies focus on the fastest deployment or the most durable infrastructure?

The NTIA is expected to issue updated BEAD program guidance later in 2025 that may include clarified thresholds for performance equivalency and conditional eligibility for satellite services. Until then, the controversy remains a live wire in state-level grant competitions.

As the digital divide narrows in some places and persists in others, the choice between LEO and fiber is not just technical—it’s philosophical. While LEO satellite services have proven invaluable in emergency and hard-to-reach deployments, experts caution against a one-size-fits-all classification in federal broadband policy.

The road to digital equity may include many tools, but how they are funded—and for whom—could define the next decade of U.S. connectivity.

Ad_TwoHops_1040

AGL Staff Writer

AGL’s dedicated Staff Writers are experts in the digital ecosystem, focusing on developments across broadband, infrastructure, federal programs, technology, AI, and machine learning. They provide in-depth analysis and timely coverage on topics impacting connectivity and innovation, especially in underserved areas. With a commitment to factual reporting and clarity, AGL Staff Writers offer readers valuable insights on industry trends, policy changes, and technological advancements that shape the future of telecommunications and digital equity. Their work is essential for professionals seeking to understand the evolving landscape of broadband and technology in the U.S. and beyond.

More Stories

Enable Notifications OK No thanks