The federal government is actively seeking to enhance broadband access in underserved rural communities across the United States.

As part of this effort, the Broadband Equity and Access Deployment Program (BEAD) is shifting focus from fiber-optic solutions to potentially favor satellite internet services like Starlink.

Under the revised plan, Starlink could receive between $10 billion and $20 billion in funding, a significant increase from the $4.1 billion allocated under current rules.

State and former US officials suggest that satellite internet providers, such as Starlink, could lower initial costs for the $42 billion rural broadband program.

However, state officials warn that while satellite services may have lower installation costs, they could lead to higher expenses over time, with one official noting a 53% increase in costs for satellite services over 30 years compared to fiber.

This raises concerns that while satellite internet may offer upfront savings, it could ultimately result in higher long-term expenses compared to traditional broadband solutions.

Experts emphasize the importance of balancing initial costs with the sustainability and quality of internet service over time.

The ongoing review of the BEAD program has raised concerns about the long-term financial impacts on consumers if funding favors cheaper initial investments over sustainable solutions.

Additionally, concerns have been raised about the reliability and latency of satellite internet, which could impact its effectiveness for rural areas.

Despite skepticism from fiber advocates regarding job creation and local economic benefits, supporters of satellite internet argue that the industry's ongoing evolution and increased capacity could make it a viable option.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick defends the revisions as necessary to eliminate biases towards specific technologies, claiming it will provide taxpayers with better value.

Critics, including Evan Feinman, former director of the broadband program under the Biden administration, have expressed concerns about the potential negative impacts on rural internet access stemming from this new approach.