US reveals how it will spend $42 billion in broadband subsidies
The US government has decided it needs to subsidise its broadband sector to make sure everyone has access to the internet.
The programme is called Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment – BEAD for short. The $42.45 billion of public funding had previously been announced but, for some reason, the President and Vice President decided to make a big event of announcing how that money is going to be distributed. They even drafted in some bloke to talk about what a nightmare having rubbish internet has been for him and his family.
You can see the whole thing in the video below, which is worth watching if only for the band at the start and the relentless applause received by Biden just for turning up. Perhaps adrenalized by this adulation, he starts by talking about the latest dramas within Russia, exhibiting an understandable desire to kill two birds with one stone.
“What this announcement means for people across the country is that if you don’t have access to quality, affordable high-speed Internet service now – you will, thanks to President Biden and his commitment to investing in America,” said Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo.
“Put simply, high-speed Internet is a necessity in today’s society,” said Mitch Landrieu, White House Infrastructure Coordinator. “Just like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Rural Electrification Act made a historic investment in rural areas bringing electricity to nearly every home in America, President Biden and Vice President Harris are committed to leaving no community behind as we connect everyone in America to high-speed Internet.”
That was about it from this strangely politicized announcement. You can see the full list of state-by-state allocation below, with the amount given seemingly a product more of land area and relative wealth than population. As Raimondo said, the aim for BEAD is for everyone to have, apparently within five years. Time will tell if this public money is well-spent.
| State | Allocation Amount |
| Alabama | $1,401,221,901.77 |
| Alaska | $1,017,139,672.42 |
| Arizona | $993,112,231.37 |
| Arkansas | $1,024,303,993.86 |
| California | $1,864,136,508.93 |
| Colorado | $826,522,650.41 |
| Connecticut | $144,180,792.71 |
| Delaware | $107,748,384.66 |
| District of Columbia | $100,694,786.93 |
| Florida | $1,169,947,392.70 |
| Georgia | $1,307,214,371.30 |
| Hawaii | $149,484,493.57 |
| Idaho | $583,256,249.88 |
| Illinois | $1,040,420,751.50 |
| Indiana | $868,109,929.79 |
| Iowa | $415,331,313.00 |
| Kansas | $451,725,998.15 |
| Kentucky | $1,086,172,536.86 |
| Louisiana | $1,355,554,552.94 |
| Maine | $271,977,723.07 |
| Maryland | $267,738,400.71 |
| Massachusetts | $147,422,464.39 |
| Michigan | $1,559,362,479.29 |
| Minnesota | $651,839,368.20 |
| Mississippi | $1,203,561,563.05 |
| Missouri | $1,736,302,708.39 |
| Montana | $628,973,798.59 |
| Nebraska | $405,281,070.41 |
| Nevada | $416,666,229.74 |
| New Hampshire | $196,560,278.97 |
| New Jersey | $263,689,548.65 |
| New Mexico | $675,372,311.86 |
| New York | $664,618,251.49 |
| North Carolina | $1,532,999,481.15 |
| North Dakota | $130,162,815.12 |
| Ohio | $793,688,107.63 |
| Oklahoma | $797,435,691.25 |
| Oregon | $688,914,932.17 |
| Pennsylvania | $1,161,778,272.41 |
| Rhode Island | $108,718,820.75 |
| South Carolina | $551,535,983.05 |
| South Dakota | $207,227,523.92 |
| Tennessee | $813,319,680.22 |
| Texas | $3,312,616,455.45 |
| Utah | $317,399,741.54 |
| Vermont | $228,913,019.08 |
| Virginia | $1,481,489,572.87 |
| Washington | $1,227,742,066.30 |
| West Virginia | $1,210,800,969.85 |
| Wisconsin | $1,055,823,573.71 |
| Wyoming | $347,877,921.27 |
| American Samoa | $37,564,827.53 |
| Guam | $156,831,733.59 |
| Northern Mariana Islands | $80,796,709.02 |
| Puerto Rico | $334,614,151.70 |
| U.S. Virgin Islands | $27,103,240.86 |
Get the latest news straight to your inbox. Register for the Telecoms.com newsletter here.
Scott:
The point of BEAD is to help fund broadband deployment in rural, underserved areas which would otherwise be broadband deserts. Larger states have more rural, underserved areas. It makes complete sense, then, that those larger states would see more funding. I see no correlation that wealthier areas are receiving funding.
As an example, California (CA) has a land area similar to the combined land area of Alabama (AL), Louisiana (LA) and Mississippi (MS). CA has significantly higher per capita income. Yet at $1.864M, BEAD funding for CA is well below the combined BEAD funding of $3.960M for AL+LA+MS.
Similarly, TX has significantly larger land area than AL+LA+MS, somewhat higher per capita income, yet at $3.312M, it’s BEAD funding is also lower that $3.960M for AL+LA+MS.
Agreed. The point about relative wealth can apply in either direction…