The promise of widespread internet access for rural and underserved areas has been a cornerstone of federal initiatives in recent years, most notably through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. Funded by the $42.5 billion provision in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the program aimed to close the digital divide by bringing high-speed internet to communities that have historically lacked it. Yet, nearly three years later, questions loom about its effectiveness, transparency, and alignment with local initiatives, such as those in Josephine County, Oregon.
The BEAD program required states and territories to submit deployment plans by the end of 2023, with implementation timelines stretching to 2026. Despite these plans, the initiative has yet to connect a single household to the internet. This delay has fueled skepticism about whether the program is addressing urgent connectivity issues or if bureaucracy and misaligned priorities are hindering progress.
Between 2021 and 2023, U.S. household internet access increased modestly from 80% to 83%, largely through private sector investments and emerging technologies. These gains occurred independently of BEAD funding, suggesting that market-driven solutions may already be addressing the digital divide in more agile ways than the federally subsidized program.
In Josephine County, Oregon, concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of broadband grants at the local level. Former Commissioner Simon Hare was reportedly paid an estimated $3,200 with an additional $20,000 contract for work in connection with an IT broadband grant that, like the BEAD program, appears to have yielded little tangible progress. While it remains unclear whether this grant was tied to the broader federal funding initiative, the lack of visible results underscores recurring challenges in broadband deployment efforts. Additionally, the use of federal funding raises questions about potential violations of the Hatch Act, particularly regarding the appropriation of funds by the county official responsible for approving this project.
Critics argue that such grants often fail because they prioritize rigid infrastructure solutions, like fiber-optic cables, that may not align with the needs or preferences of rural communities. Additionally, these programs frequently overlook emerging technologies, such as satellite internet services like Starlink, which offer scalable and cost-effective alternatives for remote areas.
Private providers have been expanding internet access based on market demand, often using diverse and adaptable technologies to meet local needs. In contrast, government programs like BEAD focus heavily on fixed infrastructure, which can be expensive, slow to deploy, and less suited for certain areas. The rigid nature of these initiatives can lead to wasted resources, as states and territories prioritize compliance over practicality.
While long-term investments in infrastructure can yield significant benefits, they must be carefully planned and executed to avoid inefficiency. Critics warn that the opportunity costs of federal broadband programs may outweigh their benefits, as private providers continue to outpace government efforts in expanding coverage and reducing costs.
As the BEAD program moves toward implementation, the federal government faces mounting pressure to deliver results that justify its $42.5 billion investment. For communities like Josephine County, the question remains: Will these programs fulfill their promise, or will they become another example of well-intentioned initiatives falling short?
