Telecompetitor reports…

The cost to the federal government to bring fiber broadband to every U.S. household that NTIA considers “unserved” or “underserved” would be approximately $230 billion, according to a study from fixed wireless equipment provider Tarana Wireless, which gave Telecompetitor an exclusive first look at the study. That’s more than five times the funding that the government has earmarked for broadband deployments in the BEAD and RDOF programs, the study notes.

The $230 billion estimate is the amount of funding needing after factoring in the 25% matching funds that network operators are required to contribute to project costs, Tarana said.

Part of a librarian’s bibliographic instruction 101 is looking at who wrote it and why. Here the author is a fixed wireless equipment provider. They are trying to make the case that it’s too expensive to pull fiber to everyone but that wireless is a viable solution…

Guidelines for the BEAD program established by the NTIA require funding recipients to deploy fiber unless the cost per location exceeds the extremely high cost per location threshold or for “other valid reasons.”

Tarana and other fixed wireless stakeholders are hoping that states will seek waivers of the requirement to deploy fiber broadband so that they can direct funding to less costly fixed wireless builds, thereby reaching more people.

In the absence of those waivers, “we will run out of money and will not be [addressing] the Digital Divide today because of how long it takes to lay all that fiber,” said Carl Guardino, vice president of government affairs for Tarana, in an interview with Telecompetitor.

They aren’t wrong. Fiber is more expensive, but it is more reliable. Wireless is impacted by capacity, weather and line of sight issues. So… Do we reach the most people we can? Or do we reach the areas with the hardest business case to make for investment? Or judge by terrain? And if there is a demarcation of where to deploy fiber and wireless – are we creating future broadband ghettos? Yes, a person without broadband now will happily take a wireless connection – but will new people or businesses move into those areas?

The future is both wired and wireless. Communities, residents and businesses that have both are better poised for success. Maybe we ask for more money.