A Critical Juncture for Rural Broadband: The Departure of Evan Feinman and the Future of the BEAD Program

The Exit of a Key Advocate: Evan Feinman’s Warning

Evan Feinman, the recently departed director of the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, has sounded a stark warning about the future of internet access for millions of rural Americans. In a farewell email to colleagues and a subsequent interview with CNET, Feinman expressed deep concerns regarding proposed changes to the BEAD program that could prioritize satellite internet services, such as Elon Musk’s Starlink, over fiber-optic connections. Feinman’s departure, reportedly due to the Trump administration’s decision not to renew his contract, has raised alarms about the direction of a program critical to bridging the digital divide in rural areas.

The shift from a fiber-first approach to a more “technology-neutral” stance, as envisioned by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, could funnel up to $20 billion to Starlink, a significant increase from the initially anticipated $4.1 billion. Feinman and other critics argue that this shift could disadvantage rural communities by providing them with inferior internet services that are both slower and more expensive than fiber, potentially hindering educational, economic, and health outcomes.

The Fiber vs. Satellite Debate: Implications for Rural America

At the heart of the debate is the question of whether satellite internet can serve as an adequate substitute for fiber-optic connections in rural areas. Proponents of fiber argue that it offers superior speed, reliability, and scalability, making it the gold standard for broadband connectivity. In contrast, satellite internet, while accessible in remote areas, often struggles with latency, data caps, and cost. Starlink, despite its widespread deployment of over 7,000 satellites, has faced criticism for declining speeds as its user base grows, raising doubts about its ability to meet the long-term needs of rural communities.

The High Cost of Connectivity: Economic and Social Implications

The financial implications of deploying fiber in rural areas are significant, with some estimates suggesting that connecting a single household in remote regions could cost upwards of $130,000. However, advocates like Gigi Sohn, executive director of the American Association for Public Broadband, argue that investing in fiber is a necessary expense to ensure equitable access to high-quality internet. The alternative, she warns, is consigning rural communities to a second-tier digital existence, with all the attendant drawbacks for education, healthcare, and economic development.

The Future of BEAD: A Program at a Crossroads

As the BEAD program stands at a critical juncture, the decision on whether to prioritize fiber or satellite internet will have far-reaching consequences. Critics fear that a shift towards satellite technology could result in a less resilient and less future-proof broadband infrastructure, ill-equipped to handle the rising demands of a digitally driven society. The introduction of the SPEED for BEAD Act, which initially proposed a $25,000 per location cost threshold for fiber, highlights the complexity of balancing affordability with the need for high-quality connectivity.

A Call to Action: Engaging Policymakers and the Public

Feinman’s farewell email was not just a warning; it was a call to action. He urged Americans to reach out to their elected representatives and voice their support for a fiber-first approach, emphasizing the importance of holding policymakers accountable for ensuring that the BEAD program delivers the best possible outcomes for rural communities. Tools like the 5 Calls app are empowering citizens to make their voices heard, underscoring the importance of public engagement in shaping the future of broadband policy.

Conclusion: The Stakes of Broadband Investment

The stakes are high in this debate over the future of the BEAD program. The decisions made now will determine whether millions of rural Americans gain access to the fast, reliable internet they need to thrive in the 21st century or are left with a subpar service that fails to meet their needs. As Feinman and other advocates rightly point out, this is not just about technology—it’s about equity, opportunity, and ensuring that no community is left behind in our increasingly connected world.