- Regulators need to consider the problems each technology - including LEO - wants to solve, said a former FCC official
- BEAD from the get-go wasn't designed with LEO in mind, which could hinder adoption
- Another challenge is figuring out how to subsidize the hefty upfront cost for LEO equipment
When thinking about low earth orbit (LEO) satellite’s role in the broadband landscape, regulators must remember all technologies are merely “means, not ends” to solve the digital divide, said former FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn.
Speaking at a New America event Thursday, Clyburn argued regulators should “clarify what problem we’re solving, not what technology we’re excited about.”
That means determining what the technology’s goal is, she said, whether that’s universal broadband coverage, resiliency for critical infrastructure, competition and affordability in underserved markets, etc. For LEO and other emerging tech, Clyburn thinks there should be a “tiered technology readiness framework,” or a series of steps to ensure deployment can scale, is sustainable and provides consumer protections.
Furthermore, she stressed the need to view new tech adoption “through an equity and public good lens.”
The Trump administration’s move to cancel Digital Equity Act grants could hinder consumer education on what these broadband technologies “actually mean” for them, argued Nicol Turner-Lee, director of Brookings’ Center for Technology Innovation.
“We have these tools that are coming out and I think we’re going to see a lot of consumers that will not be able to make a poignant choice on what actually works for them,” she said.
People may not even be aware that satellites can be used for broadband access, as Turner-Lee noted many people in rural communities have satellite dishes only because they have linear cable.
BEAD wasn’t built for LEO
Even though LEO now makes up a solid mix of Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) awards, there’s still the challenge of incorporating the technology into a program that was designed in its outset as fiber-first, said Vernonburg Group Chief Policy Officer Greg Guice.
As a result, satellite providers that apply for BEAD funds often have to file multiple forms over different processes that just turns into “redundancy in the system,” he explained.
To bolster broadband access, Guice stressed there’s “absolutely a need” to collect data on whether providers are actually delivering the service as promised, as that’s been a problem “across all technologies.”
“Fiber can’t go everywhere, it simply can’t,” he said. “To leave people behind because we can’t get them fiber is to do them a disservice in a digital economy.”
True cost of LEO
Panelists also brought up that the industry still hasn’t figured out the true cost of LEO deployment. That includes the cost of customer premises equipment (CPE), which represents a “very high upfront cost,” noted Jessica Dine, policy analyst at New America’s Open Technology Institute and Wireless Future.
The cost of a standard Starlink kit typically ranges from $300-500, though the company is offering free gear in areas where it has excess capacity – as long as customers commit to a 1-year plan.
It’s not as simple as including LEO in a government subsidy like the Universal Service Fund (USF), as Turner-Lee noted there are various costs baked into the service.
“You’re talking about installation costs, orbital station costs…any type of remediation that needs to happen,” she said. “Those also get placed into the cost of service that people often pick up.”
The USF of course has its fair share of issues, notably its ever-shrinking contribution base as operators now receive less revenue from legacy voice services.
But perhaps USF could be a guide to expand LEO adoption, Guice said. He noted USF’s Lifeline used to have a program called Link Up, which provided a one-time discount for installing phone services.
“Under USF, we compensate the provider to deliver the service to the home at the network interface device, right?” he said. “With LEO, if the install cost is to put this terminal on the side of the house, I think there is at least a comparison that can be drawn for compensation.”