Broadband Myths: LEOs Don’t Belong in BEAD

Critics have claimed low-Earth orbit broadband will not be able to meet the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program’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. 

• 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.
• 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.
• Myth 3: LEOs Are Actually More Expensive: Another 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 higher, rural Starlink rates. 
• Myth 4: BEAD Isn’t (or Shouldn’t be) Tech Neutral: Finally, critics allege NTIA’s BEAD guidance contravenes with the 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.