Broadband is my business. I’ve been helping enterprise customers upgrade their broadband infrastructure for 20 years. Our typical project organizes large groups of buyers, puts their services out to bid, and then sources the most cost-effective solution from the best qualified providers. It maximizes private investment, encourages cooperation among buyers, drives competition among vendors, and puts the consumers in the driver’s seat. Our typical project results in a big service upgrade for the buyers, a more profitable investment for the providers, and better infrastructure for the entire community. If a public organization is involved, we often achieve big taxpayer savings on top of everything else.
Contrast that to the Broadband Infrastructure bill passed by President Biden and Susan Wild. Their program creates a bunch of grant programs around the country that will administer the broadband funds. State and local governments had to hire new people to manage the grant programs, and many of the new hires don’t know anything about the telecom industry. The grants are written to include all kinds of progressive priorities unrelated to broadband, such as environmental factors, labor union requirements, diversity, equity and inclusion plans, and the applications are extraordinarily complicated. Many of the established providers won’t go near them, so the program encourages unproven providers to jockey for the grants. The consumers don’t drive the process. Instead, the providers submit grants that are reviewed by the bureaucrats, who give the money to their chosen providers to build out the services. Often, the new providers with federal money get to compete against established providers who spent their own private capital to build out their own infrastructure. Nobody asks the consumers if they really want the services from the newly selected providers, but it doesn’t matter. The money is spent, and the politicians can claim that they’ve done something to improve broadband access.
This is why we are two years into the broadband infrastructure program and no broadband has been built. And its why even after the grants are delivered, people will be disappointed. Unfortunately, this same grant-based, bureaucrat-driven approach is being used for the CHIPS Act, the cybersecurity funding, and many of the other high-tech initiatives that Susan Wild and Joe Biden tout. Eventually, after tons of overhead and administrative costs, the remaining money goes to companies based on bureaucratic criteria, not to consumers based on market requirements. It’s all corporate welfare, and it’s doomed to failure.
Regarding the $7 billion in additional broadband spending, I won’t support that. Two questions for Susan Wild:
1) Is this really the most important thing that you think the federal government should be spending $7 billion on right now? I choose securing the border, replenishing our military weapons, and fighting fentanyl instead. Or maybe we can just not add to the deficit.
2) If we didn’t solve the broadband problem with the original $65 billion, why does anybody think another $7 billion will do the trick? The truth is, it won’t.
This broadband infrastructure bill is a perfect example of good intentions gone bad by ineffective politicians who know nothing about the industries they are trying to impact. Politicians like Susan Wild are doing more harm than good with this broadband infrastructure bill, and its only a matter of time that people start figuring it out.




