Contributed Article
While some attendees were justly worried about new uncertainties, resiliency remained a constant theme at Broadband Communities Summit 2025.
By: Rollie Cole, Contributor, Broadband Communities
I am one of the old men of Broadband Communities Summit. I have attended—on and off—since the first Summit 21 years ago.
Last year, I wrote about the changes I have observed over the past two decades. These changes were mostly positive developments on both the supply and demand sides of the industry. Also, public policy at the local, state, and federal levels has become increasingly positive, capped by the BEAD program.
This year, I arrived expecting a lot of pessimism and weariness.
After several years of working through the elaborate steps of the BEAD program, the new administration changed the rules.
Speakers at the conference characterized the changes in terms I would summarize as going from “seeking the lowest cost for the highest quality feasible” (fiber optic cable in most cases) to “seeking the lowest cost for the ‘specified standard’ of quality” (making various wireless and satellite technologies ‘good enough’ to qualify).
Moreover, the states needed to reidentify BEAD eligible sites using the new criteria under much tighter timeframes than for the original identifications. Also, programs beyond increasing availability were put on hold.
Yet, all the participants I talked to or heard speak were resolved to keep working and expressed confidence that a lot of good could still be accomplished.
Some also noted that the reidentification process revealed that during the two years spent mapping areas of need, a significant percentage of sites without specified quality broadband at the start of the process now had availability of at least the minimum 100/20 Mbps broadband.
This expansion in coverage stemmed in part from programs other than BEAD offering federal support, as well as from actions taken by state agencies, local agencies, cooperatives, and private firms.
Lingering concerns persist
Some suggested that the combination of fewer sites and cheaper technologies to serve those sites (albeit with “standard quality broadband” rather than “highest feasible quality broadband”) would produce surpluses that the states could use for programs beyond availability, such as support for affordability, devices, training, and similar initiatives.
Others suggested that the federal government might require any surpluses to be returned. They also worried about the lack of futureproofing in some of the technologies that were now eligible for BEAD.
Some worried that the pressure for the lowest cost might also lead to programs that omitted the sites most costly to serve, resulting in a patchwork of sites that would wait much longer for service than if they had been “averaged in” with a project of wider scope.
The optimism and resolve I sensed were not blind; rather, they were confident that one could work within the new reality to still accomplish much—and perhaps even all—that BEAD supporters hoped to achieve.
It might take longer, involve more hoops to jump through, and require more activity from non-federal actors, but no one I spoke to was losing hope or giving up.
To get content like this delivered to your inbox, subscribe to the Broadband Communities newsletter.
