Vladislav Zaimov is a distinguished expert in telecommunications policy with a deep focus on risk management and the expansion of broadband networks in vulnerable areas. With the massive $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program currently underway, Zaimov offers a critical perspective on how shifting data and private investments are fundamentally altering the federal roadmap for connectivity. We explore the recent findings that show a significant reduction in eligible locations, the surprising amount of leftover funding, and what this means for the future of rural internet access.
The latest mapping data suggests that thousands of locations originally slated for funding are actually empty fields or locations already served by private providers. How does such a significant discrepancy happen in a multi-billion dollar federal program?
It is a classic case of the “moving target” problem in large-scale infrastructure projects where the data simply cannot keep up with reality. When we look at the FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric—specifically Version 9—we are seeing a much more refined lens on what actually constitutes a home versus a hay bale. This level of due diligence is grueling, but it is necessary to prevent the embarrassment of funding a vacant lot. We are talking about a massive dataset that underpins the Broadband Data Collection program, and as it gets more granular, the “ghost” locations start to vanish. It is a bit of a cold shower for those who thought the initial maps were gospel, but it ensures fiscal responsibility by not throwing money at non-existent residents.
With estimates showing that as many as 35% of locations awarded to LEO satellite operators might be removed, what does this tell us about the long-term viability of satellite solutions in the BEAD framework?
This shift represents a significant blow to the initial expectations where LEO operators were poised to take a healthy 20% slice of the pie. When you crunch the numbers, we are looking at the removal of approximately 312,000 locations that were once destined for satellite service. If you factor in unlicensed fixed wireless, that number jumps to 374,000, which is a massive chunk of the projected network footprint. From a budgetary standpoint, this is not just a rounding error; it results in a savings of roughly $354 million, or $423 million if we include fixed wireless. It signals that while satellite is a vital safety net, the preference for more permanent, grounded infrastructure is winning out as more accurate data comes to light.
You have mentioned that private ISPs are moving faster than the government’s rollout. How is this “private versus public” race affecting the overall goal of closing the digital divide?
The irony here is thick because the BEAD program has taken so long to get money out the door that the private sector has already started filling the gaps. We are seeing ISPs navigate the red tape of permitting, pole attachments, and rights-of-way faster than the federal bureaucracy can finalize its funding tranches. Because of these delays, many areas that were considered “unserved” in early 2023 now have active fiber connections thanks to private investment. This creates a situation where we have to constantly adjust the maps to protect against wasteful overbuilding, which feels like trying to build a bridge while the river is changing its course. It highlights a certain frustration in the industry: by the time the government is ready to build, the market has often already solved the problem for the most profitable locations.
There is a staggering $20 billion in “non-deployment funds” currently sitting in limbo. What are the risks of having such a large sum of money without clear allocation guidelines?
It is a bit flabbergasting to think that nearly half of the $42.5 billion allocated by Congress is essentially sitting on the sidelines. These non-deployment funds were originally intended for things like digital literacy and device access, but the lack of clear guidance from the NTIA is creating a vacuum of uncertainty. States are essentially holding their breath, waiting to see if they can use that money for broader technological upgrades or if it will just sit there while the digital divide persists in other ways. The pressure is mounting for leadership to release the long-overdue guidance because every month that money sits idle is a month of lost opportunity for community empowerment. It is a high-stakes waiting game that leaves state broadband offices in a very awkward position during their preliminary phases.
The decision to award zero BEAD funds to the District of Columbia was quite a bold move. What does this specific case reveal about the NTIA’s commitment to its guidelines?
The situation in D.C. was a masterclass in sticking to the data, regardless of how it looks from a political perspective. By determining that the District did not have a single location meeting the “unserved” criteria, the NTIA essentially said that they will not spend a penny just for the sake of spending it. This move was supported by industry leaders who noted that while mapping is dynamic and complex, it is improving with each iteration. It sends a clear signal to other states that if your data shows you are already served, you are not getting a handout. It is a rigorous, almost clinical approach to fiscal responsibility that prioritizes actual need over geographic equity.
What is your forecast for the BEAD program’s success over the next few years?
I suspect we are going to see a “great refinement” where the total number of funded locations continues to shrink as private fiber outpaces federal bureaucracy. We will likely see more states follow the lead of those who have already deployed dollars for non-fiber solutions, simply because the permitting and pole access hurdles for fiber are so daunting. The real test will be whether the NTIA can pivot and use that $20 billion in non-deployment funds to address the human side of the digital divide—things like affordability and technical skills. If they do not get that guidance out soon, the program risks being remembered as a well-intentioned initiative that was partially outmoded by the time the first shovel hit the ground. Success will be measured not by how much we spent, but by how many “ghost” locations we avoided and how many actual families finally got a reliable connection.
