Most states have now rolled out their revised plans for spending their share of the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program — and the results confirm what many taxpayers suspected all along: Washington massively overshot the price tag. By allowing more flexibility and competition, states are finding cheaper, faster ways to get high-speed internet to the unserved, proving that a one-size-fits-all fiber mandate was both wasteful and unnecessary. 

Broadband Breakfast reported that 34 states had publicly posted their plans as of Sept. 4, with at least six more states receiving extensions from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).  

Under the Biden administration, BEAD prioritized fiber as the delivery vehicle for broadband. Allowing for more flexibility, the Trump administration released new rules for the $42.5 billion BEAD in June, allowing states to rebid projects with prospective providers using a variety of methods to extend broadband infrastructure, including satellite and fixed wireless.  

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (whose department oversees NTIA) has described the revised standards as “the benefit of the bargain.” States were required to hold a 14-day public comment period on their plans under the Biden administration. That was shortened to seven days under the Trump administration after the new rules were put into place. States were placed under an accelerated timeline to update broadband maps and conduct new rounds of bidding.  

Taxpayers are already seeing results, with state plans that use significantly fewer tax dollars than originally planned for broadband infrastructure.  

For example, Louisiana’s revised plan calls for fiber to 80% of locations covered under BEAD funding. That is down from the 95% under the proposal crafted under the Biden administration.  

The alternative technologies are also generally cheaper, and the results are already evident. For example, Louisiana reported that the average cost to serve a location under BEAD has dropped from $5,300 to $3,900 because it plans to use less fiber. The state’s new proposal saves $250 million over its initial proposal, leaving it with $855 million left over from its initial allocation of $1.355 billion.  

The difference between BEAD funding and what states will use to connect their residents is starker in some locations. For example, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society reported that Massachusetts will use just 12% of its BEAD allocation to deploy broadband, or just $18 million of the $147 million allocated to the state. Other states and their savings include Arizona ($487 million), Iowa ($194 million), Kentucky ($623 million), Minnesota ($237 million), Mississippi ($637 million), Nevada ($247 million) and North Carolina ($1.092 billion).  

Yes, the Tar Heel State will have a surplus of more than $1 billion of its allocated BEAD funds. States are waiting on guidance from NTIA on what to do with leftover money. Originally, the Biden administration planned to allow states to use leftover money for broadband-related spending such as internet workforce training, but the Trump administration may have other plans. (The Taxpayers Protection Alliance suggests they give it back to the U.S. Treasury.)  

Fiber will still be used for two-thirds of locations serviced by BEAD, Broadband Breakfast noted. Sparsely populated western states intend to use more alternative technologies such as satellite service to extend broadband to residents due to the high cost of running fiber. 

A study by the Advanced Communications Law & Policy (ACLP) Institute at New York Law School found that unserved or underserved locations have decreased by at least 59% across the United States since BEAD allocations were set in 2023.  

The decline in eligible locations is thanks largely to private providers doing the job before a single BEAD dollar was spent. Combine that with the massive savings states are now reporting under the Trump administration’s more flexible rules, and the verdict is clear: Congress was reckless to throw $42.5 billion at this program. Taxpayers were sold an inflated bill of goods, and it’s time to admit Washington’s broadband boondoggle was never worth the price. 

Johnny Kampis is director of telecom policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.