Across rural America, broadband access is increasingly treated not as a luxury, but as a foundational utility. Farmers manage smart equipment through digital networks, students join virtual classrooms miles from the nearest city, and businesses rely on high-speed internet to connect with national and global markets. In response to these needs, a wave of state and federal funding is targeting underserved areas—where traditional infrastructure has consistently lagged behind. Colorado has become a focal point in this push, deploying millions in grant money to expand connectivity.

But the state’s latest broadband allocations have drawn unexpected attention. Although SpaceX's Starlink has rapidly built one of the most recognized satellite internet brands globally—boasting over 2.6 million active subscribers as of early 2024—Colorado is channeling significant funds toward an alternative satellite provider. That choice has amplified questions around cost, performance metrics, technology standards, and eligibility rules for publicly funded broadband expansion.

While Starlink by SpaceX dominates headlines globally, Colorado has chosen to fund a different satellite internet provider—here’s why.

Inside Colorado’s Push to Expand Broadband Access

State and Federal Investment in Rural Connectivity

Colorado’s approach to broadband funding reflects a calculated strategy to close the digital divide, especially in rural and historically underserved regions. Backed by state and federal dollars, the state has prioritized high-speed, affordable internet as a cornerstone for education, economic participation, healthcare access, and civic engagement in remote communities.

Key Broadband Grant Programs in Colorado

Two funding mechanisms dominate the state’s broadband acceleration efforts: the Colorado Broadband Fund and the federally established Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. Each program is tailored to address specific geographical and demographic gaps, and both operate under common performance mandates—speed, reliability, and scalable infrastructure investment.

• Colorado Broadband Fund: Managed by the Colorado Broadband Office (CBO), this program directs state-level grants to local governments, cooperatives, and private providers. Launched in 2014, it prioritizes projects delivering speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload.
• BEAD Program: Federally funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, Colorado received over $826.5 million through BEAD to deploy or upgrade broadband networks with a focus on unserved areas lacking reliable 25/3 Mbps service.

Funding Priorities and Strategic Goals

Broadband funding in Colorado does not simply pursue speed metrics. Competitive applications must prove cost efficiency per location served, long-term infrastructure viability, and evidence of community collaboration. Preference often shifts toward providers that commit to wireline or fixed wireless installations with future scalability beyond 1 Gbps.

State directives also promote local partnerships—municipalities and regional telecoms aligning with public interest projects stand a greater chance of award. These collaborations support middle-mile infrastructure expansion, ensuring connectivity isn't just brought to town borders but into homes and businesses.

Colorado’s broader objective is unequivocal: deliver equitable digital access without duplicated efforts or short-term fixes. In this context, satellite services are scrutinized based on precision targeting, latency limitations, and future-readiness of their networks—a factor that heavily influences funding eligibility.

Satellite Internet Services: A Competitive Field

Satellite internet has undergone a major transformation in the past decade. What once served as a last-resort option for remote connectivity now stands as a viable contender in broadband expansion strategies—especially in regions like rural Colorado, where terrain, climate, and low population density complicate traditional infrastructure deployment.

From Legacy Systems to Modern Networks

Early satellite internet technology was hampered by high latency, low bandwidth, and restrictive data caps. Today, modern systems—particularly those using Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites—have changed that calculus. These newer networks slash latency and boost speeds, giving residents in underserved areas a feasible alternative to fiber or DSL.

Key Market Players in Satellite Broadband

• Starlink (SpaceX): Utilizing a growing constellation of LEO satellites, Starlink offers broadband-level performance with reduced latency, appealing to both individual users and government connectivity programs.
• HughesNet: Operating in Geostationary Orbit (GEO), HughesNet boasts wide coverage but suffers from higher latency and limited speed tiers.
• Viasat: Also GEO-based, Viasat blends military and commercial markets with various pricing models and expanding capacity through its Viasat-3 constellation.
• Emerging players: Systems like OneWeb and Amazon’s Project Kuiper are still scaling, but are expected to intensify competition in coming years.

Meeting Colorado’s Geographical Challenges

Colorado’s typography presents a broadband paradox. While cities along the Front Range enjoy gigabit access, remote towns tucked inside the Rocky Mountains often rely on dial-up or remain offline entirely. Satellite internet bypasses the need for buried fiber or pole-mounted cable—a distinct advantage in regions with rugged elevation changes, high snow accumulation, or National Forest land restrictions.

Speed of deployment also tips the scales. Whereas trenching fiber through mountainous ground can take years, satellite coverage can be activated across wide expanses within weeks through consumer antenna kits and ground terminals.

Benefits and Limitations in Rural Settings

For sparsely populated areas, satellite internet does what terrestrial carriers can't:

• Delivers service without the need for costly infrastructure projects.
• Expands coverage to off-grid locations, seasonal cabins, and agricultural operations.
• Achieves connectivity fast, thanks to pre-existing orbital infrastructure and portable equipment.

But the model isn't devoid of trade-offs. Latency remains higher on GEO systems, which affects real-time applications like gaming or high-frequency trading. Unlike fiber or fixed wireless, satellite bandwidth has caps due to spectrum congestion. And while LEO services like Starlink have lower latency, consistency—especially during adverse weather—varies by region and satellite density overhead.

Colorado’s topography favors satellite in coverage potential, but not all providers deliver equivalent performance, and not every system suits the specific needs of dispersed mountain communities. Public funding decisions reflect those subtle but consequential distinctions—which surface in the next section.

Starlink: SpaceX’s Ambitious Internet Program

Low Earth Orbit Satellites with High-Speed Aspirations

SpaceX launched Starlink with a focused mission: deliver broadband internet with high speeds and low latency to underserved and remote regions. Unlike traditional geostationary satellite providers, Starlink operates a growing constellation of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites, positioned approximately 550 kilometers above the planet—over 60 times closer than conventional systems. This proximity reduces latency dramatically; users typically experience delays in the range of 25–50 milliseconds, comparable to terrestrial cable-based internet services.

The Edge: Speed, Latency, and Scale

SpaceX markets Starlink as a transformative solution for rural connectivity challenges. In real-world testing, download speeds range between 50 Mbps to 250 Mbps, with upload speeds between 10 Mbps to 20 Mbps, depending on network congestion and location. Unlike fixed wired infrastructure, Starlink’s satellite constellation isn’t limited by difficult terrain or physical barriers. This gives it an advantage in rapid deployment—particularly attractive in rural communities where laying fiber is cost-prohibitive.

Federal and State-Level Wins

Starlink made a strong impression at the federal level. The FCC initially awarded SpaceX $885 million in subsidies through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) in 2020. By early 2022, the service had already connected households in isolated parts of states like Alaska, Montana, and West Virginia. Although the FCC later rescinded those funds in 2022 due to concerns about long-term viability and speeds, Starlink retained support from several state-level programs that viewed its zero trenching requirement and fast rollouts as decisive factors.

Cost Considerations for Consumers

The financial model for Starlink differs from traditional ISPs and even other satellite providers. As of May 2024, customers pay a one-time equipment fee of $599 for the user terminal, which includes the satellite dish and router. Subscription costs vary by service tier, but the standard residential plan starts at $120 per month. While these fees remain higher than DSL or fiber in urban areas, they are often lower than the total cost of alternative satellite offerings, especially when factoring in speed and latency.

Mounting Barriers in State-Level Funding

Despite technological strengths and a rapidly growing user base, Starlink faces regulatory resistance at the state level. In funding rounds such as Colorado’s 2023 Advance Colorado Broadband grant cycle, Starlink’s application was denied. The reasons cited included a lack of proven long-term sustainability, limitations in capacity management, and a service model still in beta. Critics also point to limited transparency around satellite coverage density and operational resilience in high-demand zones.

Have regulators underestimated Starlink’s evolving infrastructure? Or is the company’s aggressive rollout strategy being met with justifiable skepticism? Either way, in states like Colorado, the ambitious vision SpaceX carries for global internet service continues to face stiff political and economic headwinds.

Why Colorado Rejected Funding for Starlink

A Regulatory Decision Grounded in Performance and Policy

The Colorado Broadband Office, operating under the Office of Information Technology (OIT), denied Starlink’s request for broadband funding during the latest round of state grants. This wasn’t a hasty move. The Broadband Deployment Board (BDB), responsible for evaluating application eligibility against strict service and reliability standards, based the decision on multiple technical and logistical deficiencies in Starlink’s proposal.

Speed Commitments That Couldn’t Hold

Consistent delivery of advertised speeds proved to be Starlink’s weak point. According to the Colorado Broadband Deployment Board’s 2023 performance review, several applicants relying on Starlink failed to meet the minimum 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload thresholds across wide service areas. These speed benchmarks are non-negotiable for projects seeking state subsidies through the Advance Colorado Broadband Grant Program.

“We couldn't verify that Starlink would provide reliable speeds across rural zip codes. Their data varied too widely,” said an OIT spokesperson during a public meeting in March 2023. Internal reports cited speed fluctuations caused by network congestion and orbital satellite limitations, particularly in mountainous and remote corners of the state.

Reliability: A Non-Negotiable Criterion

Colorado’s broadband policy prioritizes technological consistency and service uptime. The BDB raised concerns about latency swings and service interruptions seen in Starlink’s beta and public-use reports. While users in Colorado Springs and Western Slope counties have praised Starlink’s coverage, the board highlighted a lack of complete reliability when measured in outage hours and peak-traffic delays.

In contrast to fiber and fixed wireless solutions—which maintain low latency and stable throughput—Starlink’s satellite model remains sensitive to weather and line-of-sight obstructions. These variances undermined its credibility as a trustworthy infrastructure investment.

No Local Stake in the Ground

Another decisive factor came down to community ties. Unlike competing providers, Starlink does not form public-private partnerships at the local level or invest in regional infrastructure such as ground stations, technician hiring, or service hubs. The BDB flagged this as a significant drawback.

• No locally hired installation crews. Competing applicants offered job creation in underserved counties.
• Lack of shared infrastructure. Starlink did not propose anchor institution tie-ins with hospitals or schools.
• Minimal reinvestment. The proposal lacked a state-level ecosystem development plan, a key preference in Colorado’s scoring matrix.

“We’re looking for long-term investments that uplift communities—not just equipment in a box,” said a representative from Lake County’s local government during public testimony in February 2023. Their sentiment echoed across rural leaders on the Western Slope and in the San Luis Valley.

Ultimately, the absence of physical presence and engagement with local stakeholders removed Starlink from contention. In Colorado's broadband strategy, commitment to local economies matters as much as connectivity metrics.

The Chosen Satellite Service: Who Got the Money?

Colorado’s decision-makers directed broadband funding to HughesNet, a long-established satellite internet provider operated by EchoStar Corporation. This move boxed out Starlink—SpaceX’s highly publicized contender—and signaled a clear preference for a traditional satellite business model that's deeply integrated with regulatory frameworks and performance benchmarks.

Profiling HughesNet: Experience Meets Infrastructure

HughesNet delivers internet via geostationary satellites stationed over 22,000 miles from Earth. While that positioning creates higher latency compared to low-Earth orbit competitors like Starlink, Hughes leverages decades of operational experience, consistent global service delivery, and established ground infrastructure.

The company’s Gen5 and upcoming Gen6 services promise download speeds up to 50 Mbps and nationwide coverage. EchoStar’s multibillion-dollar investment in satellite assets—such as Jupiter 3, launched in 2023—demonstrates a commitment to long-term infrastructure expansion that resonated strongly with Colorado officials.

Why Regulators Lined Up Behind HughesNet

• Regulatory Alignment: HughesNet met Colorado's broadband regulatory reporting standards more precisely than other satellite applicants. The company submitted detailed performance metrics, offered transparent compliance timelines, and demonstrated cooperative data sharing with state agencies.
• Service Uniformity: While Starlink’s speed advantage impressed technically, regulators cited variability in service due to satellite congestion and orbital coverage. HughesNet, in contrast, showed consistent speeds across targeted rural zones, prioritizing stable performance over theoretical peak speeds.
• Price and Service Terms: HughesNet presented a tiered pricing structure with predictable monthly costs and fewer conditional variables. Starlink’s upfront hardware fee of $599 plus a monthly fee of $110 pushed many rural households beyond affordability metrics used by the Colorado Broadband Office.

Technology Tradeoffs: Latency vs. Reliability

Latency defines much of the distinction. Starlink’s low-Earth orbit creates latency between 20–40 milliseconds—ideal for gaming or real-time video calls. HughesNet’s latency typically ranges from 500–600 milliseconds, due to the geostationary distance. However, HughesNet offset this disadvantage with a network that runs stably even during peak usage hours, while some Starlink users in Colorado reported congestion-induced performance drops especially in less densely populated areas operating under beta-stage coverage maps.

Infrastructure Commitments and Local Engagement

HughesNet pledged immediate infrastructure coordination with local implementation partners. Its grant application included letters of support from county broadband coordinators, municipal IT departments, and cooperative utilities. Public-private collaboration appeared more developed in HughesNet’s case. The proposal emphasized shovel-ready deployment schedules, defined outreach milestones, and accountability clauses enforced through the Colorado Broadband Deployment Board.

By funding HughesNet, Colorado made a choice based on performance predictability, compliance transparency, and service accessibility—not simply on speed claims or innovation hype. This selection set a precedent for what broadband equity will look like in a regulatory-heavy landscape shaped by clear reporting expectations and budget stewardship.

Shifting Tides in Telecom: What Colorado's Satellite Funding Choice Signals

Regulation, Politics, and Market Dynamics Collide

Colorado's broadband funding decision exposes a growing fault line where regulatory objectives, political alignment, and market competition intersect. By favoring a regional satellite provider over Starlink, the state took a deliberate stance that reshapes the competitive environment. In doing so, it signaled a preference for providers perceived as more responsive to state oversight and aligned with local economic development goals.

This decision illustrates how infrastructure investments are rarely just about technology. Elected officials, public utility commissions, and broadband offices weigh not just speed and latency, but also vendor accountability, network transparency, and the economic externalities of concentrated tech power. Within this equation, Starlink's global footprint and vertically integrated architecture became political liabilities rather than strengths.

Rural Communities Without an On-Ramp

For residents in sparsely populated parts of Colorado who had registered for Starlink service or tracked its rapid deployment elsewhere, the funding denial feels like an unexpected roadblock. Starlink had already shipped kits to some rural zip codes and was marketing download speeds averaging 67 Mbps in Colorado, well above the FCC's minimum benchmark for broadband.

Now, those users must adjust expectations. The selected satellite provider isn't yet servicing those same regions at scale, and local ISPs may not expand quickly enough to fill the gap. The decision unintentionally bifurcates access: users ready to self-install high-speed satellite internet on their own now face a potentially longer wait.

Conflicting Signals with Federal Broadband Equity Goals

Colorado's funding direction diverges in key ways from the ethos behind the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, managed by the NTIA. That federal program prioritizes speed of deployment, cost-efficiency, and the ability to connect unserved areas regardless of the underlying technology. Starlink’s low infrastructure requirements and national availability align with those goals on paper.

By sidelining Starlink, Colorado departed from a tech-agnostic funding model. Whether that strategy results in sustainable, accountable broadband or delays coverage will depend on implementation timelines and competitive responsiveness.

The Power of Local ISP Influence

Colorado’s ISP community has consistently resisted the entry of satellite providers into subsidy-funded markets. State filings from major fiber and fixed wireless operators voiced concerns about "subsidy leakage" to tech firms not anchored in local economies. Their lobbying efforts shaped the criteria used during grant evaluations—and ultimately influenced which service providers were considered credible.

These ISPs argue that community-rooted solutions offer more than connectivity. They hire local, reinvest profits, and build skill-based economies in rural areas. The state awarded grants accordingly, feeding a feedback loop where local providers gain public funds and political capital, reinforcing their market presence.

A Call for Grounded Solutions

The rejection of Starlink isn't just a rebuff of a technology—it mirrors a deeper push for place-based broadband strategies. Satellite internet, while nimble and expansive, doesn't touch economic development in the same way that local deployment crews, customer service teams, and training programs do.

Colorado’s message is clear: broadband isn’t simply about megabits per second. It’s about who gets paid, who does the work, and who stays when the cables are laid.

Federal Influence and the National Digital Divide

National Patterns Reveal a Broader Discrimination Against Starlink

Colorado’s decision to exclude Starlink from broadband funding aligns with a growing trend across several U.S. states. In 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rejected SpaceX’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) application—worth nearly $900 million—on the grounds that Starlink “failed to demonstrate that it could deliver the promised service.” Since then, state broadband offices in states like California, New York, and Louisiana have followed suit, citing similar concerns about reliability, scalability, and cost structures.

This pattern has narrowed the competitive field, potentially sidelining a satellite system that currently serves over 2.5 million users globally, including tens of thousands across rural America. While other providers like HughesNet and Viasat have long-standing terrestrial infrastructure partnerships, Starlink's constellation-based delivery model operates independently—which presents both its biggest innovation advantage and its regulatory challenge.

Federal Entities Signal Concerns Over Emerging Bias

Members of the U.S. Congress and FCC commissioners have begun expressing unease about the exclusion of low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite providers from state funding pools. In a 2023 Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Senator John Thune (R-SD) criticized the FCC’s decision to deny Starlink funding, stating that it “appears inconsistent with our goal of technology neutrality.” Similarly, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr highlighted disparities in state-level broadband scoring systems, which often favor fiber-based providers over LEO systems regardless of real-world performance data.

Behind these statements is a growing call for transparency in how broadband networks are evaluated. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program—part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—mandates neutral treatment of all technologies that meet minimum service thresholds. Yet state-level interpretations of federal broadband guidelines have varied widely. Inconsistent scoring methodologies have left room for subjectivity and, in some cases, open resistance to satellite-based solutions.

Regulatory Shifts Aim to Enforce Equity—Slowly

At the federal level, policy architecture is still catching up with technological innovation. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is currently reassessing how BEAD funds are distributed and is expected to release updated evaluation frameworks to states by late 2024. These frameworks will clarify thresholds for latency, speed, and scalability and may redefine the eligibility criteria for LEO providers like Starlink.

However, systemic issues persist. Mapping inaccuracies in the FCC’s Broadband Map have led to disputed service classifications in rural and tribal areas. In the meantime, underserved communities—many in remote Colorado counties—continue to fall between eligibility gaps. Whether those policy refinements come quickly enough to alter the current landscape remains uncertain. Still, the significance of Colorado’s decision extends far beyond its borders. It reflects a digital divide not just between connected and unconnected regions, but also between regulatory perspectives and technological potential.

Looking Ahead: Will Starlink Rebound in Colorado?

Alternative Paths Beyond Government Grants

While Colorado’s broadband funding favored a different satellite provider, SpaceX has clear options on the table. The company can reintroduce its proposal in future funding rounds, revised to meet specific state criteria. Public filings show that several states allow iterative application processes for broadband grants, and Colorado has indicated openness to future proposals that better align with cost-efficiency and deployment timelines.

Private infrastructure rollout remains another feasible route. SpaceX has already self-funded large segments of its constellation, launching over 6,000 satellites as of May 2024, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists Satellite Database. This capability to scale independently allows Starlink to bypass traditional regulatory gatekeeping and deliver service where viable market conditions exist.

Starlink’s Growing Market Footprint

Despite state-level setbacks, Starlink continues to expand its influence globally. The service now operates in more than 70 countries and served over 2.3 million subscribers as of Q1 2024, per SpaceX internal metrics shared during its Starbase investor day. This user base includes residential customers, offshore platforms, mobile homes, emergency responders, and airlines, showcasing Starlink's adaptability beyond static installations.

In rural American markets, especially in underserved areas that lack fiber infrastructure, Starlink remains a popular choice due to its low-latency satellite network operating in low Earth orbit (LEO). Unlike geostationary providers, LEO systems like Starlink's can achieve under 40 milliseconds latency—better suited for video conferencing, cloud computing, and real-time application usage.

Elon Musk’s Expansive Vision

Musk has not veered from his stated goal: blanket the planet with internet connectivity. In previous interviews and social media statements, he emphasized how connectivity should be treated like electricity or clean water—universal, affordable, and fast. In alignment with this, Starlink aims to extend coverage to aviation, maritime, and mobility sectors, eclipsing conventional broadband limitations tied to fixed infrastructure.

This ambition drives technology enhancements in the network. Starlink’s upcoming mesh architecture seeks to allow satellite-to-satellite laser communication, bypassing ground stations entirely and significantly decreasing latency in intercontinental data exchanges. The V3 Starlink terminals, currently in testing, promise enhanced power efficiency and durability, particularly for harsh mountain and desert climates found across Colorado's diverse geography.

Regulatory Shifts and Potential Compromises

Colorado’s decision may not be the final word. Regulatory positions evolve—often under public pressure or new federal mandates. The Federal Communications Commission is already revisiting guidelines for grant eligibility, potentially opening doors to higher-cost-per-user services in extreme terrain, where fiber proves economically unfeasible. Should benchmarks loosen or funding priorities shift toward performance-based metrics over budget limitations, Starlink could re-enter the conversation.

Questions remain. Will Colorado reconsider if service benchmarks outpace the subsidized provider? Can public-private models emerge that blend state oversight with corporate autonomy? These unanswered challenges will shape not just Starlink’s future in the state, but Colorado’s broadband blueprint for the next decade.

Rewiring the West: How Broadband Decisions Shape Rural Colorado

Colorado’s strategic broadband funding decisions point clearly to one priority: performance-driven connectivity that meets or exceeds public benchmarks. Rather than adopt a blanket approach, state administrators evaluated applications on specific criteria—latency, speed, scalability, and affordability—choosing providers they determined could deliver consistent, high-quality service to underserved communities.

By excluding Starlink from its grant awards, the state aligned with concerns voiced by both federal and state agencies regarding low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite networks' ability to provide the reliable, low-latency broadband service required under program rules. The outcome favored a regional LEO provider with stronger technical documentation, ground infrastructure, and terrestrial partnerships that met more of the eligibility metrics.

This decision shapes more than one grant cycle. It establishes a bar for what future applicants must prove—both in terms of current capability and projected scale. While some will view the rejection of a globally recognized platform like Starlink as economically risky, others interpret it as a assertion of local judgment, prioritizing verifiable service records over brand dominance.

Competition remains the wild card. Starlink’s capacity to iterate quickly, deploy at scale, and now offer global roaming features keeps it firmly in the running for future consideration. And that’s where the statewide impact begins to resemble a national trend: increased rivalry among satellite providers accelerates broadband innovation, drives pricing strategies, and often forces incumbents to improve coverage and reliability in rural areas they might otherwise overlook.

In the end, these funding decisions ripple through the communities they serve. They dictate which students get stable virtual classrooms, which clinics maintain real-time patient monitoring, and whether small businesses can access digital markets. One fund cycle won’t fix America’s digital divide—but selecting technologic solutions with long-term viability brings underserved regions one step closer to parity.