Does BEAD Fulfill Its Promise of Equitable Internet Access?
In June 2023, President Biden announced a $42.45 billion high speed internet grant program that will pay to manufacture fiber optic cable, create jobs building internet infrastructure in each state, and help people connect to internet that have not been able to in the past. At the tune of about $130 per U.S. resident, this key component of Biden’s “Investing in America” initiative aims to bring affordable high-speed internet to every home in America. Using internet service provider data compiled from the FCC combined with our geographical metrics, we look at how these funds were allocated and whether they are prioritizing the areas that need it most.
Background
In November 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law, creating the Broadband Equity, Access, and Development (BEAD) Program. It is the most ambitious investment in affordable high-speed internet to date and the hope is that it will help close some of these loopholes and regulatory oversights that have doomed initiatives in the past.
Under the helm of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the BEAD program has three priorities:
The NTIA further honed these priorities by saying that the BEAD program focus should be on fiber connectivity directly to the end user, unserved—those without access to at least 25 Mbps—and underserved—those without access to at least 100 Mbps—locations, and proposals that improve affordability to ensure that networks built using taxpayer dollars are accessible to all Americans.
If funds are left over, states can then look at upgrading existing networks in underserved areas to improve their speeds up to 100 Mbps, helping to provide 1 Gbps service to community anchor institutions like libraries, schools and hospitals, and promoting other broadband-related uses like digital skills training and education, workforce development, and telehealth services.
Within the BEAD Program there are five criteria that must be met to be eligible for funds:
How Funds Were Allocated
There were three components to how funds were allocated to the different states and territories of the United States of America:
- A baseline of $100 million for each state, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico and $25 million for the territories of U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
- A calculation of the number of unserved locations in each state divided by the nationwide total of unserved locations
- The number of “high-cost” unserved locations in each state divided by the nationwide total of high-cost unserved locations
High-cost areas are locations where at least 80 percent of the area is unserved and the cost of building out broadband service is higher than the average for all unserved areas in the nation. This method of allocation awarded between $27 million (in territories) and $3.3 billion to 56 states and territories with each state receiving at least $107 million. Nineteen states received more than $1 billion.
Past programs aimed at closing the digital gap and bringing broadband to inaccessible areas have been plagued with little oversight and unfinished projects that have cost taxpayers billions over the years. The BEAD program has allocated funds directly to the states and given them the burden of finding the most effective way to distribute those funds within the given guidelines. Instead of handing over the entire allocation at the start, states were required to submit an initial proposal by December 28, 2023, of how they would use funds to bring broadband services to un-and under-served communities as well as strengthen the infrastructure already in place. Once that initial proposal is approved by the NTIA, they will be given 20% of their allocation to begin implementing their plan. Within a year, states must submit a final proposal that lists the agencies requesting grant money, a plan and timeline for implementation, and an oversight and accountability detailing of these projects. Entities requesting money from their state allotments must come up with 25% of the cost of the project themselves or through the help of their state.
One of the biggest issues that has faced the FCC with expanding broadband to rural and underserved areas is that there has not existed an accurate map detailing what those areas might be. In November 2022, the first location-based map showing where broadband existed—and more importantly where it did not—was released. After undergoing a period of public input from consumers, states, and localities about the accuracy of the map, a new map was released in May 2023, further homing in on areas that need additional broadband support. Within that map, areas that are considered high cost were identified that will help narrow the focus for states.
(source: internetforall.gov)
High-cost areas were defined by the NTIA using a cost model that included the remoteness of an area, population density, topography and poverty levels and measured costs over the life of the network. The resulting map shows a clear distinction between halves of the country. However, further analysis of the allocations amounts and the states that are in the most need paint a more nuanced story.
State by State Allocation
Using data from the census and the FCC, ISPReports.org analyzed how the allocations looked on a national level, state by state. With President Biden’s goal to bring high speed internet to every person in the United States, we looked at how much per resident of each state the money allocated is going to cost. It should be noted that because this is a federally funded program, taxpayers are not charged according to the state they live in, so the true cost is only about $130 per citizen of the United States. However, breaking down the allocations to the cost per resident of the state gives us a visual of how the money was allocated. For most of the country (29 states), it will cost between $100 and $300 per resident to see this proposal come to fruition.
State |
Total Allocation |
Cost Per Resident |
State |
Total Allocation |
Cost Per Resident |
Alabama |
$1,401,221,901.77 |
$269.27 |
Montana |
$628,973,798.59 |
$566.18 |
Alaska |
$1,017,139,642.42 |
$1,377.01 |
Nebraska |
$405,281,070.41 |
$201.43 |
Arizona |
$933,112,231.37 |
$129.53 |
Nevada |
$416,666,229.74 |
$131.02 |
Arkansas |
$1,024,303,993.86 |
$337.12 |
New Hampshire |
$196,560,278.97 |
$139.98 |
California |
$1,864,136,508.93 |
$46.45 |
New Jersey |
$263,689,548.65 |
$27.04 |
Colorado |
$826,522,650.41 |
$139.59 |
New Mexico |
$675,372,311.86 |
$312.16 |
Connecticut |
$144,180,792.71 |
$39.19 |
New York |
$664,618,251.49 |
$31.60 |
Delaware |
$107,748,384.66 |
$105.88 |
North Carolina |
$1,532,999,481.1 |
$145.18 |
District of Columbia |
$100,694,786.93 |
$147.64 |
North Dakota |
$130,162,815.12 |
$162.26 |
Florida |
$1,169,947,392.70 |
$53.14 |
Ohio |
$793,688,107.63 |
$66.07 |
Georgia |
$1,307,214,371.30 |
$118.47 |
Oklahoma |
$797,435,691.25 |
$199.14 |
Hawaii |
$149,484,493.57 |
$98.90 |
Oregon |
$688,914,932.17 |
$159.85 |
Idaho |
$583,256,249.88 |
$301.02 |
Pennsylvania |
$1,161,778,272.4 |
$87.35 |
Illinois |
$1,040,420,751.50 |
$79.66 |
Rhode Island |
$108,718,820.75 |
$94.99 |
Indiana |
$868,109,929.79 |
$125.25 |
South Carolina |
$551,535,983.05 |
$106.56 |
Iowa |
$415,331,313.00 |
$127.96 |
South Dakota |
$207,227,523.92 |
$229.80 |
Kansas |
$451,725,998.15 |
$151.20 |
Tennessee |
$813,319,680.22 |
$115.05 |
Kentucky |
$1,086,172,536.86 |
$236.74 |
Texas |
$3,312,616,455.4 |
$110.17 |
Louisiana |
$1,355,554,552.94 |
$284.13 |
Utah |
$317,399,741.54 |
$93.18 |
Maine |
$271,977,723.07 |
$195.56 |
Vermont |
$228,913,019.08 |
$343.27 |
Maryland |
$267,738,400.71 |
$42.17 |
Virginia |
$1,481,489,572.8 |
$168.28 |
Massachusetts |
$147,422,464.39 |
$20.39 |
Washington |
$1,227,742,066.3 |
$155.47 |
Michigan |
$1,559,362,479.29 |
$152.01 |
West Virginia |
$1,210,800,969.8 |
$670.50 |
Minnesota |
$651,839,368.20 |
$111.82 |
Wisconsin |
$1,055,823,573.7 |
$175.69 |
Mississippi |
$1,203,561,563.05 |
$401.83 |
Wyoming |
$347,877,921.27 |
$601.51 |
Missouri |
$1,736,302,708.39 |
$278.16 |
Using a method created by ISPReports.org that grades a state on the high-speed internet infrastructure that already exists, we see that in states with low grades like Alaska, Montana and West Virginia, the average cost per resident is much higher. It will cost an average of $1,377 per Alaskan resident to allocate a little over $1 million to help expand high-speed internet in The Last Frontier. In West Virginia, one of the lowest ranked states in the nation in economy, education and healthcare, it’s going to cost $670 per resident to improve the infrastructure and services that are lacking.
Only two areas in the United States rank an “A” in existing infrastructure—Utah and Washington DC—but will still cost $93 for each Utahn and nearly $150 for each of the over 670,000 that call Washington DC home to maintain and expand their high-speed services.
Cost Per Resident Per State and Current Infrastructure Grade
The lowest costs per resident are found mostly in the east. Although Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut all have average, at best, existing high-speed internet infrastructures, the cost of the BEAD program for each state is under $40 per resident.
Overall, however, it does look like the allocations prioritized the high-cost areas that need the money to improve their internet infrastructure. Places like Montana, Alaska, and West Virginia all have poor existing internet and their allocations cost the most per resident. However, it begs to ask why states like Maine and Arizona weren’t allocated more and Texas, with an average existing infrastructure grade of B, was given the most in the country.
If we divide the country into its census designated regions, we find that the Northeast, Midwest, and South all have about the same average existing infrastructure—hovering between a B- and a C+. However, the West is behind at closer to a C and the Pacific, thanks to the unforgiving and remote terrain of Alaska, has an existing infrastructure average grade of C-. It will cost about $207 per person in the South region to bring needed infrastructure and system changes for high-speed internet to reach everyone, while only costing about $109 per person in the nine states that make up the Northeast region.
Average Allocation and Cost Per Person in Each Census Designated Region
The South region, where almost 40% of the country lives, had the highest allotments in the nation, with six of the top 10 highest amounts given to southern states. $3.3 billion dollars was allocated to Texas, 44% more than the next state—California with $1.9 billion. In fact, the total amount given to the bottom 10 states—including more than half of the states in the Northeast—is less than half of what was given to Texas alone.
Top 10 Allocation Amounts
State |
Allocation |
Region |
Cost Per Person |
Texas |
$3.3B |
South |
$110.17 |
California |
$1.9B |
West |
$46.45 |
Missouri |
$1.7B |
Midwest |
$278.16 |
Michigan |
$1.6B |
Midwest |
$152.01 |
North Carolina |
$1.5B |
South |
$145.18 |
Virginia |
$1.5B |
South |
$168.28 |
Alabama |
$1.4B |
South |
$269.27 |
Louisiana |
$1.4B |
South |
$284.13 |
Georgia |
$1.3B |
South |
$118.47 |
Washington |
$1.2B |
West |
$155.47 |
Bottom 10 Allocation Amounts
State |
Allocation |
Region |
Cost Per Person |
District of Columbia |
$1M |
South |
$147.64 |
Delaware |
$1.1M |
South |
$105.88 |
Rhode Island |
$1.1M |
Northeast |
$94.99 |
North Dakota |
$1.3M |
Midwest |
$162.26 |
Connecticut |
$1.4M |
Northeast |
$39.19 |
Massachusetts |
$1.5M |
Northeast |
$20.39 |
Hawaii |
$1.5M |
Pacific |
$98.90 |
New Hampshire |
$2M |
Northeast |
$139.98 |
South Dakota |
$2.1M |
Midwest |
$229.80 |
Vermont |
$2.3M |
Northeast |
$343.27 |
When we look at the rankings put out by US News for the best states, the top three spots are claimed by states in the west—Utah, Idaho and Washington—while the bottom 10 houses six states from the south.
According to these rankings, Utah, the 11th least densely populated state in the nation, has the #1 economy and is #5 in education and #7 in healthcare in the United States and was ranked as the best state overall when five other factors were considered. With a robust existing internet infrastructure—the only state that has an A grade from ISPreports.org–and the 14th lowest allocation amount of just over $317 million, it’s easy to see that in today’s technology-driven world, early adoption of innovative internet capabilities for its residents has paid off.
At the other end of the scale is Louisiana, which struggles at #50 in the economy, #46 in education and #45 in healthcare and ranked the worst state overall. Louisiana had the 8th largest allocation at over $1.3 billion dollars—about $285 per resident—and its existing infrastructure grade is a C.
So, is there a correlation between existing infrastructure grades and the rankings of the best states overall according to US News? It seems there is.
The range of existing infrastructure lies between an A and a D, and the average grade for the nation hovers at about a B-. However, while the average of the top 10 states in the rankings for best state overall is also a B-, the average for the bottom 10 states in the rankings is between a C- and a D+, with 90% bringing in a grade of lower than B-.
It also appears that the best state rankings also closely mimic the BEAD allocations. The average cost per person for the BEAD program in the top 10 states is only $170 but is $411 for those states at the bottom of the list.
In today’s climate, where so much is dependent on the internet, it’s imperative that the nation make inroads to connect its citizens and the BEAD program is going a long way in doing that. Communities that have long been ignored as the digital gap has widened and isolated them further will finally find education, healthcare, and economic opportunities that will improve their, and the nation's, standard of living.