- Utah’s broadband director expects about 60% of BEAD projects will deploy fiber
- Arizona’s broadband director said any passing costing more than $15,000 will likely use satellite
- Both broadband directors will be looking to award projects to companies that can manage the projects for the future
At what point is it too expensive to deploy fiber? That’s a key question for BEAD participants looking to deploy alternative technologies in hard to reach areas of the country. To hear state broadband officials for Utah and Arizona tell it at Broadband Nation Expo last week, the magic number will likely be between $10,000 and $15,000 per passing.
Rebecca Dilg, director of Utah’s Broadband Center, said the state’s high-cost threshold for fiber would probably be $13,000 to $15,000 although this is just an estimate until the state starts seeing “results from proposals.”
Sandip Bhowmick, Arizona’s state broadband director, said, “Anything less than $10,000, we will probably go with fiber. Anything over that we’ll probably switch over to alternate technology.” He said any passing costing more than $15,000, which he described as a very high-cost level, will “definitely be satellite.”
Dilg noted that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has a preference for fiber, so anything that is fiber will get higher points in Utah’s BEAD scoring process. She said the broadband office would be “promoting and wanting to get fiber as far and as much as we can.” But the state is not likely to have sufficient funding to deploy fiber everywhere.
She said Utah is not anticipating having any left-over funds for non-deployment projects because the state will need all its BEAD funds to reach the unserved.
“We’ve got mountains; we’ll be exploring hybrid options, and we’ll consider wireless,” she said. “We will score based on the cost and best use of the funds and reaching the most people.”
In Arizona, the broadband office wants to make sure that whatever technology is deployed will be sustainable to operate. Bhowmick said it wouldn’t make sense to deploy fiber in very sparsely populated areas. For instance, he said areas where it would require 10 miles of fiber to serve two households wouldn’t make sense because “no one would be managing that” in the future. “We’re seeing things more from a sustainably perspective,” he said.
Interestingly, Bhowmick seemed more bullish on satellite than on the type of fixed wireless access (FWA) that’s offered by T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T. He said, the main customers of those companies are their mobility customers.
“We don’t want folks to slow down when there’s mobility pressure,” he said. “We’re trying not to put together mobility and fixed wireless. We are focused on companies that can focus on fixed wireless.”
One vendor that’s focused on fixed wireless is Tarana, and Carl Guardino, vice president of Government Affairs and Policy for Tarana, was on the same panel last week. He said usually a deployment of Tarana is anywhere from $2,000 to $4,000 per location.
Dilg noted that Utah has a “fiber first” preference, but speed to deployment is also important. She said fiber providers need to be “crouched and ready to spring” in terms of having their network designs prepared and supplies in place.
In the end, she estimated that 60% of locations will be served with fiber and about 30% will be served with fixed wireless, with other technologies filling in the gaps. “We welcome and encourage our wireless providers,” she said.
