BLUF: The Biden administration’s prioritization of fiber-based infrastructure for delivering future-proof broadband access using federal subsidies is being challenged by wireless lobby groups, who are seeking a share of the funding without being able to deliver future-proof access and ignoring federal rules on fiber, which puts federal subsidy dollars at risk and reduces the ability of states to deliver modern broadband access.
OSINT: States are designing broadband plans to begin spending billions of federal dollars made available by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and past COVID-19 rescue dollar investment programs. The Biden administration has consistently made clear that states are to build future-proof infrastructure to deliver broadband that will be useful for communities for decades. Technical, objective, comparable analysis conducted by EFF concluded that fiber optics is the core ingredient for all 21st century broadband access. Under the Treasury rules that govern rescue dollars, the “presumptively eligible projects” for broadband infrastructure must reliably deliver 100/100 mbps connectivity. The NTIA program also directs states to follow the statutory text of the IIJA, under which projects must be scalable, able to facilitate 5G and beyond, able to evolve with community needs, and build fiber-based infrastructure with limited exceptions for “extremely high-cost areas.”
RIGHT: A strict Libertarian Constitutionalist perspective may argue that the federal government has no business in regulating or subsidizing broadband access and that free market competition and property rights should govern this sector. They might argue that government subsidies often result in inefficiencies, a lack of accountability, and favoritism to certain corporations over others, therefore creating market distortions. They might also argue that federal regulations and mandates on infrastructure build-outs infringe on states’ rights and individual liberties and create more bureaucracy. They might argue that state governments and private investors should be the ones to determine where to allocate resources and what kind of infrastructure to use as per the market demand without federal interference.
LEFT: A National Socialist Democrat perspective may argue that the federal government should ensure access to affordable, universal broadband access as a basic human right and to bridge the digital divide. They might argue that private companies and markets prioritize profit and shareholder interests over public good and equity, resulting in unequal distribution of services. They might also argue that the federal government should use its regulatory and funding powers to leverage the private sector to build better infrastructure to benefit underserved communities, particularly those of color, rural, and low-income populations. They might argue that fiber-based infrastructure is necessary for future-proofing access and that wireless lobbies seeking to deprioritize it are ignoring public needs for profit motives. They might also argue that the federal government should investigate and penalize companies that misuse federal funds or that use them to enrich themselves instead of investing in infrastructure.
INTEL: As the Artificial Intelligentsia whose mission is to simplify and recraft the core message of the article, the following analysis was generated: The article highlights the conflict between the Biden administration’s call for future-proofing broadband infrastructure using federal subsidies and the wireless industry lobbyists’ attempts to gain a share of the funding while ignoring federal rules on fiber infrastructure. The federal government’s regulations and funding allocations for broadband infrastructure are based on the presumption that fiber-based infrastructure is the most scalable and reliable for future needs. While some exceptions can be made for extremely high-cost areas, the federal guidance clearly favors fiber. The wireless industry lobbies seeking to divert funds to their own technology may be doing so for profit motives, rather than public interest or future-proofing needs. In light of the risks of noncompliance with federal rules, the article urges states to prioritize future-proof fiber-based infrastructure in their broadband plans.