- WISPA hopes the NTIA's upcoming guidance will encourage states to be more welcoming toward fixed wireless access (FWA) BEAD projects
- The fewer WISPs apply for BEAD, the less likely states are to allow any FWA in their high-cost thresholds
- But if a location can't be served with fiber, FBA would prefer licensed FWA
FIBER CONNECT, NASHVILLE — It's not just for fiber, folks. NTIA wants to give fixed wireless access (FWA) companies a bigger seat at the federal broadband funding table.
At the Fiber Connect show in Nashville, NTIA Chief Alan Davidson said the agency plans to release further guidance in the coming weeks on the use of alternate technologies for the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. That guidance, he said, will allow the use of unlicensed spectrum in some cases.
Why is this a big deal? Well, the NTIA has already determined that fixed wireless access broadband, using licensed spectrum, is eligible for BEAD grants in high-cost areas. So, for instance, companies using the Citizen Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) band's General Authorized Access (GAA) tier can already bid, said WISPA Communications Director Mike Wendy.
But the new guidance could potentially open up the program for a lot more FWA providers.
“This new guidance could open up the solution matrix to stuff beyond that – in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, 6 GHz and mmWave areas of the spectrum band,” Wendy told Fierce.
WISPA quickly put out a statement saying it is encouraged by Davidson’s statements.
“WISPA has long held that BEAD’s programmatic exclusion of unlicensed technology was at odds with congressional intent, potentially leaving many behind in the digital divide,” said Louis Peraertz, WISPA VP of Policy. “WISPA believes that BEAD can only succeed if unlicensed technology can be deployed – not only in extremely high-cost per location threshold areas, but elsewhere where it makes sense.”
What we're hearing
People at this week’s Fiber Connect show in Nashville speculated about the effect that NTIA’s guidance might have.
Kevin Sheehan, CTO of the Americas for Ciena, said, “I think it makes sense to open the aperture of access technologies beyond the current fiber definition because some portion of unserved locations will still be difficult to service. If there’s a way to give those people service, why not?” He didn’t see any reason to restrict FWA to licensed spectrum.
Tom Dailey, head of government affairs with Brightspeed, was a bit more reserved. "I guess we're waiting to see what the guidance looks like," he said. "But I would imagine that most states are going to be looking to stay with the fiber-first approach, and then look to see what they need to do to fill in other areas where they aren't able to reach with fiber.”
He added, “At some point, maybe it does make sense to bring fiber to a certain point and then beyond that to look at these wireless opportunities.”
Steve Schwerbel, state advocacy manager at WISPA, told Fierce he hopes the new guidance will encourage states to be “more supportive” of fixed wireless bids. He said that right now, there’s kind of a “double-edged sword” with how states set their extremely high cost per location threshold.
Most states will set that threshold, which determines when they may select a less expensive technology than fiber, based off the grant proposals they receive.
“It means our members have to do all the work of putting together an application without having a very high confidence interval that they’ll be competitive” compared to a fiber application for the same area, said Schwerbel.
And if WISPs don’t apply for BEAD, the high-cost threshold is “almost guaranteed to be too high to allow for any FWA. So, the more strongly the NTIA sends the message that FWA applications should be welcomed, the more incentive states have to make rules that are friendly to FWA, and the more likely our members are to apply,” said Schwerbel.
The Fiber Broadband Association (FBA), of course, would prefer that most BEAD funds be used to deploy fiber to unserved locations. It says fiber is the most future-proof technology.
If a different technology is necessary in high-cost areas, then FBA would prefer licensed FWA.
For locations that can’t get fiber, states should strive to connect them with a “reliable technology, which NTIA has defined as ‘licensed’ wireless service,” said Marissa Mitrovich, VP of public policy at FBA. “Only as a last resort should a state decide to use another technology to ensure all eligible locations get connected,” she said in a statement provided to Fierce.