On his personal LinkedIn account, information and communications technology veteran Chris Sharrer posted an article arguing that fiber-optic technology is the most cost-effective long-term option for rural broadband. Sharrer posted the article, titled "Maybe the Maps need work, but don’t kill fiber in BEAD. The results would be far more costly in the long run,” on March 6.
In it, he explains that based on U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick’s recent comments about the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, “BEAD is going to get paused again and the priority for fiber is likely going away. What happens next could have the country back here in 10 years wondering how to fund the next round of technology that hasn’t kept up with what could already be taken care of with ‘Fiber [all the way] to the Home.’”
He further explains that fixed wireless access (FWA) and low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite technologies have a place in delivering broadband to unserved and underserved homes, but fiber clearly is the most-robust and most-cost-effective long-term option. Scharrer points to fiber’s minimum 50-year lifespan as one characteristic that makes it the best choice in terms of total cost of ownership. He also points out fiber’s immense information-carrying capacity, reminding us “the gigabit speeds it can provide today is not even a fraction of 1% of the capacity potential of that glass fiber.”
LEO technology, meanwhile, “is certainly more immediate, but it doesn’t work under trees,” he says. “It needs to see the whole sky to work optimally, and keep in mind that much of our rural areas that are needing BEAD are forested.
“LEO technology is important to the future of this planet, but with too many uncertainties and misconceptions about what it can do, it is about as likely to revolutionize how we communicate today, as the Segway was destined to revolutionize how we get around.”
As for FWA, Scharrer points out that microcells or hotspot devices “need fiber and electricity, or powered copper cabling, or at least electricity,” and the “urban model for high-speed FWA is not practical or sustainable in most rural America. Without existing structures we can attach antennas to, we must consider the costs of additional towers that would be needed to replicate the coverage we can get in major cities.”
You can read Chris Scharrer’s full article on LinkedIn here.
We will continue to cover developments related to BEAD and its administration.
