Launched under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program represents the largest federal investment in broadband infrastructure in U.S. history—$42.45 billion to expand high-speed internet access across underserved communities. The program's core mission lies in closing the digital divide, but there's a deeper truth buried beneath the fiber-optic miles and grant applications.

In today’s economy, broadband functions as a basic utility. Households rely on it to access digital education, healthcare, employment, and government services—just as they do for electricity and water. A physical connection no longer suffices; affordability determines participation.

This analysis examines the structural successes of the BEAD program while drawing a sharp focus on its most significant shortcoming: the lack of direct provisions targeting affordable access for low-income households. Where does BEAD go right? Where does it miss the mark? Let’s break it down.

Affordability Isn't Guaranteed: The Missing Mandate in BEAD

BEAD lacks requirements for low-cost broadband plans

The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program allocates $42.45 billion to bridge the digital divide, but it omits a core requirement: affordability. Internet service providers (ISPs) receiving BEAD funding face no obligation to offer low-cost broadband plans. This leaves a critical gap in access for households where infrastructure alone does not equal usability.

Unlike the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which sets a clear subsidy and eligibility structure, BEAD contains no federal-level mandates compelling ISPs to create discounted tiers for low-income users. As a result, new broadband networks could be physically in place, but priced far above what underserved communities can pay. Without pricing directives, deployment risks becoming symbolic rather than transformational.

No national standard for affordability across the program

BEAD delegates decisions on affordability to individual states. However, the absence of a universal benchmark means definitions of "affordable" will vary, often based on disparate economic, political, or regulatory interpretations. This fragmentation undermines the program's federal scope and leads to uneven broadband access that depends more on geography than need.

• Some state broadband offices might use ACP eligibility as a proxy for affordability.
• Others could rely on median income thresholds or average percentage of household expenditure on internet service.
• Still others may set no stated affordability goals at all, favoring speed and build-out metrics over cost to end users.

According to the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA), this decentralized approach has already begun producing inconsistent outcomes in state initial proposals submitted to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In short, BEAD lacks a uniform affordability roadmap.

No enforcement of pricing transparency for broadband offerings

Consumers have no guaranteed insight into pricing structures tied to BEAD infrastructure. The program does not include mandatory cost transparency clauses from ISPs. This allows providers to deploy publicly funded infrastructure while keeping pricing opaque—hindering consumer choice and competitive pressure.

Price transparency plays a direct role in affordability. Without it, families cannot compare service tiers or assess whether a new connection is financially feasible. The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Broadband Nutrition Label attempts to address this, yet BEAD stops short of requiring ISPs to adopt or align their pricing to such standards for funded projects.

States carry the burden of affordability design—without uniform federal guidance

With no centralized mandate, state broadband offices must define what affordability looks like for their populations. This places a complex policy task—requiring economic modeling, community engagement, and regulatory design—on understaffed and unevenly resourced agencies.

Some states, like Maine and North Carolina, are integrating affordability reviews into their subgrantee evaluations. Others struggle due to resource constraints or political agendas that emphasize infrastructure over equity. In practice, affordability criteria often lag far behind technical specifications or deployment maps.

As a result, millions might find themselves within reach of a fiber connection they still cannot afford to activate. Without embedded affordability mandates, BEAD's potential to close the digital divide remains structurally incomplete. Does a $60 monthly broadband plan truly qualify as access if the median income in the coverage area barely supports basic utilities? The program so far offers no answer.

Infrastructure Alone Doesn’t Equal Access: The Affordability Gap in BEAD

Where the Dollars Are Going: A Tilt Toward Infrastructure

The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program has earmarked $42.45 billion, with the vast majority directed at expanding physical infrastructure—fiber build-outs, tower installations, last-mile connections. According to the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), 75% of the funds must target unserved locations—defined as areas lacking broadband speeds of 25/3 Mbps. This criteria focuses deployment on coverage, not affordability.

Yet, laying fiber to the curb doesn’t lower the bill at the end of the month. The deployment-centric model overlooks the substantial barrier that monthly service costs continue to pose, especially for low-income households. Infrastructure might expand geographies of access, but without affordable service, broadband remains functionally out of reach.

Fiber in the Ground, But No One Online: Lessons from Past Initiatives

The experience of previous federally funded broadband initiatives illustrates the gap between physical access and actual internet adoption. Consider the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), launched in the wake of the 2009 Recovery Act. The program deployed thousands of miles of fiber, yet several communities saw low uptake due to service costs that remained beyond household budgets.

In Detroit, for example, a 2014 evaluation of BTOP grantees by the NTIA revealed adoption rates lagging even after infrastructure was laid. Households cited cost as the top barrier—installing fiber did not guarantee subscriptions. Similarly, the Connect America Fund (CAF), administered by the FCC, supported rural broadband expansion, but lacked enforceable consumer affordability measures. In practice, providers offered service at price points that discouraged uptake, undermining public ROI.

Adoption Rates Lag When Affordability Is Ignored

According to Pew Research Center's 2021 broadband survey, only 57% of households earning less than $30,000 per year had home broadband, compared to 92% of those earning over $75,000. The infrastructure deficit is real, but the affordability gap accounts for a significant share of the digital divide. BEAD’s existing design, with no requirement for ISPs to offer low-cost plans, fails to engage with this reality.

What happens when broadband shows up on your street, but you can’t afford to connect? That’s not access—it’s a missed opportunity driven by policy that equates infrastructure with inclusion.

ISP Incentives in the BEAD Program: Prioritizing Profit?

How Current ISP Incentives May Sideline Affordability

Internet service providers participating in the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program are primarily driven by return on investment. Public funds cover a portion of capital expenditures, but the longer-term profits come from monthly subscriber fees. That model rewards network expansion but not affordability. There's no financial motive built into the BEAD framework that encourages ISPs to lower prices for consumers once infrastructure is in place.

In high-cost areas with limited competition, providers can recoup costs faster by pricing plans at a premium. The risk? Once subsidy-backed fiber reaches these regions, price points may still remain out of reach for low-income households. The program doesn't penalize that outcome, nor does it reward any provider that voluntarily implements low-cost tiers.

Lack of Enforceable Consumer Pricing Controls

Neither the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) nor the implementing guidelines from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) include hard mandates on end-user pricing. States are encouraged to consider affordability in their plans, yet the guidance stops short of requiring uniform pricing benchmarks across providers or regions.

As a result, each state retains discretion on how much affordability weighs in the grant evaluation process. Some states, like Maine and New Mexico, have included affordability as a scoring criterion in their broadband plans. Others have not. The result is a patchwork of enforcement, where adherence to pricing consistency is optional rather than required. No federal mechanism exists to ensure that prices remain reasonable after the network becomes operational.

Monopoly Power and Limited Competition Enable Price Hikes

In areas where only one broadband provider receives BEAD funding, that ISP effectively becomes the sole gatekeeper to internet access. Without competition, pricing freedom increases. Data from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) shows that roughly 25% of U.S. households have access to only one wired broadband provider at the FCC’s minimum speed standard of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. That percentage is even higher in rural counties.

Once monopoly or near-monopoly conditions are present, market forces no longer check price growth. Consumer choice vanishes, and prices may escalate. Without enforceable requirements in BEAD grants to limit post-build service rates, funded regions face the possibility of well-connected but still unaffordable networks.

What would change the calculus? Direct affordability requirements as a condition of public subsidy. Until those are formalized, profit will outpace access as a driving incentive.

The Strained Gatekeepers: Role and Limitations of State Broadband Offices

State broadband offices sit at the fulcrum of the BEAD program's implementation. Assigned with the crucial task of disbursing infrastructure funding and shaping deployment strategies, these offices are expected to translate federal dollars into tangible broadband outcomes. But their ability to address affordability remains highly uneven, often constrained by resources, inconsistent policymaking, and lack of unified affordability standards.

Fragmented Definitions of 'Affordability'

BEAD legislation doesn't enforce a federal standard for what counts as "affordable" broadband. As a result, states are left to define the term themselves—leading to wildly varying interpretations. In Alabama, for instance, the draft broadband plan pegs affordability to the $30 monthly benchmark of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). Meanwhile, states like Wyoming or Mississippi offer no clear threshold at all. This inconsistency undercuts the potential for equitable access and creates systemic gaps between neighboring states. A family in Louisiana could face materially higher monthly costs than a similar household across the Texas border, simply because each state applies a different affordability framework.

Resource Disparities Limit Strategic Capacity

Not all state broadband offices have the same institutional strength. While California’s Broadband for All initiative has a dedicated staff and policy apparatus, many states operate with lean teams managing multimillion-dollar deployment decisions. According to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), about 20 states had fewer than three full-time staff managing broadband programs as of 2022. Limited human capital translates directly into diminished bandwidth for rigorous policy design, stakeholder engagement, and long-term affordability tracking.

Policymaking Suffers Without Unified Federal Guidance

States know they have to tackle affordability, but without a federal benchmark, they're left guessing. Some are experimenting with requiring ISPs to offer low-cost plans in exchange for grant eligibility. Others are omitting affordability language entirely, focusing solely on access and infrastructure metrics. The absence of a federal affordability threshold in the BEAD Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) has led to this disjointed approach, where each state is encouraged to solve a national affordability problem using fragmented local tools.

The rollout of BEAD funding offers a critical opportunity to establish long-term affordability frameworks, but state broadband offices can't do it alone. Without clear, enforceable federal standards and sustained administrative support, they'll continue to operate in silos—executing infrastructure expansion plans that may not lower end-user costs or ensure inclusive digital participation.

Alternatives That Center on Affordability

Community Broadband Initiatives Driving Inclusive Access

Municipal and cooperative broadband networks have consistently delivered lower-cost service tailored to local needs. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, the Electric Power Board (EPB) provides gigabit-speed internet for $67.99/month—without data caps or hidden fees. This public utility model redistributes value back to the community rather than prioritizing shareholder returns, creating a direct pathway to affordable access.

According to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, over 900 communities in the U.S. are served by some form of publicly owned broadband network. These community-driven models bypass major ISPs and often bundle subsidies, local job creation, and reinvestment into underserved neighborhoods.

Public-Private Partnerships With Guaranteed Low-Cost Service

Some states and localities have structured broadband partnerships to mandate affordability from the start. In Maine’s ConnectMaine Authority's municipal partnership program, providers who accept state funds must offer low-cost tiers and commit to clear speed benchmarks per household income brackets.

In California, the L.A. County-backed initiative with Starry Internet resulted in high-speed service at $15/month for low-income households. These partnerships connect infrastructure incentives with enforceable pricing obligations, aligning deployment with affordability outcomes.

Local ISP Competition Fueling Price Pressure

Smaller ISPs and community-focused providers frequently undercut national cable monopolies by offering simplified pricing and no-contract options. For example, NextLight in Longmont, Colorado—a city-owned ISP—charges $39.95/month for symmetrical 100 Mbps service.

Where these local providers enter the market, prices drop. FCC data shows broadband prices decrease by 19% on average in areas with at least two competing fiber providers. Contrast that with monopoly markets, where rates remain static or climb despite federal subsidies.

ACP Deployment Where It Works—And What Can Be Learned

Some regions have maximized the impact of the Affordable Connectivity Program through aggressive outreach, streamlined enrollment, and partnerships with housing authorities and schools. In New York City, for example, the NYC Office of Technology and Innovation collaborated with community-based organizations and succeeded in enrolling over 500,000 residents by mid-2023.

Philadelphia took a data-driven approach, mapping underserved areas and focusing ACP sign-ups through libraries and neighborhood clinics. These local strategies prove that with coordination, ACP funds can reduce broadband bills by up to $30/month in urban and rural settings alike.

Widening the Divide: How the BEAD Program Shortchanges Rural and Low-Income Communities

Broadband Infrastructure Without Affordability Reinforces Inequality

In areas where the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program funds infrastructure without tying access to affordability, digital inequality doesn't shrink—it expands. Households in rural regions and low-income urban neighborhoods may find fiber-optic cables buried beneath their feet, yet still lack a viable way to connect. When monthly costs exceed what these communities can sustainably pay, available infrastructure becomes a hollow promise.

The digital divide no longer stems primarily from an absence of infrastructure. According to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2023 Broadband Deployment Report, over 94% of U.S. residents live in census blocks with access to a fixed broadband service offering at least 25 Mbps download speeds. Yet, Pew Research data from the same year shows 28% of low-income adults (earning less than $30,000/year) still do not use home broadband—affordability is the defining barrier.

Cracks in Access Undermine Education, Work, and Health

When broadband is too expensive to use, essential aspects of modern life remain out of reach. Students in underserved areas, even with new school-issued devices, encounter frozen screens and dead links if home networks can't handle synchronous learning. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 Household Pulse Survey found that in households making under $50,000 annually, nearly 15% of children reported limited access to online learning due to connectivity issues.

For adults, the barriers extend further. Remote jobs, already skewed toward higher education and income demographics, become inaccessible when home broadband is unaffordable. Telehealth—heralded as a cost-saving solution for rural communities—requires video calls that many cannot sustain on restricted or mobile-only data plans. Within underserved ZIP codes, clinics are seeing lower patient usage of virtual appointments, despite availability.

Lost Local Growth and Civic Disengagement

Affordability gaps shut communities out of economic development engines. Small business owners, farmers, and local freelancers rely on stable upload/download speeds to access markets and manage operations. Without affordable and reliable service, entrepreneurship wanes. A 2022 analysis by the Benton Institute described how rural counties with broadband adoption below 50% saw slower job growth and lower median incomes over five years compared to better-connected peers.

Even democratic participation takes a hit. Residents who can't afford internet service are less likely to access election information, register to vote online, or attend virtual town halls. The digital divide, in this sense, not only limits economic mobility but also narrows civic voice.

• New broadband lines laid by BEAD grant recipients may physically pass underserved homes but stop short at the doorstep due to unaffordable rates.
• Infrastructure deployment, unlinked from affordability mandates, leads to usage deserts where access exists in theory but not in practice.
• Households already balancing financial instability face stark choices between basic utilities and high-speed internet.

If BEAD investments continue without a mechanism that enforces meaningful affordability, then rural and low-income communities will remain digitally marginalized—albeit with fiber just out of reach.

Transparency and Accountability: Where’s the Oversight?

Opaque Reporting Undermines Public Insight

The BEAD Program obligates billions in federal investment, yet lacks robust reporting requirements on key consumer-facing variables. Grantees and subgrantees are not required to publish detailed data on service pricing, speed tiers, or availability by location. Without this transparency, it becomes nearly impossible for watchdogs, journalists, or even policymakers to evaluate whether deployments are delivering meaningful value—particularly for low-income households most in need of affordable options.

Consumer Protections Remain Weak or Undefined

The program does not mandate enforceable standards on latency, reliability, or consistency in advertised versus actual speeds. Nor does it create clear mechanisms for consumers to file grievances or track provider accountability through independent oversight. While some states may attempt to fill in these regulatory gaps, the BEAD framework itself does not provide uniform protections, creating patchwork enforcement conditions across the country.

No Centralized Dashboard, No Public Audits

Unlike other large-scale infrastructure initiatives, BEAD lacks a federally mandated or standardized public dashboard that tracks the allocation and use of funds. There's also no requirement for systematic third-party auditing of how subgrantees implement their broadband deployment obligations. The result? Stakeholders must rely on fragmented state records, periodic NTIA updates, or investigative reporting to piece together deployment performance.

Where Are the Affordability Metrics?

The NTIA’s Notice of Funding Opportunity does highlight equity goals, but fails to establish mandatory metrics for tracking affordability outcomes over time. States are not required to submit data on average subscription costs in BEAD-funded areas, percentage of eligible households subscribing to service, or how pricing evolves post-deployment. Without these metrics, programs can technically achieve “coverage” while functionally excluding residents unable to pay market rates.

• No public pricing database: Users cannot compare providers or verify that federally funded services remain low-cost beyond initial deployment.
• No affordability performance targets: States set their own goals, but there's no penalty for missing them—nor incentives for exceeding them.
• No user-focused outcomes reporting: Metrics typically center on miles of fiber laid, not on homes served or bills reduced.

Accountability Requires More Than Buildout Maps

Counting fiber miles and coverage percentages tells only part of the story. Real accountability demands rigorous, disaggregated data on service affordability, adoption rates by income bracket, and consumer satisfaction. Until those metrics are collected and made public, the BEAD Program will continue to miss the mark on equitable broadband access.

Policy and Regulatory Gaps: What's Missing?

Affordability Mandates: Missing from Federal Directives

BEAD’s federal guidelines do not obligate states or providers to ensure broadband affordability for end users. The NTIA’s Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) encourages the inclusion of low-cost options but stops short of enforcing them. There's no scoring preference, no funding priority, and no penalties tied to affordability. As a result, the program sidesteps a key element of digital inclusion: whether people can actually pay for the service once it becomes available.

Policy Fragmentation Delivers Uneven Access

State-level discretion, while allowing flexibility, has resulted in a patchwork of broadband strategies across the U.S. Some states have chosen to include affordability plans, others have not. The absence of a federal standard has allowed inconsistent implementation. For low-income households in states with minimal mandates, broadband remains out of financial reach—even when infrastructure exists.

Overlooking Lifeline and ACP: A Missed Design Opportunity

The BEAD program could have embedded requirements similar to the Lifeline program or the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), both of which provide direct discounts to qualifying low-income households. Instead, it treats affordability programs as separate and disconnected from infrastructure investments. This separation ignores how public subsidies and deployment strategies can—and should—work in tandem to maximize adoption.

Beyond Infrastructure: The Missing Layer of Digital Inclusion Policy

Broadband access is not just a fiber optics issue. Digital inclusion depends on affordability, digital literacy, device access, and support services. BEAD allocates the majority of its funds to network deployment, dismissing these other essential elements. Without formal policies linking infrastructure builds to digital inclusion outcomes, the program reinforces a model where physical access alone is seen as success—even though millions may remain offline, priced out, or left behind due to lack of support.

• No federal affordability enforcement: Providers face no obligation to offer low-cost plans under BEAD funding rules.
• Piecemeal state implementation: Outcomes depend heavily on where a household is located, not national standards.
• No built-in subsidy mechanisms: BEAD fails to layer in user-level cost relief like ACP or Lifeline.
• Digital inclusion sidelined: The program omits funding for training, devices, or outreach in any substantive way.

When broadband infrastructure policy excludes affordability and digital equity planning, the result is inevitable: connection lines get laid, but connections to opportunity remain out of reach.

Building an Inclusive Broadband Future: Five Policy Shifts to Close the Affordability Gap

Embed Affordability Requirements in Federally Funded Projects

Every dollar of federal funding aimed at broadband expansion must come with strings attached—specifically, concrete affordability clauses. Without these, infrastructure investments risk reinforcing existing digital inequities. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can enforce minimum affordability conditions as a prerequisite for funding approval, ensuring that public dollars serve public interests, not just carrier profits.

Establish Affordability Benchmarks and Monthly Price Caps

Vague references to "low-cost" plans create loopholes. Standardized affordability benchmarks eliminate ambiguity. A monthly price cap tied to a percentage of Area Median Income (AMI), such as the 2% threshold used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for affordable housing, can guide rate-setting. For households at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty Level, that translates to less than $30/month.

Prioritize Community Broadband and Municipal Networks

Local networks consistently outperform private ISPs on price transparency and service affordability. A 2020 Benton Institute report found that municipal networks in Colorado, Tennessee, and North Carolina offered gigabit service at rates up to 50% lower than national providers. Giving preference to nonprofits, public cooperatives, and municipal broadband proposals in BEAD allocations will boost cost-effective access in regions where private providers show little pricing discipline.

Develop Federal Reporting Standards for Pricing and Affordability

Current data on consumer broadband prices is incomplete and inconsistently reported. The FCC should adopt mandatory, quarterly reporting of pricing tiers from providers receiving BEAD funds. These disclosures must be easily accessible in public dashboards maintained by both federal and state agencies. Open data requirements will expose anti-competitive pricing and empower researchers and communities with actionable information.

Fund States to Design and Implement Affordability Plans

State broadband offices received federal grants to oversee BEAD implementation, but most lack dedicated resources for affordability planning. Targeted funding—independent of infrastructure deployment budgets—will allow states to commission pricing studies, convene affordability working groups, and launch pilot subsidy programs that supplement federal benefits like the Affordable Connectivity Program.

• Embed accountability requirements into grant approvals at the federal level.
• Tie infrastructure milestones to affordability milestones to ensure simultaneous progress.
• Require disclosure of final consumer pricing before project completion sign-off.

When affordability is treated as a core design principle—not a footnote—broadband expansion delivers meaningful digital inclusion. These five steps reset priorities in public funding for lasting equity in access.