Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Network Government The Internet

$42 Billion Broadband Grant Program May Scrap Biden Admin's Preference For Fiber (arstechnica.com) 67

Posted by BeauHD from the alternative-methods dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: US Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has been demanding an overhaul of a $42.45 billion broadband deployment program, and now his telecom policy director has been chosen to lead the federal agency in charge of the grant money. "Congratulations to my Telecom Policy Director, Arielle Roth, for being nominated to lead NTIA," Cruz wrote last night, referring to President Trump's pick to lead the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Roth's nomination is pending Senate approval. Roth works for the Senate Commerce Committee, which is chaired by Cruz. "Arielle led my legislative and oversight efforts on communications and broadband policy with integrity, creativity, and dedication," Cruz wrote.

Shortly after Trump's election win, Cruz called for an overhaul of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, which was created by Congress in November 2021 and is being implemented by the NTIA. Biden-era leaders of the NTIA developed rules for the program and approved initial funding plans submitted by every state and territory, but a major change in approach could delay the distribution of funds. Cruz previously accused the NTIA of "technology bias" because the agency prioritized fiber over other types of technology. He said Congress would review BEAD for "imposition of statutorily-prohibited rate regulation; unionized workforce and DEI labor requirements; climate change assessments; excessive per-location costs; and other central planning mandates."

Roth criticized the BEAD implementation at a Federalist Society event in June 2024. "Instead of prioritizing connecting all Americans who are currently unserved to broadband, the NTIA has been preoccupied with attaching all kinds of extralegal requirements on BEAD and, to be honest, a woke social agenda, loading up all kinds of burdens that deter participation in the program and drive up costs," she said. Municipal broadband networks and fiber networks in general could get less funding under the new plans. Roth is "expected to change the funding conditions that currently include priority access for government-owned networks" and "could revisit decisions like the current preference for fiber," Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the matter. Congress defined priority broadband projects under BEAD as those that "ensure that the network built by the project can easily scale speeds over time to meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses; and support the deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and other advanced services."

The Biden NTIA determined that only end-to-end fiber-optic architecture meet these criteria. "End-to-end fiber networks can be updated by replacing equipment attached to the ends of the fiber-optic facilities, allowing for quick and relatively inexpensive network scaling as compared to other technologies. Moreover, new fiber deployments will facilitate the deployment and growth of 5G and other advanced wireless services, which rely extensively on fiber for essential backhaul," the Biden NTIA said (PDF).

$42 Billion Broadband Grant Program May Scrap Biden Admin's Preference For Fiber More | Reply

$42 Billion Broadband Grant Program May Scrap Biden Admin's Preference For Fiber

Comments Filter:

  • Fiber is the only option which will allow for future upgrades. Wireless is too unreliable and not fast enough for the 21st century and beyond.

    At least they're being open with their corruption. No need for investigative reports to find out who's getting a sweet deal.

    • If you going through the expensive labor of digging ditches and laying conduit, no one gonna run coax, unless the politicians are dumb. Material cost different is meaningless vs the labor and equipment needed to dig ditches and repair any pavement after.

      • If you going through the expensive labor of digging ditches and laying conduit, no one gonna run coax, unless the politicians are dumb. Material cost different is meaningless vs the labor and equipment needed to dig ditches and repair any pavement after.

        Nobody's gonna go to any level of labor for this money. The new admin will see to it that it's once again a giant handout of piles of cash for no effort whatsoever, so that the next administration, if we get a next administration, can once again start the process of developing some form of funding to build out broadband that never seems to actually materialize. This isn't even a Republican/Democrat difference. Whoever sets these programs up always makes sure they pay out without anything to show for it. It'

        • ... unless the politicians are dumb.

          Don't worry. I've heard this will be a "merit-based" administration. /s

      • Xfinity/Comcast was still coming through and laying coax in my neighborhood about a year ago. I'm not saying fiber isn't the better choice, but you can do 2Gbps on modern coax and probably less than 10% of your customer base will even be able to notice any speed improvements above 200Mbps (ie they can stream all their stuff and browse the web - if they don't download large files its all the same).

        • Re:What alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert&slashdot,firenzee,com> on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @05:00PM (#65142015) Homepage

          Laying new coax is just plane stupid...
          If you're going to lay new cable it should always be fiber. It's cheaper and will scale better in the future.
          Sooner or later that coax will end up getting replaced with fiber anyway, only now they'll have to do the work twice instead of once.

          • Re:What alternatives? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by ItsJustAPseudonym ( 1259172 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @05:05PM (#65142025)
            They might own a shitpile of surplus coax that they want to use up.

            • Yes. Piles of non UV rated coax. Which they run outdoors on power poles, and have had to replace numerous times in my neighborhood.

              If there is ever fiber coming to my hill, it's not likely to be from Comcast.

          • Laying new coax is just plane stupid... If you're going to lay new cable it should always be fiber. It's cheaper and will scale better in the future. Sooner or later that coax will end up getting replaced with fiber anyway, only now they'll have to do the work twice instead of once.

            But they can probably get paid (in government grants) about six times for doing the work twice. It's win-win-win-win-win-win, and only lose-lose. That's an equation even an accountant could understand.

          • If they do it with conduit then it won't take much to fish a new fiber line in later.

          • Sooner or later that coax will end up getting replaced with fiber anyway, only now they'll have to do the work twice instead of once.

            Seems to me that since we, the taxpayer, pay them, the telcos/isp, to do the work, there's a motivation for them to do the work twice.

            I'm not arguing for the double work, but I can see the appeal.

        • Re:What alternatives? (Score:4, Informative)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @05:05PM (#65142033) Homepage Journal

          Xfinity/Comcast was still coming through and laying coax in my neighborhood about a year ago. I'm not saying fiber isn't the better choice, but you can do 2Gbps on modern coax and probably less than 10% of your customer base will even be able to notice any speed improvements above 200Mbps (ie they can stream all their stuff and browse the web - if they don't download large files its all the same).

          Agreed, to a point. It's not the last mile that's the problem. It's the backhaul. If you don't have fiber at least to the node, it doesn't matter how fast the last mile is, because you're going to hit a limit to how fast the shared part of the infrastructure is.

          The real disadvantage to coax is its unreliability. It works fine for a while, then it starts to degrade as water gets into the lines somewhere, then it starts to fail randomly, and then at some point, the homeowner is begging somebody to trench a new line... again and again. So if you're trying to build up infrastructure to last for decades, coax just doesn't cut it.

          Fiber either works or it doesn't. It's the only technology that really makes sense to run at this point. It also costs something like an order of magnitude less per foot than underground-rated coax. I'm really not sure why anybody is still running coax for non-repair projects at this point, other than momentum and maybe the cost of the endpoint equipment.

        • Xfinity/Comcast was still coming through and laying coax in my neighborhood about a year ago. I'm not saying fiber isn't the better choice, but you can do 2Gbps on modern coax and probably less than 10% of your customer base will even be able to notice any speed improvements above 200Mbps (ie they can stream all their stuff and browse the web - if they don't download large files its all the same).

          Broadband expansion should depend on localities and conditions and local infrastructure. We're abandoning DSL in the US, and yet in cities like New York, there's a vast network of copper that could be used for modern European-style DSL, where subscribers get speeds from 100 to over 400 Mbps. And what would work in New York wouldn't necessarily work in suburbs that are spread out but still have vast networks of coax. And in some places, it's impractical to hardline anything and something like a homegrown WiF

          • The telcos are working to abandon copper pairs completely. In town after town they are floating the idea of removing it. They will start wherever opposition is weakest and expand from there, declaring victory as they go. Their suggestion is to replace it with wireless. The customers still depending on POTS mostly don't have service or they would have done already. Their only other option is often starlink. Many of them are on fixed incomes and can't afford it...

        • I'm not saying fiber isn't the better choice, but you can do 2Gbps on modern coax and probably less than 10% of your customer base will even be able to notice any speed improvements above 200Mbps (ie they can stream all their stuff and browse the web - if they don't download large files its all the same).

          My understanding is that the max theoretical for coax is 1 Gbps and that bandwidth is shared meaning the more neighbors using coax, the lower bandwidth everyone has. Fiber starts at 1 Gbps now per connection and theoretical max is 100 Gbps. For future proofing, the obvious choice is fiber. Coax is, at best, a stop gap.

          • I'm not saying fiber isn't the better choice, but you can do 2Gbps on modern coax and probably less than 10% of your customer base will even be able to notice any speed improvements above 200Mbps (ie they can stream all their stuff and browse the web - if they don't download large files its all the same).

            My understanding is that the max theoretical for coax is 1 Gbps and that bandwidth is shared meaning the more neighbors using coax, the lower bandwidth everyone has. Fiber starts at 1 Gbps now per connection and theoretical max is 100 Gbps. For future proofing, the obvious choice is fiber. Coax is, at best, a stop gap.

            Obviously fiber is the choice for any sort of backhaul, but for local distribution there is still lots of capacity left in coax.

            https://broadbandlibrary.com/t... [broadbandlibrary.com]

      • Some California fiber outfit bored* conduit through my neighborhood 3 years ago, got me to sign up for notice and early adopter service, has not come through and has no plans to, according to their responses. This means the ROW is encumbered.

        Meanwhile, Verizon and T-Mobile both will offer me 5G wireless Internet, AT&T claims they are committed to also offer me service, and an unusual fiber/wireless mixed mode provider is asking me to commit to early adopter, I might even qualify as the 'anchor home' to

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 )

      Fiber is the only option which will allow for future upgrades.

      With fiber you are tied to a single, or two at most, providers. Wireless doesn't have a lot of competition, but it has a lot more than fiber. You are less likely to be hosed if you are in an apartment building and are forced to use the one provider they usually carry, if that provider is even part of the affordable broadband program.

      If you want to provide a lot of people with internet for as little money as possible, wireless is the *far* superior solution.

      • You still need to run fiber if you want 5G cell sites. But yes, 5G wireless is pretty decent if the population is not city like.

      • Fiber performance is higher and you don't have to deal with overlapping frequency issues though.

        Rural fiber is expensive. But many rural spots are also high wind which means wireless has antenna directional issues. The towers are also difficult to get to and also have power and wind issues. Line of sight is also an issue.

      • If you want to provide a lot of people with internet for as little money as possible, wireless is the *far* superior solution.

        And provide them with slow speeds, then yes, wireless if the *far* superior option. In high density areas such as cities, or even moderately dense areas such as suburbs, wireless cannot compete with fiber, let alone coax.

        I just moved and for now have to use wireless until I get cables run in the walls. I can watch my signal strength, and consequently speed, go up and down.

      • Re:What alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert&slashdot,firenzee,com> on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @05:03PM (#65142021) Homepage

        There's no need for every single provider to run their own fiber.
        Many countries have a separate wholesale provider (lays fiber, regulated pricing or non profit entity) and providers who rent the fiber and deliver services over the top. Many municipal networks work this way too - they lay the fibre and lease out the cables to any provider that wants to provide services.

        • If only all countries were so capable...

        • We used to have this in the US city where I lived 25 years ago. The technology was different (DSL) but the idea was similar. I could get internet over DSL from any one of a dozen ISPs in my area, all run over the physical lines installed by the phone company. I picked a small ISP and they were great, low pings and technically competent help desk. At some point the phone company stopped allowing third party ISPs, I don't know what happened, why that stopped being a thing, but it was great while it lasted.

          To

        • There's no need for every single provider to run their own fiber.
          Many countries have a separate wholesale provider (lays fiber, regulated pricing or non profit entity) and providers who rent the fiber and deliver services over the top. Many municipal networks work this way too - they lay the fibre and lease out the cables to any provider that wants to provide services.

          What you describe is the obviously superior solution, and yet many places have private fiber/cables because business interests coupled with politicians who take "legal" bribes are common in the US.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by havana9 ( 101033 )
        You have a couple of providers for the last mile but you can have unbundling and choose the different providers, that in turn lease the fiber prom the "Central Office" to the houses.
        At least is how it works in Italy. I live in an old building an I have fiber, I pay the ISP and the landlord isn't involved. The problem could arise if the area doesn't have fiber, or there is fiber arriving nearby the apartment complex or the house but no connection to the buildings. That could easily become complicated and r

      • With fiber you are tied to a single, or two at most, providers. Wireless doesn't have a lot of competition, but it has a lot more than fiber. You are less likely to be hosed if you are in an apartment building and are forced to use the one provider they usually carry, if that provider is even part of the affordable broadband program.

        That has been true of every Internet service provider since the beginning of broadband. For DSL, for coax, and now for fiber. While some people can use wireless, it is not suitable for everyone. In many apartments I have lived, wireless had dead spots all over the apartment.

      • With fiber you are tied to a single, or two at most, providers. Wireless doesn't have a lot of competition, but it has a lot more than fiber. You are less likely to be hosed if you are in an apartment building and are forced to use the one provider they usually carry, if that provider is even part of the affordable broadband program.

        If you want to provide a lot of people with internet for as little money as possible, wireless is the *far* superior solution.

        Fiber is reliable, high bandwidth and low latency. Wireless is a low bandwidth unreliable support nightmare. There are schemes like munfi fiber to foster last mile competition across providers.

        Even ignoring massive bandwidth disparities between the two Wireless is on average not cheaper for end users than Fiber.

    • Re:What alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @04:53PM (#65141977) Journal

      You're acting like they have a plan besides dismantling everything.

      • Exactly this. We saw this work in Australia. One party proposed a FTTH setup. The other then tore that up half way through implementation, proceeded to use the copper network that it was supposed to decommission, and resulted in a broadband bill that cost $20bn more than originally planned while succesfully moving Australia from 43rd in global internet speeds down to 65th. And fuck me backwards I just looked it up and they are down at 72 now.

        Never has so much been spent to accelerate backwards harder than r

    • Re:What alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @05:05PM (#65142027)

      They might have well as called it the "Starlink Subsidization Act of 2025"

    • Can Texas please offer an alternative to Rafael "Ted/Cancun" Cruz?

    • Fiber outlays only make sense with so many people per sq mi in a given area. Otherwise Starlink is superior, short of something like total sensory VR becoming a thing.

  • Don't Do It As A Federal Grant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @04:40PM (#65141937)

    Do it as a contract with bids, milestones and penalties for not performing. We already give too damn much money away with no results already.

  • "imposition of statutorily-prohibited ... "

    Perhaps, a government department should spend less time being a poster-boy but then, the government needs to prove they're being fair and inclusive. Well, they did, now they can happily throw-out any policy that forces corporations to spend money and ordinary people can be ignored.

  • Dial up is enough for anyone

  • Or... (Score:3)

    by stolidobserver ( 4112531 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @04:56PM (#65142003)

    $42 Billion Broadband Grant Program May Not Scrap Biden Admin's Preference For Fiber

    See what I did there? The exact same thing the title of that article did. I just used a different bias.

  • "to be honest, a woke social agenda" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ItsJustAPseudonym ( 1259172 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @05:11PM (#65142049)
    Here we see the new expression of Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org]:

    to be honest, a woke social agenda

    When enough words are spouted by representatives of this administration, the probability of them using the word "woke" approaches 1.

  • As someone who lives in an average suburb, while I don't need it right now, I have access to 4Gbps fibre to my home. I currently "make do" with 1Gbps. Upgrading to 2Gbps or 4Gbps only requires an ONT upgrade.

    The 4G is symmertrical, the cheaper 1G is only 500M upload.

  • Here's a 2014 article about the first $400B for FTTH that went into a black hole:

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]

    Refund due.

    • Next time politicians announce more spending on broadband infrastructure, instead of applauding and saying it's "for the children" ask them why, and where all the other money went...

  • The summary failed to mention that this is the program that, more than 3 years later, has not connected a single customer or even begun construction. There are many news articles about it; I found one on MSN from 7 months ago. Perhaps a re-evaluation of the approach is warranted.

  • On Mobile

    Top says 33 comments

    Bottom says 0 comments

    Fuck testing, deploy to live!

  • Any grant that is intended to improve telecommunications infrastructure should ONLY fund infrastructure, not social justice schemes.
    Strongly disagreed about fiber. Wireless electronics is like pipeless plumbing (porta potties). It can kinda be made to work if absolutely necessary, but a pipe is always better. Instead of giving grants to the monopolists, we should pass laws that allow local companies to install fiber without interference from the monopolists

    • Any grant that is intended to improve telecommunications infrastructure should ONLY fund infrastructure, not social justice schemes.

      Just what were these schemes? I don't see any references,

      Instead of giving grants to the monopolists, we should pass laws that allow local companies to install fiber without interference from the monopolists

      Your party wanted to outlaw that. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]

      • Any grant that is intended to improve telecommunications infrastructure should ONLY fund infrastructure, not social justice schemes.

        Just what were these schemes? I don't see any references,

        From the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) [ntia.gov]:

        Advancing Equitable Workforce Development and Job Quality Objectives

        A skilled workforce is critical to meeting infrastructure buildout timelines under the
        Infrastructure Act and connecting households across the country to reliable, affordable, high-
        speed broadband. A highly skilled workforce will also allow for the safe deployment of
        sustainable networks. To meet the workforce needs of this program, Eligible Entities and their
        subgrantees should make appropriate in

  • Starlink (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Removing the fiber preference likely allows Musk's Starlink program to participate. Recall that the Biden Administration nixed a $886 million broadband grant for Starlink under the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program back in 2022, which the FCC cited as being a "nascent LEO satellite technology" with "recognized capacity constraints".

    The rejection supposedly infuriated Musk.

  • God, enough with the DEI nonsense... (Score:3)

    by ndykman ( 659315 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @07:24PM (#65142315)

    Seriously, this is the worst strawman ever. Bad weather? DEI. Bird Flu? DEI. Steak too done? DEI.

    Like BS cronyism and loyalty hires aren't objectively worse.

    But, no, developing the infrastructure that makes the most sense (fiber) is a work plot.

  • Here, let me break this down for you (Score:3)

    by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @07:31PM (#65142333) Journal

    - There are 125M households in the US.
    - 90% of those have a broadband connection.
    - Thus, there are 12.5M US households who need broadband
    - The BEAD program will spend $42.5B
    - That's $3,400 per household (!)

    - Starlink terminal: $650
    - Annual cost for residential plan: $1,200

    Thus, you could buy literally 12.5 MILLION terminals for every single rural household in the country AND pay outright for more than two years of service, and have $4 Billion left over for overhead.

    • For real. Where are all of these apocryphal fiscal conservatives I've been hearing about for decades?

      Stretching this to DOGE. They made a BFD about USAID and some other stuff. Fine, get bent out of shape on $50k for something dumb in Peru, and $35k for something dumber in Egypt.

      But call me back when you have made a dent in Defense spending. Defense department overruns in say F-35, F-22, Ford class aircraft carriers, New Sentinal, LCS, the list is endless.
      Or are willing to make changes in Social Secur

      • Interest on the national debt now exceeds spending on Defense, perhaps we could stop funding LGBTQIA+2 comic books, plays, and other such nonsense?

        The "shutdown" of USAID was in large part due to their policy of approving EVERY submission for funding and their decades long refusal to obstruct oversight.

        The actual specific funding programs aren't really the issue, the literally out-of-control practices are the issue.

        The plan is to move worthwhile USAID programs under the oversight of the State Department - w

        • The "shutdown" of USAID was in large part due to their policy of approving EVERY submission for funding

          The more important question is were they within the budget Congress gave them or over budget? If they were under budget then of course they'd approve everything.

    • 90% of those have a broadband connection.

      You need a citation on that. The coverage maps the broadband companies like to advertise are not accurate.

  • Because millions have already been spent, and there is NOTHING to show for it!

Slashdot Top Deals

The problem that we thought was a problem was, indeed, a problem, but not the problem we thought was the problem. -- Mike Smith

Close