Eligible Entities Should Press Forward with Broadband Adoption Efforts

On June 6, 2025, the NTIA released its Policy Notice which, among other things, froze funding for non-deployment efforts while the NTIA conducts a further review with plans to “issue updated guidance in the future.” NTIA went on to state that it will not reimburse Eligible Entities (i.e., state and territorial broadband offices) for “new costs associated with previously approved non-deployment activities incurred after the date of this Policy Notice.” This directive on non-deployment funding puts Eligible Entities in a bit of a conundrum, as the Infrastructure Act clearly gives Eligible Entities the discretion to direct BEAD funds towards non-deployment projects, once last-mile connectivity to unserved and underserved locations is addressed.

The evidence of the benefits derived from developing robust broadband adoption programs is clear. Earlier this week Vernonburg Group issued a report that looked at the opportunity state and local governments can create by effectively directing public funds towards increasing not only broadband availability but also adoption in their communities. The report shows that, by leveraging a range of broadband technologies, states can free up funding for comprehensive broadband adoption programs that can directly benefit 21.5 million households.

We also know that by optimizing the right mix of technologies on their states, i.e., end-to-end fiber, hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC), fixed wireless, and low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite, almost all Eligible Entities will have funding available to advance broadband adoption efforts as many of them outlined in the Initial Proposals to NTIA on their anticipated use of BEAD funding. Vernonburg Group regularly updates our Broadband Funding Optimization Tool, which shows the amount of BEAD funding that could remain available for connecting community anchor institutions or broadband adoption programs based on each state’s choice of technologies, as Congress intended. What you can see in our tool, on a state-by-state basis, is how by using the technology (fiber, fixed wireless, or LEO) that is optimal for the unserved or underserved locations, states can have funds available to pursue other broadband objectives in their states—and while complying with the BEAD statute. The tool shows that there is an appropriate role for all of these technologies in bringing high-speed internet connectivity to all.

Our paper and tool are meant to demonstrate that as part of the BEAD program every state and territory can achieve ubiquitous broadband availability while also addressing the multi-faceted broadband adoption barrier. And, by targeting the resources in this way, we can reap real benefits from broadband connectivity.   

By freezing non-deployment funding, the Policy Notice has created a real complication to seizing these obvious opportunities. On the one hand, NTIA is saying Eligible Entities cannot spend BEAD dollars on non-deployment activities until NTIA provides them additional guidance; while on the other hand, the statute explicitly grants Eligible Entities flexibility on whether and how to spend BEAD dollars for non-deployment activities and gives NTIA a role in expanding the list of eligible uses for those dollars. So, what is an Eligible Entity to do?

As NTIA stresses in the Policy Notice: follow the statute. Footnote 2 of the NTIA Policy Notice states “[t]his document does not and is not intended to supersede, modify, or otherwise alter applicable statutory or regulatory requirements. In all cases, statutory and regulatory mandates shall prevail over any inconsistencies contained in this document.”

To unpack potential inconsistencies, we need to look at the text of the statute.

• Under 47 U.S.C 1702(f) “Use of Funds”, Congress stated that “[a]n Eligible Entity may use grant funds received under this section to competitively award subgrants” for five defined uses. Of those five, the most relevant for these purposes is “(5) broadband adoption, including programs to provide internet-capable devices.”

• In section 1721(1), broadband adoption is defined in part to include “digital skills that are necessary for the individual to participate online and on a personal device.”

So, it seems crystal clear that the statute permits use of BEAD funds for programs focused on broadband adoption, including digital skills training, device ownership, and other efforts to address the broadband adoption barrier. As such, before abandoning their non-deployment funding uses, Eligible Entities should consider what they envisioned for broadband adoption in their original BEAD plans, evaluate those needs against the changes in the guidance, and move forward to advance broadband adoption in their communities consistent with the statute.

As Congress rightly noted “broadband is essential to full participation in modern life.”  Vernonburg Group’s research demonstrates Eligible Entities can fund deployments to reach all un- and under-served locations, and have funds leftover. Broadband adoption is the key to achieving the real goal in all of this: promoting economic growth and opportunity as well as better health and education outcomes.

In order to ensure that everyone in their communities can fully reap the benefits of high-speed Internet connectivity, Eligible Entities should not abandon their broadband adoption efforts and instead should use the full arsenal of tools Congress provided them to close the digital divide.