Rural fiber internet expansion is at risk as Trump administration holds funds

The Verge - Apr 3rd, 2025

Fiber internet providers are increasingly concerned about the availability of funds promised under a Biden-era initiative aimed at expanding reliable internet service to rural areas. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, which allocated $42.45 billion primarily for fiber broadband, is now uncertain under the new administration. Louisiana's Cajun Broadband, among others, is waiting on $33 million in funding that has yet to be disbursed. The recent departure of BEAD director Evan Feinman and indications from Trump-appointed Commerce Department Secretary Howard Lutnick about potential program overhauls have heightened these concerns. Companies and states that have already invested in fiber projects fear that a shift in focus towards satellite internet, spearheaded by Elon Musk's Starlink, could jeopardize their efforts and investments.

The potential pivot to satellite internet could have significant ramifications for both providers and consumers. While satellite connections might be quicker and more cost-effective to deploy, they lack the speed and reliability of fiber, and over time, could be more expensive for residents. Data suggests satellite services could cost customers 53% more over 30 years, with maintenance fees more than double those of fiber. Despite Musk labeling BEAD as an “outrageous waste of taxpayer money” last year, Starlink could benefit from the current administration's apparent shift in strategy. This development poses a risk of derailing existing fiber projects and could require states to redo their application processes, potentially wasting millions in private capital.

Elon Musk Commerce Department Biden Administration Starlink Howard Lutnick Fiber Internet Bead Program Evan Feinman Broadband Expansion Rural Internet Access

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant exploration of potential changes in federal broadband funding priorities, focusing on the implications for rural internet access. While the article is generally well-written and addresses a significant public interest issue, it could benefit from more balanced perspectives and greater transparency in sourcing and methodology. The reliance on secondary sources without direct attribution to primary stakeholders slightly undermines the source quality. Despite these limitations, the article effectively raises awareness about an important topic and has the potential to influence public discourse and policy considerations.

Accuracy

The story presents several claims that are mostly accurate but require further verification. The claim about the Biden administration's BEAD program dedicating $42.45 billion to internet service expansion is supported by official documentation. However, the assertion that the funds are not being disbursed needs verification, as it's unclear whether this delay is systemic or anecdotal. The story's mention of a potential shift towards satellite internet services, like Starlink, lacks concrete evidence and relies on speculative sources. The claim regarding Elon Musk's criticism of the BEAD program is plausible but needs direct citation. Overall, while the article contains factual elements, some claims require additional corroboration to ensure full accuracy.

Balance

The article leans towards highlighting the concerns of fiber internet providers and the potential negative impact of a policy shift. However, it does not provide sufficient viewpoints from proponents of satellite internet or from government officials who might support the change. The story could benefit from a more balanced representation of perspectives, including potential advantages of satellite internet or official statements from the administration. By focusing primarily on the fiber industry's apprehensions, the article presents a somewhat one-sided narrative.

Clarity

The article is generally well-structured and uses clear language to convey its main points. It follows a logical flow, starting with the concerns of fiber providers and moving to potential policy changes and their implications. However, some sections could benefit from additional clarity, particularly regarding the specifics of the BEAD program and the nature of the alleged policy shift. While the article maintains a neutral tone, further elaboration on complex topics like cost comparisons between fiber and satellite services would enhance reader comprehension.

Source quality

The story references reputable sources such as The Washington Post and Bloomberg, which lends credibility to its claims. However, it lacks direct quotes or statements from key stakeholders like government officials or representatives from Cajun Broadband. The reliance on secondary reporting without direct attribution to primary sources weakens the overall source quality. Including more diverse and authoritative sources, such as official government reports or statements from involved companies, could enhance the reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the BEAD program and the potential policy shift, but it lacks transparency in its methodology and sourcing. It does not clearly explain how the information was gathered or whether there are any potential conflicts of interest influencing the narrative. Additionally, the article could benefit from disclosing the basis for claims about the economic impact of satellite versus fiber internet, such as citing specific studies or data sources. Greater transparency in these areas would improve the reader's understanding of the article's foundation.