NTIA’s wise decision to make the largest federal broadband program tech neutral has been met with denunciations by self-styled consumer advocates, grasping at any possible criticism of the new level playing field. One avenue of attack has been to malign low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband as unfit for use in the $42 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program.

Critics have claimed LEO broadband will not be able to meet BEAD’s capacity requirements, that LEO networks lack scalability, that it’s more expensive to consumers, and that BEAD itself ought to be biased against LEOs. None of these claims are true.

Myth 1: LEO Constellations Won’t Have Enough Capacity

While it’s true that fiber networks generally have higher capacity than LEO networks, that’s only a relevant point of comparison if it impacts consumers’ use of their broadband service. The right broadband speed is the one that lets you do what you want with your Internet connection, not an arbitrary number. For example, a household simultaneously running two 4K video streams, two online games, and two zoom meetings would still use less than 50 megabits per second (Mbps).

To say that LEOs, which already offer over 100 Mbps, are “much slower than fiber” or “technologically inferior [and] capacity-limited” is like saying that a Toyota Camry is too slow for a highway simply because it can’t match that top speed of a Formula 1 car. If you’re never going to exceed highway speeds with either, the fact that one can go 200 miles per hour is irrelevant.

Another false comparison is between the capacity of fiber vs. LEO in today’s deployments. Critics levy accusations of capacity constraints in some areas of current LEO service as evidence that the technology itself is too slow. But the relevant comparison is what capacity will be after BEAD projects, not before. To be sure, there are some areas in which current upload speeds don’t always hit 20 Mbps, but the upload speeds of wireline technologies in the same areas are precisely zero; the alternative fiber networks don’t exist.

Yet LEO critics do not infer from the nonexistence of fiber capacity today that BEAD money should not go to fiber. And rightly so! The point of BEAD deployment funding is to create the capacity that meets Americans’ needs. Fiber ISPs will spend BEAD money to build network infrastructure that can provide at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload service, and LEO ISPs will do the same. The fact that it’s different infrastructure in each case doesn’t matter. Consumers get high-speed service in either case.

Myth 2: LEO Broadband Isn’t Scalable

Another criticism is that LEOs are inherently suspect because their satellites have relatively short lifespans. Today’s Starlink satellites, for example, last about five years while a fiber optic cable buried underground will last around 30. The conclusion of LEO critics is that satellite companies are simply treading water with their constellations constantly on the verge of “turning to dust” and unable to “scale to future needs.”

But this criticism is stuck in the mindset of thinking of a LEO constellation as though it’s a the same business model as a wireline network. It’s not. The two types of networks have different types of variable costs. Fiber ISPs do maintenance on switches and polls and refill the gas tanks on their bucket trucks. But no one says “fiber ISPs are on the brink of collapse since they need to keep doing these maintenance tasks!” That’s just part of the business and priced into any deployment, BEAD or otherwise. Likewise, LEO ISPs launch new satellites and account for the cost (and opportunity) to replace them over time. Bidders for BEAD funds must account for all costs in their bids, and any funds won come with enforceable obligations to meet performance standards.

Furthermore, a significant difference between bury-and-forget fiber and wave after wave of LEO satellites is that new satellites get the benefits of technological advancements that happened since the prior wave. For example, Starlink is on the verge of launching its “V3” satellites which promise even more capacity and even less latency than the current models. Combine these technological benefits with the fact that satellite launches are net adds to the number of satellites in the constellation, and you get a network that expands its capacity over time. That’s the definition of scalability.

Myth 3: LEOs Are Actually More Expensive

Another false talking point is that LEOs are cheaper upfront, but they will leave consumers with higher costs over time. The confusion here stems from an apples-to-oranges comparison of urban wireline rates to the disproportionately rural Starlink rates. Consumer prices will always be lower in more densely populated areas. The relevant comparison, especially for BEAD deployments to previously unserved areas, is between rural fiber rates and LEO rates. And that comparison tells a different story.

Many existing rural wireline deployments cover their operating expenses not with direct user fees but with subsidies from the Universal Service Fund (USF). This FCC program is funded by fees on consumers’ telecommunications bills. So the real cost of rural wireline service is still borne by consumers, it’s just divided between monthly broadband bills and monthly phone bills.

Rural wireline broadband providers have stated that without USF funding, they would charge consumers $165 per month. That’s far more than Starlink’s $120 per month. So LEOs are cheaper on a monthly basis than rural fiber, not more expensive.

Myth 4: BEAD Isn’t (or Shouldn’t be) Tech Neutral

Finally, critics allege NTIA’s BEAD guidance contravenes with will of Congress which was secretly for fiber in its definition of “priority broadband project.” But the statute correctly defines that term by the capabilities of broadband networks, not by the technology that provides them. That’s a tech neutral approach that NTIA’s updated guidance complies with better than the prior heavy hand on the scale in favor of fiber.

Still, fiber advocates now look on the reformed program and claim it is now biased toward LEO satellites. In some cases, the fiber-colored glasses cause credulous misreadings of NTIA’s policy notice, such as confusing a longer “period of performance” for LEOs (which is a greater burden on them) with a longer period to meet performance metrics. That’s just a lack of reading comprehension.

In other cases, the objection seems to be more of a feeling of persecution at a favorite technology losing its place of privilege. This leads to mental gymnastics to accuse those who remove special favors to certain industries of “corruption.” But equal treatment isn’t favoritism; rejecting exorbitantly expensive deployments when comparable service can be had for far less money is good broadband policy, not a betrayal of it.

Conclusion

NTIA was right to reform BEAD so consumers can benefit from all broadband technologies, undoing favoritism to immensely expense fiber projects. LEO satellites will provide a fast and scalable option that will now be able to compete for BEAD funding on a level playing field with everyone else.

The old fiber-biased BEAD guidance was incapable of closing the digital divide. Pro-consumer broadband policy advocates should, therefore, applaud recent reforms that will lower overall deployment costs, a prerequisite for funding more effective methods of closing the digital divide.