Alterations to the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program are now officially underway — with implications that could impact current and future broadband workers.
Just after the Wall Street Journal reported that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick intended to make changes to the program, the Department of Commerce confirmed the news with a press release:
“The Department is ripping out the Biden Administration’s pointless requirements,” stated Lutnick. The program was in “dire need of a readjustment” due to what he described as the previous administration's “woke mandates,” regulatory issues and preference for fiber-optic technology.
“It is revamping the BEAD program to take a tech-neutral approach that is rigorously driven by outcomes, so states can provide internet access for the lowest cost,” he said.
While the NTIA's exact modifications to the BEAD rules are still unknown, the ‘revamp’ thus far has come in the form of two new BEAD-related bills from Congress: the Streamlining Program Efficiency and Expanding Deployment (SPEED) for BEAD Act and the Broadband Buildout Accountability Act. The latter would remove the BEAD program’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption so that the public can request information on how BEAD money is being spent.
The SPEED for BEAD Act looks to make a number of changes — chiefly among them is replacing ‘Equity’ to ‘Expansion' within the BEAD acronym and removing the program’s preference for fiber in the name of speeding up deployment.
So, how could this new proposal impact the current and prospective workforce that make the program possible in the first place?
Opening up the tech, or changing the preference?
The focus on streamlining BEAD deployment stems from frustration over how long it’s taking to see shovels hit the ground. SPEED looks to remove some of BEAD's permitting and regulatory requirements — which includes removing a preference for fiber.
Instead, more of the program’s $42.5 billion will move toward fixed wireless access (FWA) providers and low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite services. According to the WSJ, Elon Musk’s Starlink could receive $10-20 billion in funds (as opposed to $4.1 billion under the current program).
But according to Fiber Broadband Association (FBA) President Gary Bolton, LEO doesn’t pose any meaningful threat to fiber’s market share. It doesn’t offer states any of the benefits that fiber does — from job creation and stimulating local economies to long technological life spans and sustainability.
“We're seeing a lot of push for more LEO, for obvious reasons, and so it really is going to take market share away from fixed wireless. We hope that's not the case, because fixed wireless is fiber to the point of line-of-sight from the home,” he said.
And FWA provides opportunities for local workers, too. Caressa James, Executive of Cheyenne & Arapahoe Tribes, explained to Broadband Nation that opening the program to more FWA allows some of their tower technicians to get to work sooner on Tribal lands. LEO, on the other hand, does not offer the same opportunities.
“If you do something that doesn't provide any infrastructure, the state doesn't benefit at all,” said Bolton. Nor does the consumer. “LEO is available today, so you're really not giving a subscriber [anything new]. If they wanted it, they would have already bought it. There's no benefit to the subscriber.” Starlink also costs more than fiber services while being “the worst performing of all the alternatives” in terms of speed and consistency. AI developments (including the Trump administration's investments) will also heavily rely on fiber infrastructure, he added.
“I don't see any meaningful impact to fiber, because every community knows that fiber drives economic development [and] provides jobs," said Bolton.
Louisiana, for example, is set to push an almost all-fiber buildout with its funding, and Bolton believes when it comes to technology choices, "every state gets it.”
Communication Workers of America (CWA) Senior Research Associate Ceilidh Gao told us that states have already had the flexibility to work with other technologies where needed. She did not share that same optimism on the SPEED for BEAD legislation.
"The proposal seems to leave a lot of discretion to the secretary, and we are still very concerned that NTIA is considering favoring LEO satellite in a way that would be an irresponsible use of public funds,” she said.
A need for speed, and equity recedes
Amidst the Trump administration’s attacks on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs, the proposal’s replacement of ‘Equity’ with ‘Expansion’ doesn’t come as much of a shock. The move has already impacted the telco sector, with players like AT&T ending several DEI initiatives.
Under the umbrella of stripping equity from the program, the new proposal removes a lot of preferences in place that maintain high wage standards and worker protections.
Specifically, it prohibits states and the NTIA from establishing or enforcing preferences such as: DEI, prevailing wages, union workforces, collective bargaining, local hiring, labor peace agreements, workforce composition or reporting of workforce composition and more.
The new legislation does still allow states to use surplus BEAD funds for workforce development, and Bolton believes that “from a workforce development perspective, the biggest issue [has been] delay."
Companies haven’t been ready to hire or train the talent needed when program funding stalled or regulatory issues arose, and this legislation could get things moving, according to Bolton. He sees it as “frustrating in the near term... but faster and more streamlined going forward.”
Gao, however, believes the initial stall it creates will not necessarily be made up in the long term.
"It doesn’t just permit states to eliminate preferences or requirements related to workforce factors like local hire or workforce reporting, it forbids those preferences or requirements altogether,” said Gao.
Because the original BEAD NOFO had a baseline requirement for workforce reporting, many states had already evaluated workforce needs and incorporated them into initial proposals. “The Speed for BEAD proposal adds a huge unnecessary delay for these states and forces them to change the plan that they determined was in the best interest of their state," she added.
The other main concern from Gao’s perspective is that it ignores the need for well-trained workers to build a strong, long-term network infrastructure.
“We hear all the time these concerns about the lack of a broadband workforce. Well, states have considered those issues in how they crafted their Initial Proposals,” she said. This might include considerations like incorporating prevailing wages into their scoring criteria — which are shown to improve productivity, safety and remedying skilled labor shortages like the one currently found in broadband.
“Given the track record of the industry, we can’t ignore workforce issues and expect that our goals of a well-trained and stable workforce are just going to solve themselves,” she argued. While some companies may stay committed to proper training, wages and benefits, the guardrails could come off for them to act otherwise.
CWA Broadband Lead Misty Robertson told us “if [companies] can get away with paying the bare minimum and pocketing the profits, they will do so, including the AT&Ts and Verizons. The only reason they don't is because we have a labor union and the whole workforce can walk off the job.”
What are the costs of speed?
The new legislation makes no effort to hide its main focus — speed. Lutnick also made it clear that the goal is to deploy the infrastructure quickly at "the lowest cost.” But what are the hidden costs of a streamlined approach, both monetary and worker-related?
While it could, as Bolton pointed out, offer up work opportunities sooner, whether those new crews are well trained and invested in the areas they work is less certain.
“We’ve been educating states and stakeholders about the work conditions in the broadband sector. Unfortunately, the industry has changed and work that used to be done in house is increasingly subcontracted to a web of smaller players,” explained Gao. “Like in a lot of other sectors, with increased subcontracting, we see a race to the bottom on costs, including labor.”
And paying the lowest bidding contractor to come into a community for deployment may save money upfront, but it comes with heavy costs down the line, such as errors and subpar work from poorly-trained teams.
“The damage from fiber being handled improperly may not be obvious immediately but will shorten the usable life of the fiber,” said Gao. And in more extreme cases, these teams may make bigger mistakes like cutting sewer lines or water lines, ruining local homes and sometimes costing millions.
“This proposal ties states’ hands,” she continued. “It prevents them from taking measures to encourage good jobs or a well-trained workforce and prevents them from investing in their states’ long-term broadband workforce. And that also has service quality consequences.”
One experienced broadband technician, Fernando Roman, said that proper training is vital for high service quality — especially within federally-funded projects like BEAD.
“What we want to do is make sure that, with this infrastructure money, the placement and the installation is done correctly the first time,” said Roman. “You want to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are providing something that's going to last a very long time.”
Alongside steep costs to ISPs and local communities, cheap speed over quality can perhaps take its greatest toll on workers’ wellbeing and safety.
During the smartphone boom, as 3G and LTE networks were being built out, tower climbers were being injured and killed on the job from improper safety practices and timeline pressures to complete projects quickly.
“We've already seen the consequences of prioritizing speed and cost cutting. The push during the 3G and 4G eras was a prime example,” tower climbing veteran Tommy Schuch explained to Broadband Nation. “I worked through that era personally and witnessed firsthand the effects of profits over people. Many people died and were left with nothing,” he said.
With the proposal potentially bringing more FWA and subcontracting practices into the mix, the danger of climbing hundreds of feet in the air while under pressure could be a real concern.
“Following that same mentality with the BEAD program could easily result in repeating those failures," said Schuch. "Increased demand for FWA means more cell towers and more climbers working under tight deadlines with less oversight."
“Removing preferences for union workforces, prevailing wages, local hiring and collective bargaining is a prime example of how corporate influence can undermine worker protections," he concluded.
Much remains uncertain about the new legislation. While its focus to loosen requirements and regulations could speed up the much needed deployment of internet infrastructure, it also seems to raise long-term concerns about worker compensation, training standards and job quality — all of which will greatly impact the communities the BEAD program has always intended to serve.
The question is whether a balance will be struck between speed and a healthy, lasting impact on the country's underserved communities.