House Communications Members Duel Over NTIA's BEAD Rollout Timeline, Affordability
House Communications Subcommittee members traded partisan barbs about NTIA’s implementation of the $42.5 billion broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program, as expected (see 2409040040). Republicans delivered most of the criticism, in part blasting NTIA for what they view as an unnecessarily long timeline for rolling out the money. House Commerce Committee panel GOP leaders launched a probe in July of NTIA’s BEAD-related communications with state broadband offices (see 2407090057). Democrats defended NTIA’s management of the program and blasted GOP lawmakers for obstructing recent broadband funding efforts.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
“Burdensome red tape … has made compliance by states much more difficult,” said House Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash. It “has been nearly 14 months since states received their initial allocations from NTIA, yet the administration still has not approved 16 initial state proposals.” She cited agency “pressure” on “states to regulate the rates charged for broadband service” as a contributing factor. House Innovation Subcommittee Chairman Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., said Republicans “philosophically disagree with the NTIA position that rate requirements are not rate-setting.”
House Communications Chairman Bob Latta, R-Ohio, claimed “NTIA continues to add requirements that are contrary to congressional intent and make this program less attractive and more expensive.” Latta fears “that these burdensome requirements are delaying approval of state initial proposals and will jeopardize the success of the grant program. I am also concerned about impending workforce and supply chain shortages.”
Rodgers brought Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ presidential nominee, into the anti-BEAD harangue ahead of the Tuesday night presidential debate because President Joe Biden tasked her with shepherding the broadband portion of his infrastructure spending proposal through Congress in 2021 (see 2104290076). Harris’ role as “broadband czar … has resulted in little progress and heavy-handed federal bureaucracy,” Rodgers said. Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Ted Cruz, R-Texas, first tried to tie BEAD’s issues to Harris in August (see 2408130061).
Democratic Pushback
House Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone of New Jersey said “we all want these networks deployed as soon as possible, but the process and timeline is exactly what the [2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act] requires.” No one wants “a repeat of the Republican FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program, which was rushed” out ahead of the 2020 presidential election, Pallone said. That initiative “was burdened by waste and plagued by providers defaulting on their commitments to build out networks.”
Pallone, Rep. Anna Eshoo of California and other Democrats countered Republicans’ rate-regulation claims. IIJA “directs NTIA to execute a deliberate process with the states and gives NTIA explicit authority to approve or disapprove what each state proposes for its low-cost option,” Pallone said. Congress “put up a ton of federal money into” BEAD and affordability was always a priority, Eshoo said. “Companies can't just take federal money and then charge people whatever they want to charge.”
Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., invoked GOP opposition to giving the FCC’s lapsed affordable connectivity program stopgap money. “I'll never understand why some in Congress not only refuse to support legislation to help low-income families, but actively oppose seemingly all efforts to do so,” said Clarke, who is lead sponsor of the ACP Extension Act (HR-6929/S-3565) proposal to give the initiative $7 billion in stopgap money (see 2406200057).
Latta said "ACP must be reformed to ensure that it is targeted towards those who truly need the subsidy to pay for broadband, and it must have a sustainable funding source. Relying solely on stopgap funding leads to uncertainty for those who rely on the program.” He implied that a congressional Universal Service Fund revamp working group didn’t reach a consensus during the August recess on a framework for overhauling the program (see 2407300053).
Testimony
A Commerce Department official confirmed House Commerce didn't seek NTIA officials' testimony. NTIA “is executing the BEAD program as Congress intended,” the spokesperson emailed. “We are moving quickly to deploy high-speed Internet infrastructure while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. We heard strong support for that approach in today’s hearing.”
Montana Department of Administration Chief Operating Officer Misty Ann Giles claimed NTIA “has created a chaotic implementation environment” for BEAD. Montana began accepting applications in mid-August for its $629 million pot of connectivity money (see 2408120044). NTIA “has provided either no guidance, guidance given too late, or guidance changing midstream, all with a lack of appreciation for state operations and costs and the needs of our telecommunication providers,” Giles said.
NTCA CEO Shirley Bloomfield said her group’s members have explored additional federal funding options “because it was quite clear early on that BEAD implementation was going to take time.” IIJA “contemplated a multiple-step effort” and required NTIA “to undertake a series of rigorous processes aimed at directing funding to the best possible providers.”
Brookings Institution senior fellow Blair Levin believes NTIA’s BEAD implementation timeline is “roughly on target.” Perceived delays “stem from Congress’ desire to avoid the problems of waste, fraud and abuse that plagued the 2020 RDOF auction and other deployment programs,” he said. Criticisms of the agency’s handling of IIJA’s affordability requirement “as price regulation is wrong as a matter of law and history.”