BEADs fiber first approach is not wrong, but it could do with an adjustment.

Recent remarks by the newly appointed U.S. Commerce Secretary, emphasizing a “dire need for readjustment” and prioritizing “lowest cost” deployment, seem somewhat short-sighted. While cost efficiency may yield short-term gains, infrastructure investments should not be made solely to address immediate needs. Instead, they must be designed with the future in mind.

Fiber deployments require significant capital expenditures (CAPEX), but their investment cycle differs markedly from other broadband technologies. Breaking down fiber deployment costs:

• 75% of the cost comes from civil works, which have a useful life of 40–50 years.
• 15% of the cost is attributed to passive components (such as fiber itself), with a useful life of 20–30 years.
• 10% of the cost is in active components, which have a shorter 3–8-year lifespan, depending on whether they are in the network or end-user equipment.

This structure means that the bulk of fiber investment carries over a 50-year timeframe, while active technology upgrades occur every five years on average to meet increasing demand. This ensures that fiber infrastructure remains future proof.

Alternative broadband technologies, such as fixed wireless and satellite, require complete replacement every 5 years, with 100% of the costs incurred repeatedly. Additionally, these technologies will eventually need to evolve to support speeds beyond 1 Gbps as demand grows.

Do I believe the U.S. Commerce Secretary is entirely wrong in wanting to review the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program? No. A review is not inherently bad. However, my concern lies in prioritizing short-term cost reductions over long-term economic and infrastructural benefits.

Rather than focusing solely on the lowest cost, BEAD allocations should enable the private sector to close the viable gaps in certain markets, allowing for sustainable investment.

Applying Digital Gaps Assessment Framework (DGAF) (see my previous post here), BEAD funding should be strategically allocated based on viability:

• Zone 2: BEAD funding should be used to incentivize private-sector investment, with government funds covering only the gap that makes these deployments feasible.
• Zone 3: This category should receive 100% public funding, focusing on the lowest-cost options like LEO satellites for hard-to-reach, economically unviable areas.

What about Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) solutions like Tarana Wireless? FWA can act as a temporary yet effective bridge for connecting hard-to-reach areas today, providing multi-Gbps last-mile connectivity. By extending mid-mile fiber to the end customer, FWA ensures reliable service until fiber deployment becomes more feasible or demand justifies further investment.

A fiber-first approach, where feasible, remains the best long-term strategy. Policymakers should not merely prioritize cost reduction but should focus on enabling sustainable private-sector participation to ensure long-term digital equity. Short-term fixes may provide temporary relief, but without long-term planning, we risk rebuilding infrastructure repeatedly, rather than building it right the first time.