Is the effort to expand broadband nationwide going well, poorly, or just right?

The $42.5 billion federal program to build out the nation’s broadband network came under fire Tuesday during a House subcommittee hearing that supporters largely described as political theater and not rooted in reality. 

But some testified that the roll out hasn’t entirely been smooth sailing.

To date, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which oversees the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment, or BEAD, program, said it has approved initial plans for 48 of the states and territories that are eligible to receive funding, which detail how it will be used to expand broadband. The effort is funded under the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.

Early last month, NTIA announced the approval of Montana’s plan. Shortly afterwards, Gov. Greg Gianforte opened the state’s BEAD application portal to allow providers to apply for nearly $629 million in state funding to build out broadband infrastructure. In a statement, Gianforte said Montana was the first state to open up applications for funding and called it a “generational investment.”

New Jersey’s $263 million plan was OK’d last week. Gov. Phil Murphy praised the approval, saying that broadband is “no longer a luxury but a necessity.”

But House Republicans in Tuesday’s hearing were less enthusiastic. GOP members on the subcommittee argued that the program, which is funded under the 2021 infrastructure law, is too complex, not technology neutral, and has onerous pricing and workforce mandates—all things that make it less attractive and more expensive for states to implement.

Several speakers said the biggest stumbling block preventing states from implementing their visions for how to use BEAD money is the constantly shifting requirements issued by NTIA. 

Misty Ann Giles, Montana’s chief operating officer and director of the state Department of Administration, said in her written testimony that NTIA’s requests and shifts in its guidance to states “are akin to building a plane while flying it without having the necessary instructions to be successful.”

“NTIA has provided either no guidance, guidance given too late, or guidance changing midstream,” Giles continued, “all with a lack of appreciation for state operations and costs and the needs of our telecommunication providers—this has created a chaotic implementation environment.”

She said the “litany” of requirements place an undue burden on states looking to implement BEAD, meaning they “shoulder an aggressive weight.” 

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican from Washington state and the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the “burdensome red tape” from NTIA has created continued delays in the approval process. She also accused NTIA of pushing a “radical agenda” with its workforce equity requirements. Some of those requirements include recruiting from historically underserved communities, providing good benefits, allowing workers to unionize and providing equal opportunities.

Subcommittee Democrats, however, defended the program. Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone, the committee’s ranking member, said in his opening statement that BEAD is “wildly popular among Democrats and Republicans and in blue and red states across the nation.”

In an email to Route Fifty, NTIA also rejected the House subcommittee’s criticism. According to a fact sheet the agency shared, the federal government has made more than $20 billion available in funding and met or exceeded all deadlines imposed by the infrastructure law to keep the program on track.

“As part of the Biden-Harris administration’s broader internet infrastructure efforts, which have helped 2.4 million previously unconnected homes and small businesses get online, NTIA is executing the BEAD program as Congress intended,” a spokesperson said. “We are moving quickly to deploy high-speed internet infrastructure while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. We heard strong support for that approach in today’s hearing and will continue to work with Congress, the states and territories, and other stakeholders to make Internet for All a reality.”

Other experts said BEAD’s deliberate rollout is a choice given what has gone before. In his written testimony, Blair Levin, a policy analyst with equity research firm New Street Research and a senior nonresidential fellow at Brookings Metropolitan Policy Project, drew a contrast with 2020’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction, which was plagued by inadequate mapping and providers defaulting on their buildout obligations.

Levin also noted that the need to produce new broadband maps took more than a year, even as the Federal Communications Commission met its deadlines.

Republicans further criticized NTIA for what Rep. Bob Latta, a Republican from Ohio and chair of the subcommittee, described in his opening statement as “price controls for certain broadband plans.” 

NTIA allows states to require that providers offer low-cost internet plan options, something Republicans have previously derided as rate regulation and governmental overreach. 

But Pallone brushed that criticism aside.

“The law directs NTIA to execute a deliberate process with the states and gives NTIA explicit authority to approve or disapprove what each state proposes for its low-cost option,” he said. “Committee Republicans should not forget that this requirement was enacted on a bipartisan basis and not just created out of thin air by NTIA. And Congress included this requirement because having access to internet service is only meaningful if people can actually afford it.”

Levin said that BEAD subsidies create a monopoly for the internet providers that receive them, so it is not unreasonable to have some safeguards in place to prevent those companies just using the money to maximize their profits.

“There are legitimate disagreements about the nature of those contractual terms,” he said. “But do not engage in the inaccurate fantasy that such price constraints are a new thing.”

NTIA also was accused of violating the infrastructure law’s provision that BEAD not favor one technology over another. Rodgers accused the agency of “pushing an expensive fiber-first agenda,” which she said would make the cost of deployment “prohibitive” in some areas of the country. Several speakers argued for low-earth orbit satellites and unlicensed fixed wireless as alternatives.

Subcommittee members gave NTIA credit for recently announcing it would seek comment on the use of alternative technologies in BEAD. But Montana’s Giles said that has come “at the 11th hour for Montana,” which started taking applications for BEAD grants on Aug. 14, before NTIA’s latest announcement.

Despite those issues, many gave NTIA credit for its efforts with the program.

“NTIA has a challenging task of implementing BEAD—it is the most significant investment in rural broadband this country has ever seen,” Giles said. “I understand that trying to have all states and territories swimming in the same direction in the same lane is no small task.”