Nearly four years ago, the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program set its sights on expanding internet access to all offline Americans. While trying to streamline the program, a recent rule change from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) asked states to reassess which areas they would need help connecting with new infrastructure and which are already reachable by existing infrastructure. By not building new infrastructure in wirelessly served areas, BEAD can save money to be used elsewhere in broadband adoption programs. While BEAD’s demand-boosting buildout will make the internet more accessible, network areas that rely on shared Wi-Fi will be in danger of overcrowded airwaves—especially if Congress fails to answer the increased demand with new spectrum.
The Senate was right to preserve a licensed spectrum pipeline in the budget reconciliation bill, but it can do more. To ensure we close the digital divide, we must also ensure that sufficient unlicensed spectrum is available for commercial use.
The NTIA changed BEAD rules to promote faster, more cost-effective deployment. Previous guidance directed states to prioritize fast, reliable, and costly fiber-optic cables—a tech that requires no spectrum—in connecting unserved and underserved areas. But some states, including Alabama, California, and Colorado, proposed plans containing estimated fiber costs that would exceed their allotted BEAD funds. Thankfully, between the NTIA accepting that existing non-fiber infrastructure can deliver target speeds and the steady industry buildout of these technologies, states have reduced the risk of blowing their budgets—eligible BEAD locations have decreased by an estimated 59 percent nationwide. Removing already-serviced areas from consideration can save up to $25 billion—more than half of BEAD’s original price tag of $42 billion. These are good changes that help BEAD become less problematic.
According to a recent analysis, the new guidance could lead 11 states to reduce their BEAD-eligible locations by at least 25 percent, with Nevada topping the charts at a 78.4 percent potential reduction. In areas where wireless networks have exclusive access licenses to their spectrum bandwidth and can already deliver BEAD’s minimum internet speeds, consumers already receive the high-speed services BEAD seeks to make universal. Including them in the BEAD rollout would needlessly spend money to reach homes that don’t need any help. Removing such areas from consideration is therefore a boon to buildout budgets.
But many areas that are now deemed reachable by existing infrastructure will still need attention after reconciliation. These are the Wi-Fi-reliant areas, which were previously considered underserved because their networks struggle to maintain interference-free service because they rely on shared access to unlicensed airwaves. When testing how two Wi-Fi networks interfere with one another, the digital communications company Cisco found “one network reduced the throughput of the other by 75 percent, while its own throughput was reduced by 90 percent.” Communities relegated to the 2.4, 5, or 6 GHz ranges—the bands in which competing Wi-Fi channels operate—could face significant upticks in quality reducing interference as more users connect to increasingly crowded airwaves—especially if BEAD savings are repurposed for affordability and adoption programs that encourage broadband adoption and increased unlicensed spectrum usage.
Using BEAD to connect more homes to these networks may worsen the already struggling internet quality if the expanding user base is not matched by expanding bandwidth. To make BEAD more cost-effective without downgrading rural areas’ connectivity, Congress must establish a spectrum pipeline to identify, free up, and reallocate new bands of unlicensed spectrum. The pipeline must include some new unlicensed spectrum for Wi-Fi, as it serves these areas.
The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act’s spectrum pipeline is an improvement over the status quo as it will put up 800 MHz for licensed use. This is a good idea, as licensed spectrum is forecasted to experience major shortages as early as 2027, and American consumers are in dire need of increased spectrum supply as technology advances.
Unfortunately, the OBBB fails to add any spectrum to Wi-Fi’s unlicensed bands—the only mention of it guarantees unlicensed bands will be left alone. Congress should tweak its current approach in follow-up legislation by taking a page from Rep. Rick Allen’s (R-GA) standalone bill to identify, vacate, and reallocate more spectrum for shared use on top of the 800 MHz they plan to put up for auction. Such intentional action can counterbalance the harmful effects that BEAD’s otherwise positive rule change could impose on rural communities.
As the NTIA speeds BEAD deployment, it is right to pass over areas that already enjoy high-speed wireless internet. But many of the affected areas rely on unlicensed Wi-Fi, which is prone to interference issues. Relegating communities to connect to these networks can further increase traffic and worsen service quality for all who use it. American consumers deserve a reliable internet connection to participate in the modern economy without degraded service quality. Good policy can strike the right balance, and an expanded spectrum pipeline checks all the boxes.
Nate Karren is a policy analyst with the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, follow us on X @ConsumerPal.