Under the BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice issued by NTIA on June 6 (“Policy Notice”),[1] state and territory broadband offices must rescind all preliminary and provisional BEAD awards made under the prior rules and must, in very short order, run a single competitive round with a strong preference for providers that promise to provide 100Mbps / 20 Mbps service for the least amount of BEAD funding support.

Crucially, the Policy Notice puts LEO satellite and unlicensed fixed wireless (ULFW) on the same footing as end-to-end fiber projects. Under the prior rules, only end-to-end fiber projects qualified as “Priority Broadband Projects,” meaning fiber projects would receive support to serve a given area even if another “Reliable Broadband Service” technology (such as cable modem or licensed fixed wireless) might do so less expensively. Under the prior rules, LEO and ULFW service was not even considered “Reliable Broadband Service,” and BEAD funding for such “Alternative Technologies” was only available if the cost to deploy Reliable Broadband Service to a given location exceeded a certain threshold.[2]

The new Policy Notice turned that approach upside down. Now, all technologies that can provide 100/20 Mbps service with sub-100ms latency and that are ostensibly capable of scaling to meet future needs are considered “Priority Broadband Service” – including LEO and ULFW.

At the same time, the Policy Notice requires state broadband offices to “choose the option with the lowest cost based on minimal BEAD program outlay.” Only if an applicant submits a proposal within 15% of the lowest-cost proposal may a state broadband office consider the speed of the network and other factors (i.e., that a futureproof FTTP network that will provide 1Gbps+ with sub-20ms latency is a better long-term infrastructure investment than a ~100/20 Mbps LEO service with ~100ms latency).

To put it mildly, these changes put prior BEAD applicants in a defensive position, especially those that proposed end-to-end fiber projects. Fiber providers that already submitted BEAD applications must now compete against LEO and ULFW service solely on cost. It is essentially a one-round reverse auction, with unequal technologies being treated the same.

The expansion of funding for ULFW also means that locations designated as “served” by ULFW in the FCC National Broadband Map may be removed from eligibility for BEAD funding, but it is not automatic. Under the process outlined in the Policy Notice, an ULFW provider may protect its existing service territory from BEAD funding by submitting evidence that its current service meets the technical requirements of “Priority Broadband Service.” [3] (Or, the ULFW provider could opt not to submit such evidence, and instead compete to obtain BEAD support to upgrade its network.) The Policy Notice does not specifically provide for third-party comment or intervention in this process, and it is not clear that state broadband offices would have enough time to entertain contrary evidence. Most broadband offices have yet to issue substantive guidance following the Policy Notice, and we simply do not know at this point — some might allow it, while others might not.

The Policy Notice is conspicuously silent on the issue of locations currently able to be served by LEO service that qualifies as “Priority Broadband Service,” if any. Logically, any such locations should be removed from BEAD eligibility, but the Policy Notice does not address it. At the same time, it is important to note that any LEO Capacity Subgrant does not require qualifying service immediately: a LEO recipient is only obligated to commence provision of qualifying broadband service within four years from the date of the subgrant.

Prior BEAD applicants (and ULFW and LEO providers) are not the only stakeholders under the new BEAD rules. Any entity that has continued to deploy infrastructure and services while the BEAD process has dragged on should be mindful of the potential for new BEAD-supported competition. Many months have elapsed since the close of state challenge processes, and many providers have continued deploying fiber optic networks and other Priority Broadband Projects in the meantime. If maps of BEAD-eligible locations are not updated before funding decisions are made, BEAD funding will end up supporting significant overbuilding of existing networks.

So, the new BEAD rules will require many to play defense, including: (1) prior BEAD applicants that wish to resubmit, (2) prior BEAD applicants that do not plan to resubmit, but that wish to protect expansion areas from BEAD-supported overbuilds, and (3) non-BEAD applicants whose expanded networks are not accurately reflected in funding maps.

To summarize:

1. Prior BEAD Applicants That Wish to Resubmit:

• The provider may need to aggressively adjust its BEAD proposal budget.
• The provider may or may not end up competing against a LEO or ULFW application. For ULFW, check the National Broadband Map for ULFW code 70. For insight on LEO bids, see the recent post from the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, “What Do We Know About LEO BEAD Bids.”
• If the provider is planning to deploy fiber in the area anyway, and can commit to do so, it may be especially feasible to compete against ULFW or LEO service. As an extreme example, a $1 “bid” would presumably win the area and protect it from BEAD-supported overbuilding (but would also obligate the provider to comply with various BEAD program rules going forward).
• If the National Broadband Map shows that there is ULFW coverage (code 70) in the proposal footprint:
  • The provider may wish to explore whether it can rebut any ULFW claim that the ULFW’s provider’s current service meets the Appendix A technical qualifications (see above).
  • If the ULFW service does not submit a claim and supporting evidence to the state broadband office (under the process outlined in note 1), it is fair to assume the ULFW provider will seek BEAD funding. In that case, a competing applicant might either (1) compete aggressively on BEAD cost, or (2) seek to partner with the ULFW provider somehow, or (3) propose its own ULFW solution.

2. Prior BEAD (Fiber) Applicants That Do Not Plan to Resubmit:

• Assuming BEAD support was sought for expansion of current service area, consider the implications of BEAD-supported competition in adjacent territory.
• Can the provider partner with an ULFW provider to obtain targeted BEAD support in the near term, and potentially migrate to fiber?
• Can the provider support a “planned service” challenge to BEAD location eligibility, and more importantly, will the state broadband office entertain it (unlikely, absent a new challenge round)?
• If the provider intends to serve the area in the near future anyway, and can commit to doing so, it may be worth considering whether to submit an application for nominal support.

3. Providers That Have Significantly Expanded Networks Over the Past 18 Months:

• Post-challenge BEAD funding maps may not accurately reflect the current state of BEAD-eligible locations.
• It is unclear whether state broadband offices will have the time or inclination to enable a new “true-up” process to avoid BEAD-funded overbuilds.
• Providers should closely watch announcements from their state broadband office in the coming days, and may wish to reach out to the office directly to advocate for an update to BEAD funding maps.

As a final comment, please note that additional clarity may emerge with respect to some of above issues as state broadband offices begin issuing substantive guidance reflecting the dictates of the Policy Notice. Note also that there is a reasonable likelihood of litigation challenging certain aspects of the Policy Notice, with unknown consequences.

[1] For a general overview of the Policy Notice, please refer to our earlier blog post, “Commerce Department’s New BEAD Reform Notice Upends Structure of Program,” June 16, 2025.

[2] NTIA Policy Notice, June 26, 2024.

[3] The Policy Notice requires state broadband offices to undertake a process to “ensure that locations already served by an ULFW service that meets the technical specifications within Appendix A [of the Policy Notice]” are not eligible for BEAD funding. First, the state broadband office must review the National Broadband Map to determine whether any ULFW-served locations overlap with any previous BEAD-eligible locations. If so, the broadband office must notify the ULFW provider that it has seven days to respond that it intends to claim that BEAD funding is not required. After doing so, the ULFW provider has seven additional days to submit evidence substantiating the claim. For example, the Ohio broadband office (“BroadbandOhio”) recently published a notification stating that ULFW providers have until June 20 to submit a claim that their service area meets technical specifications for BEAD performance (as documented in the Policy Notice) and that BEAD funding is not required for the locations. After doing so, ULFW providers have only 7 days – until June 27 – to submit evidence supporting the claim.