Recent Trump administration changes to a massive federal broadband grant program are lowering standards for broadband access, shifting the focus away from affordability and equity, and potentially redirecting billions of dollars away from future-proof fiber networks toward slower, more expensive satellite options that don’t seem likely to fix U.S. broadband woes.

But states, worried about losing an historic round of broadband grants, may be too intimidated to be up front about the potential downside of changes the Trump administration calls “the benefit of the bargain.”  

That’s the early story coming out of states like Tennessee, Colorado, and Texas, where state leaders are being forced to dramatically revamp billions of dollars in Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant planning.

In all three states the changes have introduced new delays and lowered last mile quality control standards. But an early look at the revamped bidding process in all three states shows that billions of dollars are likely being redirected away from locally-owned fiber networks to billionaire-owned low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite broadband options insufficient to the task.

In the wake of the Trump administration’s re-writing the rules around how federal funds can be spent to expand high-speed Internet access, state broadband offices are in the midst of revamping their broadband deployment grant programs to comply with a “technology-neutral” framework recently imposed on the $42.5 billion federal BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment) program.

Though most states hoped to maximize federal grant funding to build fiber networks, the new guidance released by NTIA in June requires states to ignore the aim of Congress enacted under the bipartisan infrastructure law.

The new NTIA rules call for states to de-prioritize fiber and give equal weight to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite technologies – something many observers see as a gift to Starlink and a way for the President’s biggest campaign contributor to hoover up additional subsidies.

As states wrestle with how to re-do their scoring rubrics used to determine grant awards, today four leading broadband deployment scholars working with the X-Lab released an analysis that may help state broadband offices evaluate “the capacities and saturation limits of the Starlink satellite infrastructure.”

The overarching goal is to help states determine where – and if – Starlink can meet federal requirements for broadband, which is defined as delivering minimum connection speeds of at least 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 20 Mbps upload.

In the meantime, local communities are taking matters into their own hands and have created remarkable citywide fiber-to-the-home broadband networks. Many offer services directly to residents, providing a much-needed alternative to the cable and telephone companies. And by creating meaningful consumer choice among competitors, these networks are driving lower prices—spurring new investment and creating new jobs—and keeping more money circulating in the local economy.

Craig Settles kicks off this event with a 45 minute presentation discussing what community networks should do to succeed financially and how they can go beyond simply making broadband access available to more people. Bryan Sivak, Chief Technology Officer of the District of Columbia; Joanne Hovis, President-Elect of NATOA and President of Columbia Telecommunications Corporation; and Gary Carter, Analyst at City of Santa Monica Information Systems Department responded Craig Settles' presentation. One of the key points is something we harp on here: if community broadband networks run in the black according to standard private sector accounting procedures, that is great. But it is a poor measure of how successful a community network is. Community networks create a variety of positive benefits that are not included in that metric and those benefits must be considered when evaluating such a network.

A short video of Sascha Meinrath discussing the power of community networks, the need for broadband competition, and why the National Broadband Plan misses the mark.