NTIA\u2019s wise decision to make the largest federal broadband program tech neutral has been met with denunciations by self-styled consumer advocates, grasping at any possible criticism of the new level playing field. One avenue of attack has been to malign low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband as unfit for use in the $42 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program.<\/p>\n
Critics have claimed LEO broadband will not be able to meet BEAD\u2019s capacity requirements, that LEO networks lack scalability, that it\u2019s more expensive to consumers, and that BEAD itself ought to be biased against LEOs. None of these claims are true.<\/p>\n
While it\u2019s true that fiber networks generally have higher capacity than LEO networks, that\u2019s only a relevant point of comparison if it impacts consumers\u2019 use of their broadband service. The right broadband speed is the one that lets you do what you want with your Internet connection, not an arbitrary number. For example, a household simultaneously running two 4K video streams, two online games, and two zoom meetings would still use less than 50 megabits per second<\/a> (Mbps).<\/p>\n To say that LEOs, which already offer over 100 Mbps, are \u201cmuch slower than fiber<\/a>\u201d or \u201ctechnologically inferior [and] capacity-limited<\/a>\u201d is like saying that a Toyota Camry is too slow for a highway simply because it can\u2019t match that top speed of a Formula 1 car. If you\u2019re never going to exceed highway speeds with either, the fact that one can go 200 miles per hour is irrelevant.<\/p>\n Another false comparison is between the capacity of fiber vs. LEO in today\u2019s deployments. Critics levy accusations<\/a> of capacity<\/a> constraints<\/a> in some areas of current LEO service as evidence that the technology itself is too slow. But the relevant comparison is what capacity will be after BEAD projects, not before. To be sure, there are some areas in which current upload speeds don\u2019t always hit 20 Mbps, but the upload speeds of wireline technologies in the same areas are precisely zero; the alternative fiber networks don\u2019t exist.<\/p>\n Yet LEO critics do not infer from the nonexistence of fiber capacity today that BEAD money should not go to fiber. And rightly so! The point of BEAD deployment funding is to create the capacity that meets Americans\u2019 needs. Fiber ISPs will spend BEAD money to build network infrastructure that can provide at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload service, and LEO ISPs will do the same. The fact that it\u2019s different infrastructure in each case doesn\u2019t matter. Consumers get high-speed service in either case.<\/p>\n Another criticism is that LEOs are inherently suspect because their satellites have relatively short lifespans. Today\u2019s Starlink satellites, for example, last about five years<\/a> while a fiber optic cable buried underground will last around 30. The conclusion of LEO critics is that satellite companies are simply treading water with their constellations constantly on the verge of \u201cturning to dust<\/a>\u201d and unable to \u201cscale to future needs<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n But this criticism is stuck in the mindset of thinking of a LEO constellation as though it\u2019s a the same business model as a wireline network. It\u2019s not. The two types of networks have different types of variable costs. Fiber ISPs do maintenance on switches and polls and refill the gas tanks on their bucket trucks. But no one says \u201cfiber ISPs are on the brink of collapse since they need to keep doing these maintenance tasks!\u201d That\u2019s just part of the business and priced into any deployment, BEAD or otherwise. Likewise, LEO ISPs launch new satellites and account for the cost (and opportunity) to replace them over time. Bidders for BEAD funds must account for all costs in their bids, and any funds won come with enforceable obligations to meet performance standards.<\/p>\n Furthermore, a significant difference between bury-and-forget fiber and wave after wave of LEO satellites is that new satellites get the benefits of technological advancements that happened since the prior wave. For example, Starlink is on the verge of launching its \u201cV3\u201d satellites<\/a> which promise even more capacity and even less latency than the current models. Combine these technological benefits with the fact that satellite launches are net adds to the number of satellites in the constellation, and you get a network that expands its capacity over time. That\u2019s the definition of scalability.<\/p>\n Another false<\/a> talking point<\/a> is that LEOs are cheaper upfront, but they will leave consumers with higher costs over time. The confusion here stems from an apples-to-oranges comparison of urban wireline rates to the disproportionately rural Starlink rates. Consumer prices will always be lower in more densely populated areas. The relevant comparison, especially for BEAD deployments to previously unserved areas, is between rural fiber rates and LEO rates. And that comparison tells a different story.<\/p>\n Many existing rural wireline deployments cover their operating expenses not with direct user fees but with subsidies from the Universal Service Fund (USF). This FCC program is funded by fees on consumers\u2019 telecommunications bills. So the real cost of rural wireline service is still borne by consumers, it\u2019s just divided between monthly broadband bills and monthly phone bills.<\/p>\n Rural wireline broadband providers have stated<\/a> that without USF funding, they would charge consumers $165 per month. That\u2019s far more than Starlink\u2019s $120 per month. So LEOs are cheaper on a monthly basis than rural fiber, not more expensive.<\/p>\n Finally, critics allege NTIA\u2019s BEAD guidance contravenes with will of Congress which was secretly for fiber in its definition of \u201cpriority broadband project.\u201d But the statute correctly defines that term by the capabilities of broadband networks, not by the technology that provides them. That\u2019s a tech neutral approach that NTIA\u2019s updated guidance complies with better than the prior heavy hand on the scale in favor of fiber.<\/p>\n Still, fiber advocates now look on the reformed program and claim it is now biased toward LEO satellites. In some cases, the fiber-colored glasses cause credulous misreadings of NTIA\u2019s policy notice, such as confusing a longer \u201cperiod of performance\u201d<\/a> for LEOs (which is a greater burden on them) with a longer period to meet performance metrics. That\u2019s just a lack of reading comprehension.<\/p>\n In other cases, the objection seems to be more of a feeling of persecution at a favorite technology losing its place of privilege. This leads to mental gymnastics to accuse those who remove special favors to certain industries of \u201ccorruption<\/a>.\u201d But equal treatment isn\u2019t favoritism; rejecting exorbitantly expensive deployments when comparable service can be had for far less money is good broadband policy, not a betrayal of it.<\/p>\n NTIA was right to reform BEAD so consumers can benefit from all broadband technologies, undoing favoritism to immensely expense fiber projects. LEO satellites will provide a fast and scalable option that will now be able to compete for BEAD funding on a level playing field with everyone else.<\/p>\n