Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
BEAD-3: BEAD and Beyond: An Assessment of the Restructured Program, its Early Implementation, and Metrics to Guide States Forward
| ||
    | ||
BEAD and Beyond: An Assessment of the Restructured Program, its Early Implementation, and Metrics to Guide States Forward 1: Quello Center, Michigan State University, USA; 2: Department of Geography, Michigan State University, USA; 3: Broadband Access Initiative, The Pew Charitable Trusts, USA It is encouraging that after nearly five years of planning the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program has reached the implementation stage. As of March 15, 2026, the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA) has approved the final plans of all but four states and territories for closing the broadband Internet access gaps. After the program changes in June 2025, the BEAD program is more narrowly focused on network deployment. This change of direction has created some benefits but also new challenges for states. In this paper, we critically examine the current state of BEAD and paths forward. The work is organized around two research questions. First, the paper analyzes how the long planning process has affected the baselines from which states are now starting to close the remaining access gaps (RQ1). Second, it explores the requirements of a system of empirical metrics that can assist researchers and State Broadband Offices (SBOs) in reliably assessing progress toward BEAD goals and sustainable broadband universal service (RQ2). Our research employs theoretical and empirical research methods. We use concepts from network economics, incentive mechanism design, and policy analysis are used to analyze the research questions. Our empirical work uses econometric methods, cluster analysis, and data envelope analysis. Data originates from federal and state public data sources (e.g., NTIA, State Broadband Offices, the U.S. Census Bureau) and from information collected by the research team since 2022. To answer RQ1, we establish the baseline from which the eligible entities start, using multiple indicators for the number of BEAD eligible lines, the planned technology mix, and financial indicators. Between the allocation of BEAD funds in June 2022 and the finalization of state plans in 2025/2026, the total number of unserved and underserved locations has declined by more than half. However, the changes vary greatly between states, ranging from an increase of 130.9% in Delaware to a decrease of 96.5% in North Dakota. Moreover, the 2025 BEAD program changes affected states differently, further increasing the heterogeneity of baseline conditions. We use econometric tools to examine the drivers of changes in the number of BEAD-eligible locations. Preliminary results at the state level show that cost conditions, socio-economic factors, other subsidy programs, and rule changes help explain some but not all of the variation. We then use several statistical methods, including regression analysis, cluster analysis, and data envelope analysis to further assess factors influencing the differences. Preliminary empirical results show considerable differences between states, even after controlling cost drivers and other external conditions, which we interpret as indicators of varying state effectiveness in implementing the program. The results also show that in-cluster variation is lower than the national variation. To answer RQ2, we start with basic principles of policy evaluation and define a set of indicators that can be used to assess progress toward achieving broadband universal service. Although nearly all locations will eventually be served, the restructured BEAD program resulted in a much more differentiated, and more satellite and wireless-heavy, technology mix across states than initial plans which prioritized fiber. This heterogeneity complicates monitoring, assessment, and scalability. Our paper develops a coherent system of indicators and metrics to assess progress for a given geography (e.g., project area, census geographies, states). Most can be derived from the semi-annual reporting required by the BEAD program or be collected with incremental effort. We explain how these metrics can be applied to compare performance between projects, census geographies, states, and over time. Integrating findings from the two research questions, we close by develop a framework for assessing the welfare effects of the BEAD program. Although full assessment must await additional implementation data, we are able to conduct a preliminary assessment of the incremental welfare effects of restructuring. This reveals that some restructuring measures, such as the elimination of the fiber preference, created benefits in the form of lower subsidy costs of the program. However, the additional delays, poor incentive design, the changed technology mix, and the prolonged uncertainty related to non-deployment funds created additional costs. The estimated incremental net welfare effects of restructuring are, in contrast to claims made by NTIA, small and possibly negative. The preliminary data also suggest that the changes have distributional effects, differntially affecting states as well as rural and urban areas within and across states. The paper makes several contributions, including a timely assessment of the ongoing BEAD program, the development of a set of metrics for decisionmakers and researchers, and lessons for the design of broadband universal service programs.
| ||