
Broadband programme faces uncertainty under Trump
A massive federal programme meant to expand broadband access to underserved areas across the country is falling behind schedule, state broadband officials and experts say, even as Trump administration actions create further uncertainty about its funding and rules. Now in its third year, the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, known as BEAD, is largely still in the planning phase. In Alpine County, California, the vice chair of the county Board of Supervisors, David Griffith, said he is still waiting to see how BEAD funds will help his area. Out of the county's roughly 1,100 residents, most rely on phone lines to connect to the internet and can't afford high-speed connections. That means instead of renewing their driver's licenses online, for example, many of the county's residents drive 30 miles to the closest department of motor vehicles location, he said. They lack internet speed for telemedicine, banking and tax filing.
'We all want government to work,' Griffith said, 'and unfortunately, the BEAD programme is an example where the need is there and the funding is there, but it's just a very inefficient process.' Congress awarded California $1.8 billion to ensure households get access to high-speed internet as part of the $42.45 billion BEAD programme, created under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. All 50 states have had their initial proposals approved, unlocking a portion — often 20% — of the money the feds will provide.
Delaware, Louisiana and Nevada are the only states to have submitted their final proposals. Some local officials and experts are questioning the efficiency of the programme. Progress is slow in part, they say, because of inadequate federal mapping of where broadband is most needed and a lengthy challenge process to the maps. And some experts worry that states are favoring overly expensive infrastructure.
Federal and state broadband officials are also waiting to see how President Donald Trump's funding freeze may affect the BEAD programme, as well as how federal officials might change an affordability requirement or the type of technologies given preference under the programme. At his confirmation hearing, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who took office Feb. 19, said he supported the goals of BEAD but wanted to make sure it was done 'efficiently and effectively' and sidestepped questions asking him to commit to sending money out to states. Griffith said he's hopeful the money will still flow, noting that most of BEAD's funds will go to rural areas, many of which tend to elect and support Republicans.
Louisiana was the first state to have both its initial and final BEAD proposals approved by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The state plans to deploy more than $1.35 billion in funding through its GUMBO 2.0 programme. States grant the federal money to internet service providers, local governments, nonprofits and other groups to build out the infrastructure. Shortly after the state's plans were approved in January, Louisiana Republican Gov. Jeff Landry sent a letter to the Commerce Department asking for changes within NTIA and the BEAD programme, including a request to streamline the agency's requirements and a commitment to more timely and transparent funding reviews. NTIA declined to answer Stateline's questions about the BEAD programme.
Officials in some states have run into snags with challenges to the Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Map. Through the map challenge process, local governments, internet service providers, nonprofits and other groups can help determine whether a particular location actually has internet service. Griffith, the California county supervisor, said the map was originally 'full of errors' in his area.
'We went through it in Alpine County, and about 7-8% of residences and businesses were left off of the National Broadband Map,' he said. 'Unless you're on the National Broadband Map, that money cannot be used to connect your home or business.' The BEAD programme also has an affordability requirement that mandates state broadband officials include a low-cost service option for low-income households. But industry groups have pushed back, calling the rule 'completely unmoored from the economic realities of deploying and operating networks in the highest cost, hardest-to-reach areas.'
The BEAD programme has 'moved a little slower than it should have,' said Sachin Gupta, the vice president of business and technologies strategies at Centranet, part of the Central Rural Electric Cooperative in Oklahoma. The group serves households living just outside of Oklahoma City. 'There are people who cannot do remote work, or distance learning, or be part of the digital economy or do telehealth and telemedicine,' he said. 'So, there's real-world consequences.' In August, the feds approved Oklahoma's initial BEAD proposal, allowing the state to request access to over $797 million. The goal is to get households connected to the internet as quickly as possible, but there are going to be some challenges, such as mapping, Gupta said.
'This work has gone on for some time,' Gupta said, 'but if you pull this money back, people are just going to be even more distressed than they were before.'
Experts at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a science and technology policy think tank based in Washington, D.C., have argued that the BEAD programme favors overly expensive broadband infrastructure.
Fiber-optic internet, which BEAD gives preference to, is considered faster and more reliable than other methods of connection, but other technologies, such as satellites, could be more cost-effective, according to the group. The money saved from using less costly infrastructure could be put toward affordability efforts instead. 'That may be the best kept secret: The reason people aren't online anymore is not about broadband being unavailable,' said Joe Kane, the director of broadband and spectrum policy at the foundation. 'It's that they can't afford it.' In states like Nevada, where officials are planning to spend about $77,000 per business or residential location to deploy fiber, there's not going to be much money left over for affordability efforts, Kane said. It's even more crucial now that the Affordable Connectivity Program, a pandemic-era discount programme for low-income households, has dissolved.
'I think the most important thing for broadband overall is that we should be trying to take a data-focused approach to what are the real causes of the digital divide, and how is our broadband policy meeting that,' Kane said. 'Because right now, we have a complete mismatch.' But Gupta, who has been involved with Oklahoma's broadband expansion for years, said other types of broadband internet cannot provide the same internet speed as fiber.
'If we deploy technologies that are not scalable, then all we're doing is kicking that can down the road another five years.' As consumer prices rise, internet affordability is a significant concern, said Derrick Owens, the senior vice president of government and industry affairs at WTA — Advocates for Rural Broadband. The group represents small, rural telecommunications providers across the country.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Gulf Today
5 hours ago
- Gulf Today
S.Korea's leader to seek more time for US trade talks
Jihoon Lee and Cynthia Kim, Reuters The new South Korean administration will likely make efforts to buy time for US trade talks, as it studies the negotiations of bigger neighbours Japan and China for leverage, according to sources familiar with the ruling party's thinking. President Lee Jae-myung, who took office hours after winning the June 3 snap presidential election without a usual two-month transition period, said on the eve of the elections that "the most pressing matter is trade negotiations with the United States." The future of South Korea's export-oriented economy will hinge on what kind of deal Lee can strike, with all of his country's key sectors from chips to autos and shipbuilding heavily exposed to global trade. The new president and his liberal Democratic Party government inherit an economy that is expected to grow this year by a grim 0.8%, the weakest since 2020, and will need to unify a country deeply polarised by ousted President Yoon Suk Yeol's botched martial law attempt. South Korea and other countries may face further pressure, as a draft letter seen by Reuters showed the Trump administration wanted countries to provide their best offer on trade negotiations by Wednesday. A trade ministry official declined to confirm if Seoul had received the letter. But the transition of power after a six-month leadership vacuum provides Seoul with an excuse to slow down its negotiations and observe Washington's tariff talks with other countries, lawmakers, officials and trade experts from the Democratic Party said. "The new administration will need to take a fresh look at the overall framework of the negotiations and that will be a buffer to buy time, which the US cannot reject," said a trade expert who took part in brainstorming for Lee's trade strategies. The sources added the administration may not be able to immediately ask Trump for an extension, and Lee's top diplomacy adviser has said he sees such a request being considered only after reviewing the progress. Still, prolonged negotiations by other countries may help to buy Seoul time. "It will be strategically right to take a wait-and-see stance because the situation is changing within the United States and around negotiations of other countries," one lawmaker said. South Korea, a major US ally and one of the first countries to engage with Washington after Japan, agreed in late April to craft a "July package" scrapping levies before the 90-day pause on Trump's reciprocal tariffs is lifted, but progress was disrupted by continued upheavals in South Korea's leadership. Lee has since stressed there is no need to rush into clinching a deal and the deadline of July 8 set between Seoul and Washington should be reconsidered. During his election campaign, Lee did not make specific comments about contentious issues around the trade talks. That "silence" was a strategic move, a party official said. In a statement after his victory, the Korea International Trade Association called for Lee to "respond quickly to the rapidly changing foreign trade order" and use all of the government's diplomatic and trade resources to pursue a practical negotiation strategy. Trump's across-the-board tariffs on trading partners, including 25% duties on South Korea, have been the subject of ongoing litigation, but remain in place. "For different reasons, China and Japan will be references for us, with the former on the possibility of US policy changes and the latter on how to make moves under a similar circumstance," another trade expert said. Heo Yoon, an economics professor at Sogang University, says Lee's best bet to win an extension would be by joining the meeting of the Group of Seven advanced economies. "There is a G7 meeting in Canada in mid-June, where South Korea could be invited to join and use it as a chance to extend the tariff-pause deadline," Heo said, adding an extension could also help Washington, as it would sway Lee towards the US and away from China. Japan, another US ally slapped with 24% tariffs, no longer sees merit in striking a quick deal, unless it is granted an exemption from 25% product-specific duties on its key industry of automobiles, also a major sector for South Korea. China agreed with the US to significantly unwind their tariffs on each other in a 90-day truce signed in mid-May, but Trump last week accused Beijing of violating the agreement and threatened to take tougher actions. When it comes to joint responses to US tariffs, there is a higher possibility with Japan than China, two sources said, citing shared interest in energy purchases and auto tariffs. Lee's party expects there to be some "two-track" transitional period, with current officials continuing negotiations as the new administration formulates its strategies, according to the official. Given its strength in key sectors of US interest, such as shipbuilding and technology, some analysts see South Korea as better positioned than others in the region, as Seoul prepares a separate package of industrial cooperation for bargaining power. "Successful outcomes require offers that support the president's domestic agenda, and this will be comparatively easy for Korea given its importance in politically sensitive industries," said Jay Truesdale, a former US diplomat and CEO of TD International, an advisory firm in Washington, D.C. Kathleen Oh, Morgan Stanley's chief Korea and Taiwan economist, said: "We believe there may be more channels and enough scope for Korea to work out a deal compared to, let's say, its exporting peer Taiwan." South Korea has the scope to decrease its trade surplus with the US via more import purchases, while it can also offer lower tariffs on agricultural products, particularly rice, quoted by Trump as a high tariff example, Oh said. But, for the Lee administration, that is more the reason it does not have to rush, the second trade expert said. "In the worst-case scenario, if tariffs are adjusted after we sign an agreement, that might mean we made unnecessary concessions," the source said, adding "it's not like we don't have any leverage".


Middle East Eye
6 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
From Italy to Japan, most people have negative views of Israel, poll finds
The majority of people across the world have a negative view of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to a Pew poll released on Tuesday. Views on Israel were mostly negative in 20 out of 24 countries surveyed by Pew between January and April 2025. Most people in Arab and Muslim countries have had a negative view of Israel for decades, but the Pew poll showed widespread negative attitudes across Europe and East Asia. It also showed that positive views of Israel are decreasing in Western Europe and among young people. In Italy, 66 percent of people had a negative view of Israel, measured by 'somewhat or very unfavorable' opinions. In Greece, Sweden and Spain, the negative sentiment towards Israel was all above 70 percent. In the Netherlands, the number reached 78 percent. Even in Poland, whose government is traditionally supportive of Israel, public sentiment was 62 percent negative. Likewise, in Hungary, 53 percent of respondents had a negative opinion of Israel. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The Pew poll also showed widespread negative sentiment towards Israel in Indonesia, the largest Muslim-majority country in the world, where 80 percent of respondents viewed Israel either somewhat or very unfavourably. Elsewhere in Asia, the views were negative, including 80 percent of respondents in Japan and 60 percent in South Korea. Increasing dislike across the globe US sentiment towards Israel was also included, referencing a poll Pew published in April. According to that survey, a majority of Americans, 53 percent, have a negative view of Israel. That number was up from 42 percent in March 2022, before the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on southern Israel and Israel's subsequent war on the Gaza Strip. In the US, Democrats are still more likely than Republicans to express a negative opinion of Israel by 69 percent to 37 percent, respectively. But the Pew poll said that the number of Republicans who hold negative opinions on Israel has increased 10 percentage points since 2022. Majority of Americans hold unfavourable view of Israel, Pew poll finds Read More » Young Republicans, those under the age of 50, especially, are now more likely to have an unfavourable view of Israel, with 50 percent polling in that direction. That gap comes as more popular conservative voices, like Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson, have become more open to challenging US military support for Israel and the treatment of Christians inside the occupied Palestine. Pew said that the last time it asked respondents in the UK about their view on Israel, in 2013, 44 percent had an unfavourable view. Today, that number is 61 percent, and that trend has held across the globe. 'In 10 other countries, we last asked this question in 2013. In seven of these countries, the share of adults with a negative view of Israel has increased significantly,' the report said. Views of Israel also differ by age group. 'In some countries, younger people are more likely than older people to have an unfavourable view of Israel. This is particularly the case in the high-income countries surveyed: Australia, Canada, France, Poland and South Korea and the US,' the report said. The US has one of the most significant age gaps. Confidence in Netanyahu was also low across the 24 countries surveyed. In Australia, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey, around three-quarters of adults or more have little or no confidence in Netanyahu.


Gulf Today
6 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Putin is doing to Trump what Trump does to everyone else
John M. Crisp, Tribune News Service Russian President Vladimir Putin did something odd on May 24: He launched 367 drones and missiles against a number of Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv. At least 12 people were killed, including children, and dozens were injured. I'm calling this odd—hold that thought for a moment—but there's nothing unusual about it. The only person who appears to be surprised by another Russian attack on Ukrainian civilians was President Donald Trump, who said, 'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Trump added that Putin is 'needlessly killing a lot of and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.' Trump gets the 'needlessly killing a lot of people' part right. He seems to be discovering what everyone already knows: Putin is a killer. He's not just an indifferent perpetrator of collateral damage in an unjust war, he's a murderer who doesn't hesitate to use violence to eliminate political enemies. This is the man that Trump calls 'a strong leader.' But Trump also seems to recognize the odd part of Putin's attacks on Ukrainian civilians, calling them 'Not necessary, and very bad timing.' Putin is winning the war in Ukraine. His most decisive victory occurred on Nov. 5, 2024, when Trump was elected president. The coalition organized by former President Joe Biden to resist Putin's unprovoked attack on Ukraine was seriously undermined by the election. Trump has not only threatened to cut off American aid to Ukraine and alienated Europeans who support Ukraine, but he has suggested a false, sickening equivalence of blame for this war. Putin is still a long way from his goal, which is complete control of Ukraine and, at least, some of the Baltic states. But the 'peace' plan that would be acceptable to Trump and Putin—Ukraine is a different matter—would provide the pause in the war that would allow Putin to consolidate his gains, reconstitute and rearm his military and plan his much-desired reestablishment of some version of the sphere of influence that the Soviet Union enjoyed. So why, with this tactical victory within reach, would Putin commit war crimes against Ukrainian civilians, risking a reawakening of American resistance to his war on Ukraine or, more likely, strengthening European resolve, in lieu of help from the United States, to preserve the liberal world order established after World War II? Here's my theory: Interactions among nations are often driven by rational motivations that emerge from competing economic interests. Nations tend to fight over resources. Sometimes conflicts develop over rival ideologies, but even they often have economic foundations. But sometimes wars are initiated and prolonged by the personalities and temperaments of national leaders, which helps explain why we fought so long in Vietnam or invaded Iraq, at all. Putin is a cruel criminal. But he's also a bully, a warped alpha male. He knows he's got the upper hand in Ukraine, but it's not enough just to win, he has to humiliate and dominate. To rub his opponents' noses in their defeats. Killing a few civilians without any useful military purpose is a small price for Putin to pay in order to demonstrate his dominance. And nothing gratifies an alpha male more than humiliating another alpha male. Compared to Putin, Trump is an amateur. Still, Trump is in a position to have an appreciation for some of Putin's motivations: Just winning is never enough for Trump, either. Civilization faces two daunting crises, compared with which all others—immigration, the global economy, the commercialization of the presidency—are insignificant. Climate change is a genuine threat to civilization or, at least, to the sort of life that we've grown to enjoy. The other great crisis is the ideological battle between the values that the US cultivated and nurtured after World War II—democracy, freedom of speech, rule of law, tolerance, legitimate elections—and the opposite values largely embraced by our adversaries. That conflict is being played out in Ukraine. Unfortunately, the outcomes of both crises are in considerable doubt.