From the resilient fibre networks of Louisiana to the strategic approach of Virginia, hear firsthand from state officials on innovation, adaptation, and the relentless pursuit of universal connectivity.
Experts from industry leaders like Nokia and Zayo join to outline a complex terrain of technological choices, economic challenges, and equity concerns as billions of dollars stand ready to bridge the critical connectivity gap that leaves millions of Americans on the wrong side of the digital divide.
Speakers
Philip Macres, principal – Klein Law Group (moderator)
Thomas Tyler, deputy director – ConnectLA
Lori Adams, VP of broadband policy and funding strategy – Nokia
Tamara Holmes, Ph.D, director – Virginia Office of Broadband
Bill Long, chief product and strategy officer – Zayo
State snapshots: Louisiana and Virginia push forward
Federal BEAD funding is at a pivotal juncture, with bids being finalised amid an ongoing review into spending allocation from a new-look Commerce Department.
Louisiana was the first US state to receive final approval from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). According to Thomas Tyler, deputy director for ConnectLA, the broadband resource for the state, Louisiana has already begun awarding contracts.
“We awarded 20 different companies about $750 million to deploy 96% of fibre to 140,000 locations in our state. We are actively moving forward to ensure that happens in the coming weeks.”
Tyler underscored the resilience-focused approach, noting, “90% of that infrastructure is underground…we needed it to be resilient, and we wanted infrastructure where it wasn’t going to just get knocked down by a hurricane or tornado.”
However, despite being ready to start, he acknowledged delays tied to administrative changes, notably awaiting budget approval from the National Institute of Standards & Technology.
On the other side of the country, Virginia has also moved quickly to capitalise on BEAD funding
Dr. Tamara Holmes, director of the Virginia Office of Broadband, shared similar proactive efforts: “We actually started our process with our initial proposals submitted in 2022; we were not approved until July of last year.
“Now our challenge data has been approved, and we officially opened our applications. We have about 133,000 locations eligible for BEAD in Virginia.”
Holmes highlighted Virginia’s strategic patience regarding setting thresholds to avoid manipulation: “We didn’t set our extremely high-cost threshold before applications come in…we’ve seen fibre builds as low as $3,500 per passing all the way to $90,000.”
Should BEAD stay technology neutral?
A big debate that lawmakers have raised of late has been the deployment strategy of BEAD—what will get people connected fastest and at the best value.
The debate in Congress centred on whether Starlink, the Elon Musk-owned satellite broadband firm, could be in line to receive significant funding through BEAD, a move some lawmakers have expressed concern about, given his proximity to the Trump administration.
The panel also debated the fibre-first focus mandated by BEAD, revealing diverging state-level strategies.
Louisiana’s Tyler advocated for flexibility: “We are tech-neutral and would support letting states choose… do what makes the most sense for them.”
Echoing Tyler, Holmes emphasised Virginia’s longstanding neutral stance: “We’ve always been tech-neutral, and we’re staying tech-neutral with BEAD…we know it’ll take every single technology to meet 100% universal coverage.”
Bill Long, chief product and strategy officer at Zayo, added nuance to the discussion, arguing for economic pragmatism:
“Whatever solution we land on has to be economically viable over the long term…that’s why we’re working with LEO providers and fixed wireless.”
He underscored fibre’s advantages, notably for speed, suggesting the technology was fast enough to “serve industry better”.
“A lot of the alternative solutions are low bandwidth, which are good for residential, but don’t get you out of that sort of bandwidth doom loop of enabling bringing fibre into a region that can attract industry,” Long said.
Lori Adams, VP of broadband policy and funding strategy at Nokia, reinforced BEAD’s fibre-first rationale, linking it directly to domestic manufacturing initiatives, like the Build America, Buy America Act.
“There are 45 companies that have self-certified products that are manufactured in the US to be compliant with BEAD, and those are fibre-based technology products,” Adams said. “The more that is shifted over to the alternate technology space means there’s less that is invested in US manufacturing.”
Balancing economics and equity
When discussing BEAD’s cost per passing metric, panellists at Metro Connect stressed the necessity of contextual evaluation.
Tyler pointed to Louisiana’s experience: “Across the board, our average cost per passing was around $5,300 for BEAD funds…when you tack on the additional 25% match, you’re right at about $7,100 per passing.”
Tyler emphasised that even significant variances within individual sub-project areas should be considered from a holistic perspective.
For instance, he suggested, one sub-project area might have an average cost per passing of $100, while a nearby sub-project area, consisting of two locations, could have average costs per passing of $50,000 or even $100,000.
Holmes provided a compelling example of Virginia’s equity-focused investment: “We’ve seen $90,000 [spent] for a family who makes $45,000 a year to get internet to their front door. There would be no time that family would have ever been able to pay that.”
“We didn’t want gainsmanship. We’ve seen that in some federal programmes, and so we didn’t set a number.”
Holmes added: “Through the line extension customer assistance programme, we’ve seen $90,000, and so that’s why we didn’t set our extremely high cost threshold until we get the BEAD applications in, and at that point, we’ll have that analysis done.”
State vs federal standards
One of the more contentious dynamics within BEAD implementation is the push-pull between federal requirements and state-level autonomy. Nowhere is this more visible than in the debate around low-cost service obligations.
While BEAD mandates an “affordable” service plan, it also explicitly prohibits rate regulation, leaving states in a difficult position.
In Virginia, Holmes said the state took a firm but data-driven stance when negotiating its low-cost threshold with NTIA: “Our low-cost service option is up to $75… and part of that was we do a lot of stakeholder engagement.”
Holmes explained the figure was justified using existing provider data submitted to the US Treasury under other broadband programmes.
Louisiana’s approach prioritised flexibility. “We felt like we threaded the needle on the requirements surrounding that,” said Tyler.
Rather than enforcing a flat rate, the state allowed pricing to scale with inflation, he explained, adding: “Tying a cost of service to CPI and letting it flex up year over year… should be one tool in the toolbox.”
The speakers from both states stressed the importance of tailoring standards to local economic conditions, particularly in rural areas, rather than applying a national baseline.
“You want to draw in people to compete in your programme,” Tyler said. “Anything we could do to help a company lower the bar of entry… we wanted to take that step forward.”
Barriers to entry?
Another flashpoint in BEAD’s rollout is the requirement for letters of credit—a legacy of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) programme. Critics have argued the mechanism creates unnecessary friction, particularly for smaller or newer providers.
“This requirement faced significant criticism at first,” said Nokia’s Adams.
Although some flexibility has been introduced since then, such as accepting performance bonds, Adams pointed out that “the LLC rules that were adopted created a substantial barrier to entry”.
Tyler characterised the current structure as overly cautious, saying it “seems like belt and suspenders again”, referencing the multiple layers of financial guarantees required by NTIA.
Though the requirement has softened, Metro Connect panellists agreed it still deters smaller ISPs from participating at a time when states are actively encouraging new entrants to expand competition.
What’s missing from the national picture?
While much of the focus has been on last-mile delivery, panellists pointed to the critical importance and underappreciation of middle-mile connectivity.
“Everyone thinks the internet magically appears at someone’s home,” said Zayo’s Long. “But really, the middle mile is a critical part of it.”
He revealed that Zayo received approximately $300 million in grants for middle-mile development and is working with BEAD-funded partners to close gaps between new last-mile deployments and the wider internet.
“The biggest lesson learned for us was the amount of education needed,” Long said. He explained that many state officials and applicants underestimate how much middle-mile infrastructure is required to make last-mile connections usable.
“You can’t just build fibre to the home if there’s no path to get to the core.”
Virginia and Louisiana, meanwhile, are using remaining BEAD funds to focus on workforce development and connectivity solutions beyond traditional last-mile definitions.
Holmes cited the state’s investment in cellular infrastructure and retrofits for multi-dwelling units, while Tyler highlighted workforce retention as key to long-term impact.
“Over 80% of our remaining funds are going to workforce development in some capacity,” Tyler said. “We have to do everything we can to keep those jobs in the state.”
Will there be a pause?
While political debate swirls in Washington over the future of BEAD and the role of Starlink, the on-the-ground concern from panellists was far more pragmatic: what happens to the hundreds of millions already spent preparing applications if the rules change midstream?
Tyler warned that a sudden shift in grading criteria or delays from Commerce could trigger “an existential crisis” for providers.
He emphasised that companies have invested significant resources in preparing BEAD applications, stating that they’ve “spent months creating thoughtful applications” and that suddenly changing the rules would be unfair.
“They’ve already gone out and hired consultants, engineers, planners, and they’ve made financial decisions based on a known rubric. If that changes, we have a serious issue,” he said, stressing that the new administration understands the work already done and cautioned against sweeping changes that could undermine the entire process.
Nokia’s Adams echoed the frustration and encouraged the audience to make noise: “Talk to your congresspeople. They’re the ones that can apply pressure and make sure that any change doesn’t derail what we’ve all spent the last two years preparing for.”
For Holmes, the biggest risk isn’t just a pause, but losing momentum in hard-won community trust.
“People have seen the maps change. They’ve waited years. We finally have the political capital and infrastructure to deliver. We can’t afford to lose that now.”
The panel made clear that while political appointees in DC debate fibre vs satellite, the biggest threat isn’t technological, it’s uncertainty.
