You’re reading the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society’s Weekly Digest, a recap of the biggest (or most overlooked) broadband stories of the week. The digest is delivered via e-mail each Friday.

Round-Up for the Week of September 15-19, 2025

Much has been said about the national broadband deployment process being undertaken with the support of the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a hearing to discuss 29 (yes, 29!) bills aimed at streamlining the broadband permitting process to expedite deployment. At the hearing, the subcommittee sought to understand how permitting processes create deployment challenges for internet service providers (ISPs).

The bills could significantly impact broadband deployment by accelerating wireless infrastructure development, reducing environmental protections on federal lands, digitizing the permitting process, and standardizing permitting fees.

Setting the Stage: Where We Are with BEAD

Subcommittee Chairman Richard Hudson (R-NC) began the hearing by expressing dismay over permitting processes as they are today, saying that cumbersome rules have caused delays to BEAD-funded broadband deployment.

"Unless we streamline the permitting process, all the money we've dedicated to deployment will be tied up in burdensome reviews resulting in more unnecessary delays, forcing millions of Americans to continue to wait for connectivity," he said.

Chairman Hudson added that the Republicans on the panel are committed to reforming current broadband permitting rules with the goals of "instilling certainty, predictability, and savings into this process."

Chairman Hudson lauded former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai for his work in reducing the regulatory barriers to broadband deployment, implementing "shot clocks" (which establish limitations on the amount of time state and local authorities have to process and approve zoning permits) and commended current FCC Chairman Brendan Carr for continuing those efforts.

The WIRELESS Leadership Act, one of the bills up for discussion at the hearing, would codify some of the rules adopted by Chairman Pai. The legislation would streamline permitting processes for wireless providers by preserving state and local zoning authority subject to reasonable limitations, like shot clocks and cost-based fees, to ensure providers receive an answer on their applications in a timely manner.

Patrick Halley, President and CEO of the Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA), spoke in support of the FCC's efforts and of proposed legislation that "makes permanent reforms to shot clocks and prevent[s] unreasonable fees."

Ranking Member Doris Matsui (D-CA) advocated for permitting reforms that work with state and local governments, which she says are often already understaffed and under-resourced:

"Mandating arbitrary deadlines and rubber-stamp approvals doesn't fix that," Rep. Matsui said about local capacity challenges. "It bulldozes local expertise and safeguards. Instead, we need federal, state, and local collaboration...Our job isn't to tie [local leaders'] hands. It's to help them succeed."

Rep. Matsui co-sponsored the DIGITAL Applications Act with Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL), another bill considered at the hearing. The DIGITAL Applications Act would require the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service to each establish an online portal for accepting, processing, and disposal of applications for communications use authorizations—including requests for easements, rights-of-way, leases, licenses, or other authorizations. This, Rep. Matsui said, would help the processing and tracking of broadband permitting on federal land.

One of the proposed bills, the Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act, would require the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to submit a comprehensive plan to Congress within 180 days detailing how the agency will track the acceptance, processing, and disposal of broadband permitting applications on federal lands. These applications are essential for accessing easements and rights-of-way to build or maintain telecommunications infrastructure. Through this legislation, the NTIA will also be responsible for detailing how they will quickly implement their plan and any potential barriers they could face. This bill is sponsored by Reps. August Pfluger (R-TX) and Darren Soto (D-FL).

A Complicated Patchwork of Permitting Policy Reforms

The witnesses at yesterday's hearing represented a wide variety of broadband stakeholders who shared opinions on permitting reform:

• Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO, USTelecom—The Broadband Association
• Patrick Halley, President and CEO, Wireless Infrastructure Association
• Staci Pies, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs and Policy, INCOMPAS
• Drew Garner, Director of Policy Engagement, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society

The witnesses offered their feedback on the wide swatch of the proposed bills.

The Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient Deployment (SPEED) for Broadband Infrastructure Act, sponsored by Rep. Craig Goldmann (R-TX), aims to exempt some communications facility installations from environmental or historical preservation reviews. Rep. Greg Pence (R-IN) introduced similar legislation in the last Congress.

USTelecom’s Spalter supported the SPEED for Broadband Act in his written testimony:

Both Spalter and INCOMPAS’s Pies pushed for permitting reform as it relates to railroad crossings. According to Pies, approvals for accessing railroad rights-of-way are particularly lengthy and are one of the most "persistent and costly barriers to broadband deployment."

The Broadband and Telecommunications RAIL Act (still unnumbered) would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to write rules to govern the intersection of public rights-of-way, railroad rights-of-way, and broadband deployment. This bill, recently championed by Rep. John Joyce (R-PA), was supported by Pies and Spalter as a way to streamline the deployment of telecommunications and broadband service facilities in public rights-of-way and the rights-of-way of railroad carriers.

Pies said:

Spalter added that the RAIL Act would "put a spike in unreasonable costs and delays from the railroads by creating a path for the FCC to step in and alleviate log jams."

Permitting fees were a topic of conversation. The BEAD FEE Act, sponsored by Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA), would limit the nature of fees that states and territories receiving BEAD Program funding may impose on applicants seeking authorization to construct or deploy broadband infrastructure. Under the bill, BEAD funds may not be provided to an eligible entity if the entity or a political subdivision of the entity charges fees:

1. To consider a request to place, construct, or modify broadband infrastructure; or
2. For the use of a right-of-way owned or managed by the entity or a political subdivision, or for the use of infrastructure within such a right-of-way, to place, construct, or modify broadband infrastructure.

Rep. Allen said:

The Standard Fees to Expedite Evaluation and Streamlining Standard FEES Act, introduced by Reps. Gary Palmer (R-AL) and Patrick Ryan (D-NY), also focuses on fees but would require the General Services Administration (GSA) to establish, and federal agencies to adopt, a uniform schedule of fees for applications to place, modify, or maintain communications facilities in, over, or on federally owned buildings and property.

Setting tight deadlines on permitting approvals was a crucial point in the proposed legislation and for Subcommittee members/witnesses alike.

"Approvals should proceed on a predictable timetable, with automatic approval if agencies fail to meet their deadlines," said Pies.

Artificial Intelligence in BEAD

At the hearing, Pies and Halley both advocated for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in broadband infrastructure networks, both to optimize the permitting process and to build networks with the purpose of maintaining a competitive edge globally. 

Pies said:

The Broadband Incentives for Communities Act, sponsored by Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), would direct NTIA to create a competitive grant program to assist local governments in providing quick review of zoning and permitting applications for broadband infrastructure. Entities could use grant funding for capacity building, including employee training or hiring, and/or for the purchase of technology to facilitate the processing of applications.

Pies emphasized that broadband readiness is equivalent to AI readiness. She advocated for the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act as just one way in which Congress can help ensure that broadband infrastructure deployment is prepared for AI infrastructure.

Pies added that "Congress and the NTIA should allow states to use BEAD non-deployment funds to help states and municipalities improve their permitting processes, including creating digital and AI-driven permitting portals," among other uses, and that this aligns with the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act.

For Halley, fixed wireless broadband service is "leading the charge to close the digital divide in rural communities" and will "serve as the foundation for the next technology revolution." The advancements to come, he said, will be driven by AI, which will be "integral" to wireless networks and their applications.

Halley said about AI and wireless infrastructure deployment:

Accelerating Wireless Deployment

Wireless infrastructure deployment under BEAD, and the larger conversation around which technologies should go where, featured heavily at the hearing and in the bills on the table.

Halley expressed a lot of support for the Carr FCC's "Build America" agenda, which is designed to reform permitting rules and include establishing rules to accelerate wireless broadband deployment.

In addition to the WIRELESS Leadership Act, a number of pieces of proposed legislation support the FCC's recent work around wireless infrastructure. Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN) introduced the 5G Using Previously Granted Rulings that Accelerate Deployment Everywhere (5G UPGRADE) Act, which would amend existing law to provide a timeframe for the consideration by State and local governments of requests for modification of certain existing wireless facilities.

Subcommittee Chairman Hudson (R-NC) introduced the Reducing Antiquated Permitting for Infrastructure Deployment Act, which would clarify that small cell deployments are subject to neither environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) nor historical review under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The bill would also establish a court's presumption that a wireless provider has completed a request for review if a Tribal nation or Native Hawaiian Organization has received certain completed FCC forms relating to the deployment of new or collocated wireless facilities.

Halley commented on NEPA reforms in his testimony, saying:

And the Wireless Broadband Competition and Efficient Deployment Act, sponsored by Rep. Michael Rulli (R-OH), would exempt infrastructure projects that involve the installation or modification of certain wireless communications facilities from specified federal environmental and historic preservation review requirements.

A handful of members of the panel expressed concerns about how NTIA's BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, which required all states and territories to redesign their BEAD final proposals, impacted which technologies would be funded by the program, and how effective they may be long-term.

In his testimony, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society Director of Policy Engagement Drew Garner said that before the restructuring of BEAD, among the four states that had completed their plans, roughly 95% of locations would have been served by fiber-to-the-premise networks. Now, according to Garner, preliminary results from the new final proposals indicate that the mixture of technologies has shifted away from fiber and toward LEO satellite, with Amazon’s Kuiper and SpaceX’s Starlink ranking first and second in terms of locations won. 

"While, on average, fiber remains the dominant technology, the variance between states is substantial, with some achieving over 90% fiber and others under 10%," Garner said.

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) asked Garner what the negative effects of shifting away from fiber may be, and how this could perpetuate the digital divide.

"Shifting away from fiber is similar to shifting from paved roads to dirt roads," he said. "Dirt roads may be cheaper...but you're not going to grow a modern economy with dirt roads. The same is true for fiber. So as we lose fiber, the areas that lose it are going to lose all the economic benefits that it drives."

Rep. Clarke then asked Garner why fiber is a game-changer; he answered:

Rep. Troy Carter (D-LA) also asked Garner about changes to BEAD, but specifically what changes to Louisiana’s BEAD plan—which went from 95% fiber to 80%—might mean for affected districts in the long term.

"It means they will fall behind in the long-term, Garner replied. "We are shifting them from a better product that would last forever, basically, to a product that will not barely meet the needs of today, much less those of the future."

Can We Build BEAD Networks Without Non-Deployment?

BEAD non-deployment funds and Digital Equity Act programs also came up during questioning by Democratic Members of the subcommittee. In her remarks, Rep. Matsui pressed for funds for digital inclusion activities, saying that without them, the broadband infrastructure deployment to come is a moot point.

"At the end of the day, BEAD and Digital Equity programs are our best shot at closing the digital divide," she said. "Without them, permitting reform is just a bandaid on a gaping wound."

Rep. Matsui asked Garner how the Trump Administration’s BEAD changes are impacting the ability to connect all Americans to reliable, affordable broadband.

A number of Representatives had questions about the affordability of broadband and how all U.S. residents can have access to high-speed internet.

Rep. Paul Ruiz (D-CA) commented on the freezing of broadband adoption funds under the Digital Equity Act by the Trump Administration. Rep. Ruiz said the June 6 policy notice from NTIA has "set us back at least six months" on BEAD.

"Still waiting are students without reliable internet, families lacking telehealth access, and small businesses and farmworkers cut off from the digital economy," said Rep. Ruiz.

Rep. Ruiz expressed his support for the Federal Communications Commission's now-expired Affordable Connectivity Program, and asked Garner how we can ensure broadband networks are affordable. Garner replied:

What's to Come for BEAD?

Garner said in his testimony that BEAD's non-deployment funds could impact the permitting process. However, the future for non-deployment funds under BEAD is unclear.

"Yes, BEAD will prioritize the deployment of networks, Garner said. "However, BEAD can also fund activities to facilitate that deployment and ensure BEAD networks see maximum uptake. This category of activities is known as 'non-deployment,' and non-deployment is why BEAD has massive potential to improve permitting processes throughout the country."

Garner said that NTIA is poised to restructure BEAD for a second time. He said that if taken, this action would have further impacts on the technological breakdown of BEAD funding and on non-deployment funding as well.

"In the coming weeks, the agency will begin forcing states to rebid projects that exceed certain cost thresholds, he said. "This change would shift many additional locations to satellite and, for a second time, invalidate ISP applications."

Further, the effects of removing non-deployment funding from BEAD could be severe, and the removal of these funds is illegal under the law.

"NTIA appears inclined to claw back non-deployment funds—even though the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act does not allow for that," Garner said. "Clawing back these funds would cut state BEAD budgets by, on average, over $350 million, gutting the potential for permitting improvements or other initiatives for telehealth, workforce development, and broadband adoption."

As the bills covered in the hearing work their way through Congress, and as the BEAD Program progresses (with further changes or without), the exact future of broadband infrastructure development and digital adoption in the U.S. remains uncertain.

See the entire list of bills included in yesterday's hearing.

Quick Bits

• What we know about NTIA’s (alleged) new BEAD memo
• Advocates say Nebraska missed golden opportunity to expand rural broadband
• Rural Commenters Urge FCC to Adopt Higher Broadband Benchmark
• Here's what industry groups want from USF reform

Weekend Reads

• AI for America

ICYMI from Benton

• Navigating a Wave of BEAD Permits
• No Way to Run a Railroad
• FEMA Says the Check is in the E-Mail
• Lessons and Recommendations for Effective Affordability Outreach
• Prison Phone Justice Delayed: What’s at Stake and What You Can Do

Upcoming Events

Sep 23––DOJ v. Google: The Remedies Decision and the Future of Search (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation)

Sep 30––September 2025 Open Federal Communications Commission Meeting (Federal Communications Commission)

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

---

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2025. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

---

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg