The long-delayed effort to begin spending nearly $42.5 billion in broadband infrastructure funding authorized by Congress nearly four years ago is still unfolding. This blog is intended to help community stakeholders—including local government officials, chambers of commerce, nonprofits, and engaged citizens—understand the current situation and work productively to ensure the best possible broadband service is deployed as quickly as possible in their community.
The latest chapter in the BEAD funding saga is the release of a newly revised set of requirements that states must follow to access their share of available BEAD funds. This policy—titled the “Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program: BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice”(the “Policy Notice”) was released June 6, 2025, and it represents a significant shift in federal broadband funding priorities, eliminating or revising many of the earlier requirements imposed by the Biden administration in the original BEAD NOFO, published three years ago, and supplemented with various updates that states had been working to fulfill up until a few weeks ago.
The new Policy Notice emphasizes swift action and sets an aggressive timeline for implementation. Much of the work previously completed by Missouri’s Office of Broadband Development (OBD), including the state’s Initial Proposal and the implementation efforts described in an earlier blog, will now need to be revised to comply with the new requirements outlined in the Policy Notice.
The number of Broadband Serviceable Locations (BSLs) that remain eligible for BEAD funding also may be reduced, because the Policy Notice now permits Unlicensed Fixed Wireless (ULFW) providers to assert they are now providing the broadband service at the level required by the BEAD Act. A new challenge process enabling ULFW providers to provide evidence to OBD is now underway and it should be completed within a few weeks.
All this comes against the backdrop of OBD’s highly successful first round of funding under the prior BEAD NOFO guidance. While specific winners of round one and its sub rounds were not announced, approximately 90% of the eligible locations received proposals and OBD did release information identifying the BSLs where a proposal had been preliminarily accepted. All those results will have to be thrown out. OBD and the ISPs that decide they still want to participate in the BEAD funding program will need to quickly adjust to a new set of rules and priorities and resubmit under a new set of scoring criteria. All this must happen in time for OBD to include the results in its revised final proposal to NTIA in early September.
The new required “Benefit of the Bargain” funding round (described below) is necessary because the Policy Notice, eliminates or substantially modifies criteria for awarding BEAD funding, and it opens up the process to a wider group of internet providers.
Here are some of the most significant changes:
New Definition of a “Priority Broadband Project.” The BEAD statute allowed states to prioritize certain projects over other types of technologies. These are referred to as “Priority Broadband Projects.” The Biden administration’s BEAD NOFO limited this definition to end to end fiber internet (fiber to the premises or FTTP). FTTP was favored over lower cost technologies so long as the amount of BEAD funding requested did not exceed the state’s Extreme High Cost Per Location Target (EHCPLT) for the location. The EHCPLT limit was imposed to make sure that all locations that were not adequately served could receive BEAD funding.
The Policy Notice broadens Priority Broadband Project definition to include any technology that the state (OBD in Missouri) determines can provide broadband service at speeds of no less than 100/20 Mbps with latency less than or equal to 100 ms., and that can easily scale speeds over time to meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses and support the deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and other advanced services.
This definition is important, because all Priority Broadband Projects will compete for BEAD funding using the same scoring matrix in the Benefit of the Bargain funding described below. (Policy Notice §3.1; pp.8-9).
ULFW Potentially Qualifies as a “Priority Project.” To qualify as a Priority Broadband Project, unlicensed fixed wireless (ULFW) must deliver reliable internet to all covered BSLs at speeds at 100/20 Mbps with latency under 100 ms. The BEAD Policy states that a ULFW provider’s network will be considered capable of reliably delivering service at the minimum levels required by the statute if it can demonstrate the ability to deliver download speeds of at least 5 Mbps assuming simultaneous connection at all locations. The BEAD Policy leaves the requirements and standards necessary for a ULFW provider to show its project is easily scalable over time to meet future needs to the discretion of each state. However, NTIA does reserve to itself the right to overrule the state’s determination in cases where it disagrees. (Policy Notice § 3.2; p.10; Appendix A)
LEO Satellite Potentially Qualifies as a “Priority Project.” Low earth orbit satellite internet providers (LEO Satellite), such as Starlink, also could qualify as a Priority Broadband Project as well, if the provider commits to make sufficient bandwidth available on the network to serve all locations for a period of at least 10 years. States may adopt enforcement mechanisms—such as claw backs of BEAD grants—to ensure compliance; however, they may not take any ownership or security interest in the provider’s network equipment. (Policy Notice § 3.2; p.10; Appendix B)
New “Lowest Cost to the Government” Scoring Matrix Required. Generally, OBD is required to use a scoring matrix for all Priority Broadband Projects that favors the proposal or combination of proposals resulting in the lowest dollar outlay of BEAD funding.
However, so long as the EHCPLT is not exceeded, a higher-cost Priority Broadband Project proposal may be selected if it is within 15% of the amount requested by the lowest Priority Broadband Project proposal.
In this case OBD may select among the Priority Broadband Project proposals based on a scoring matrix that takes only the following criteria into account:
- The speed at which the project will be completed (with preference for faster deployment)
- The technical capabilities and scalability of the proposed technology (for example, fiber’s ability to easily upgrade speeds in the future)
- The reliability of the service, especially in challenging environments
- Whether the applicant was previously a provisional subgrantee under the old rules (though this is only a minor consideration)
If all Priority Broadband Projects exceed the EHCPLT, OBD may accept a lower cost non-priority option if it meets the 100/20 Mbps and 100 ms. service level, even though it is not able to easily scale to meet future needs.(Policy Notice §§ 3.3–3.4; pp.10-13 )
NTIA Specific Oversight on Project Selection. While states retain broad authority over project selection, the BEAD Policy cautions states against setting EHCPLT at an unrealistically high level to preserve the possibility of fiber deployment. NTIA also reserves the right to disapprove project selections that it believes are inconsistent with BEAD program goals.
(Policy Notice p.9 and §3.4; pp.9 and 11-13)
Project Area Proposals Can Exclude BSLs. OBD must accept proposals that exclude one or more BSLs or provides for different delivery technologies where the provider determines the cost of deployment for a specific technology is too high. In such cases, OBD may solicit alternative solutions from other providers or consider a provider’s proposal to use different technologies for those BSLs.(Policy Notice §3.3; p.11)
Affordability Rules. OBD can no longer impose a specific Low-Cost Service Option (LCSO) that BEAD-funded projects must offer. Instead, providers must propose their own affordable plans, which must be made available to households eligible under the FCC’s Lifeline Program, rather than the broader criteria previously allowed under the Affordable Connectivity Program.
(Policy Notice §§ 2.6; 2.7; pp.6-9)
Open Access/Net Neutrality. Prohibitions on data caps and requirements to provide wholesale or open-access connections to BEAD-funded networks have been abolished. NTIA concluded these mandates discouraged participation and increased project costs.
(Policy Notice §2.3; p.5)
DEI, Workforce and Labor Requirements. Prior BEAD NOFO mandates concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), fair labor practices, and related reporting have been eliminated. Instead, subgrantees are only required to certify compliance with applicable federal labor laws.(Policy Notice § 2.1; p.4)
Climate Resilience Factors. The requirement that BEAD proposals be scored based on their contribution to climate resilience has been eliminated. Project participants will satisfy this statutory requirement by establishing risk management plans that account for technology infrastructure reliability and resilience to natural disasters (e.g., wildfires, flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) as well as cybersecurity best practices..
(Policy Notice § 2.2; pp. 4-5)
No Credit for Community Input. OBD may no longer award scoring points or preference based on stakeholder engagement, demographic targeting, or other forms of community input. Public comment is still required for the Final Proposal, but it cannot affect project scoring.(Policy Notice § 2.4; pp. 5-6)
Where Do We Go From Here?
Admittedly more guidance will be issued in the coming weeks from OBD as it moves forward to implement the Policy Notice, and likely from NTIA as well. There also is the possibility that certain aspects of the Policy Notice will be challenged in court and the process will be further delayed based on a claim that it strays too far from BEAD’s statutory mandates.
However, it seems more likely that OBD will publish a new BSL map reflecting a revised set of BEAD funding eligible sites in a few weeks and a revised invitation for proposals under the Benefit of the Bargain funding round. That invitation also may provide further guidance (consistent with both the statute and the Policy Notice) detailing how ULFW and LEO Satellite proposals can qualify as a Priority Broadband Project.
For community stakeholders, the greatest risk may be that the providers that won preliminary allocations of BEAD funding under the BEAD NOFO process will simply give up, because they believe their FTTP proposal cannot overcome the construction and installation cost advantage of a ULFW solution. Even though many of these ISPs already have spent thousands of dollars on developing their proposals, after years of work, preparation and waiting, they may be at the point where they view further participation in the BEAD program as throwing good money after bad.
Yet the perceived cost advantage of these wireless technologies when compared to FTTP or hybrid fixed wired solutions may be illusory, depending on how OBD (and NTIA) hold UFLW, LEO Satellite or other technologies to the statute’s mandates for service that is easily scalable and future-proof. Much of Missouri’s unserved and underserved locations are in areas where terrain makes deployment of reliable wireless service challenging, and these challenges increase as future needs for higher connection speeds and lower latency require towers to be located closer to the end user and backhaul capacity to increase.
This is illustrated by the independent study commissioned by OBD in 2022. It is worth remembering that this study found that the overall cost of deploying wireless internet statewide was approximately the same as a 100% FTTP solution. While there likely are areas in Missouri, and throughout the United States, where wireless technologies have a substantially lower deployment cost and also can be easily scaled it meet future needs, the 2022 study appears to show that for many Missouri locations, if they are engineered properly to meet specific conditions and terrain challenges, wireless may cost more to deploy than FTTP.
The point here is that community stakeholders who want more than the minimum level of broadband service required by BEAD in their community, need to reach out to the local ISPs that participated in the aborted NOFO BEAD funding round, and urge them to move forward with a new proposal in the Benefit of the Bargain round this summer. They also should be receptive and at least consider joining with a provider in ways that allow them to reduce their BEAD funding request, so it can fall within the limit of the new 15% rule imposed by the Policy Notice. For example, a local community might agree to fund a fixed a portion of a FTTP network provider’s cost to expand service to a few critical high cost BSLs in exchange for the provider’s agreement to reduce its BEAD funding request by a like amount. Since it is the amount of BEAD funding requested (rather than the cost of the network) that governs, the FTTP bid might be reduced to a point that it did not exceed 15% of a competing ULFW or LEO Satellite Priority Broadband Project proposal.
As the BEAD program enters this critical phase, efforts made by local leaders and stakeholders still could help determine whether their community secures broadband infrastructure that just meets minimum federal thresholds, or instead infrastructure that is far more durable and future-proof. Now more than ever, communities need to support and encourage ISPs that have already submitted proposals that can meet this long-term vision.