Red Tape Isn't the Only Reason America Can't Build

The buzziest idea in Democratic politics right now is the 'abundance agenda,' which criticizes liberals for saddling government programs with bureaucratic red tape that delays those programs to the point of never delivering. Few examples seem to illustrate the point better than rural broadband.
As part of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress allocated $42.5 billion in subsidies to a new Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. Its required 14 procedural steps to actually get this funding to internet service providers, or ISPs—companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Charter, and Frontier—along with significant labor, environmental, and domestic-production requirements, seem to fit the pattern of a well-intentioned program that has been stuffed with too many bells and whistles. (One of us, Asad Ramzanali, worked on broadband issues including BEAD in both the House of Representatives and the White House.)
Thus, three and a half years after the law passed, shovels have still not broken ground on any project funded by this program, as the New York Times columnist Ezra Klein recently explained to an incredulous Jon Stewart, who lamented the 'incredibly frustrating, overcomplicated Rube Goldberg machine that keeps people from getting broadband.'
Figuring out how to provide high-speed internet to all Americans has been an important public-policy goal for decades. As the coronavirus pandemic made painfully clear, broadband is crucial to full participation in society. And multiple empirical studies have shown that increased broadband access is correlated with stronger economic growth. Yet more than 7 million homes and businesses still do not have access.
But the current political debate misunderstands the nature of the problem at almost every level. When it comes to broadband, procedural simplicity on its own hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future. The deeper issue is that the United States government has abandoned the full range of policy tools that would actually get the job done. Any effort to achieve 'abundance' must start by recognizing that red tape isn't the only reason America can't seem to build anymore.
The BEAD program does seem overcomplicated. It requires the Federal Communications Commission to complete a national map of where broadband is currently missing, the Commerce Department to distribute funding to states, state-level broadband offices to allocate subgrants to internet service providers, and the ISPs to deploy cables to connect homes to the internet. The numerous intermediate steps—initial planning grants, five-year action plans, map challenges, final plans, and more—sound like the kind of red tape that blocks progress and generates distrust in government.
The solution seems glaringly obvious: simplify the steps. Cut out all the middlemen and empower the FCC to provide money directly to ISPs as efficiently and quickly as possible. Any reasonable person would reach that conclusion.
The first Trump administration had the same thought. In 2020, the FCC rolled out a multibillion-dollar program called the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). To allocate the money, the FCC quickly identified areas that had insufficient service. It then held a reverse auction of small geographic plots, awarding the subsidy to whichever ISP submitted the lowest bid for each plot. There was no notice of funding opportunity. No planning grants. No five-year action plans. No subgranting process. No state broadband offices. And no labor, environmental, small-business, or diversity requirements. ISPs quickly bid a cumulative $9.2 billion to serve high-speed broadband to 5.2 million homes and businesses.
Jerusalem Demsas: Not everyone should have a say
In many ways, RDOF was a neoliberal economist's dream—an efficient allocation of scarce public resources distributed through a competitive process. But removing bureaucratic steps turned out not to result in a better outcome. Without accurate mapping data to understand where need existed, RDOF allowed ISPs to bid on serving such locations as an empty patch of grass, industrial-park storage tanks, and a luxury resort that already had broadband. Without proper due diligence, other providers committed to projects that were not technically or financially feasible.
As a result, the RDOF program still hasn't delivered much broadband to Americans. More than one-third of the bids have already been deemed in default, according to the FCC. In other words, nearly 2 million of the 5.2 million promised locations will never get service under the program, and that number is likely to keep growing. Worse, many of these locations may not get service from BEAD, either, because RDOF was assumed to cover them.
Within that context, Congress's approach to the BEAD program—making sure that broadband maps are accurate; that state governments, who know their residents and needs best, develop thorough plans that will ensure long-lasting service; and that communities have opportunities to provide input—is less baffling. With the benefit of hindsight, the process should have been simpler. But Congress was clearly responding to the failures of RDOF, which meant more checks in the system.
Why is internet service a problem that the government needs to solve, anyway? The answer is that private-sector companies seek to maximize profits, but in many rural areas, building networks is unprofitable. There might not be enough customers to offset the onetime costs of construction or even the ongoing costs of repairs, customer service, and overhead.
To date, the federal government's approach to promote service in unprofitable areas has almost exclusively been to subsidize private companies. The first federal broadband subsidies go back to at least 1995. Since then, the U.S. has put more than $100 billion into broadband expansion, primarily into rural areas, across more than 100 federal programs. Like RDOF, many of these programs have severely underperformed.
This is what happens when government loses the ability, or the will, to undertake more direct interventions in the market and to challenge, not merely subsidize, corporations. A century ago, America faced a problem almost identical to the broadband shortage: rural electrification. Well into the 20th century, life in much of rural America was little changed from the 19th. Without electric appliances—refrigerators, washing machines, even lamps—running a farm was backbreaking, round-the-clock work. By 1935, private providers had electrified more than 80 percent of nonfarm households but only 11 percent of farm households. That year, as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Congress created the Rural Electrification Administration to address this problem.
At first, REA Administrator Morris Cooke hoped to partner with private electricity companies, not unlike our current subsidy-heavy approach for broadband. However, those companies argued that rural electrification would not be financially self-sustaining. Even with government support, they proposed building out to only 351,000 new customers, which would leave millions unconnected.
The New Dealers recognized that subsidies to private firms could only go so far. So they turned to three other strategies. First, when the private sector was unable to serve all Americans, the REA organized communities across the country to develop their own, cooperatively owned electricity-distribution networks, funded by the federal government. The REA encouraged state laws to charter these cooperatives, provided engineering support to build infrastructure, and assisted cooperatives in negotiating for sources of electrical power.
Second, the New Deal created public options. Federal government–owned providers, most famously the Tennessee Valley Authority, were established to generate electricity at affordable rates. These public options functioned as an important 'yardstick,' in Roosevelt's words, to evaluate the performance of the private sector. If the private sector refused to offer electricity at affordable rates, the TVA could step in to sell electricity directly to cooperatives instead.
Third, private-sector electricity providers were classified as public utilities subject to strict regulation. The government couldn't build public plants to generate power across the entire country or successfully organize every community. So it required electric companies to expand services to cover everyone in their existing and adjacent service areas, even households that were unprofitable to serve. These utilities were required to set prices that allowed them to turn reasonable but not excessive profits.
George Packer: How Virginia took on Dominion Energy
The REA was a success. By 1940, a quarter of farm households were electrified, and by 1953, that figure had risen to 90 percent. That same year, retail rural electricity rates approximated rates found in urban areas.
A similar approach could be applied to rural broadband today. Local governments could offer public broadband—as happened in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which has one of the fastest broadband networks in the world, run by the municipally owned electric company, a public option that competes with Xfinity and AT&T. Cooperatives could purchase internet service in the same way as they buy electricity. And public-utility regulations could require broadband providers to cover areas adjacent to their service areas at a reasonable price in exchange for rate regulation.
So why has the federal government focused on subsidizing for-profit ISPs rather than using the mixed approach that worked during the New Deal era?
Consider what happened in Chattanooga. After its municipal model proved successful, ISPs saw a threat and mobilized. They successfully lobbied lawmakers to pass laws restricting public options in broadband. Twenty-five states, including Tennessee, had such laws on the books in 2019, according to a report by BroadbandNow. In Congress, Democrats have repeatedly proposed federal legislation to preempt such state laws, but those proposals have languished. And although some of the state limits on public options have been repealed, 16 states still restrict municipal broadband. Lobbying from ISPs might likewise explain why the FCC has never used its existing legal authority to require ISPs to expand service at mandated affordable prices. (A conservative appeals court foreclosed that option for the FCC only recently.)
The lesson of rural broadband is that some government failures are due not to procedural excess, but to giving up on regulatory tools that might antagonize Big Business. Unfortunately, learning this lesson again may now cost us $42.5 billion. Last week, the Department of Commerce rolled back many procedural hoops of the BEAD program—ostensibly with the same goals as RDOF. It's tempting to think that America can learn how to build again without having to wage difficult battles against powerful corporate interests, simply by eliminating bureaucratic red tape. But if efficient building were really so easy, we'd already be doing it.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

35 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Stablecoin Disruption: Time to Sell Your Visa Stock?

Large retailers are trying to build stablecoins to circumvent Visa. The company has plenty of firepower to defend its position in the payments ecosystem. Investors should not panic and sell their Visa stock today. 10 stocks we like better than Visa › This week, stablecoin legislation was approved by the United States Senate. The bill -- called the GENIUS Act -- still needs to go through the other side of Congress and on to the President's desk, but it is one step closer to bringing stablecoins into the financial system. By regulating the new currencies pegged to the U.S. dollar, issuers of the coin will now need to keep ample reserves to pay back customers and also go through regular audits. Investors are betting that legislation will spur customer adoption, which is a threat to Visa (NYSE: V). If stablecoins are adopted wholesale by consumers, it could mean less payment volume through Visa's network. Less volume means less profit. Does that mean it is time to sell your Visa stock? Not really. Here's why stablecoins are not a large threat to Visa's business model today. This legislation is inspiring companies to investigate making their own stablecoins. According to reports, both Walmart and Amazon -- the two largest retailers in the United States -- are exploring making stablecoins for shoppers. Retailers are incentivized to do this because of the high fees paid to the credit card networks every year, which range from 2% to 3% of every transaction. Visa only collects 0.1% or a little more of every dollar spent, while most goes to the banking partners that issue credit cards and give consumers cash-back rewards. By adopting stablecoins, merchants see an avenue to avoiding the credit card fees that are a huge expense on their operations. Wal-Mart and Amazon alone could save billions of dollars a year that are now going to the financial system. It only needs to see mass adoption of stablecoins for this to happen. Easier said than done, but there are a lot of profits on the line for trying. Defeating Visa and credit card fees is not going to be easy. If it were, the companies would simply stop accepting Visa altogether. But they cannot, because of Visa's immense scale in merchant acceptance and consumer usage that is difficult to replicate. Visa has operations in 200 countries and territories, accepted by 150 million merchants and growing. It also has 4.8 billion total debit and credit cards in circulation. Over $15 trillion in total payments volume is processed by Visa every year. For stablecoins to succeed, they will need to replicate not one but both sides of this network. Shoppers will not use stablecoins for everyday use unless they are accepted everywhere. Merchants will not care about accepting stablecoins if nobody uses them. Call me skeptical that they will reach Visa's scale anytime soon. This is a classic example of a network effect competitive advantage, which reinforces Visa's growing dominance in the industry. Plus, we shouldn't forget about the thing consumers love about credit cards: cash back and reward points. Credit cards are able to offer so many perks to customers because of the 2% to 3% fees charged to merchants. Without them, it is a much worse customer value proposition, another hurdle for stablecoin adoption. No, you should not sell your Visa stock just because iy is dipping on stablecoin news. It is clear that this company has a strong competitive advantage and massive scale that stablecoin issuers are nowhere close to matching. The legislation has not even been approved yet, so there is no reason to panic. That does not mean the stock is necessarily a buy at these prices. Its earnings per share (EPS) grew 10% year over year last quarter, which is right around Visa's long-term growth. As such a large business already, it is not going to produce hypergrowth in the form of earnings, but steady durable growth over time. Today, the stock trades at a premium price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) of 34 even after this stock dip, making the stock expensive. Don't rush out and sell your Visa stock. But don't think the stock is a home run buy just because it slipped 10%, either. Before you buy stock in Visa, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Visa wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $664,089!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $881,731!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 994% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Brett Schafer has positions in Amazon. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Visa, and Walmart. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Stablecoin Disruption: Time to Sell Your Visa Stock? was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio

Politico

42 minutes ago

• Politico

US attack on Iran creates dividing line in final days of New York mayoral race

NEW YORK — New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani condemned the United States' bombing campaign in Iran Saturday, while rival Andrew Cuomo raised red flags about the Middle-Eastern country. The split-screen reactions were the latest indication of the diametrically opposed worldviews of the top contenders heading into Tuesday's Democratic primary, in a race that's featured Israeli politics. 'These actions are the result of a political establishment that would rather spend trillions of dollars on weapons than lift millions out of poverty, launch endless wars while silencing calls for peace, and fearmonger about outsiders while billionaires hollow out our democracy from within,' Mamdani — a staunch critic of Israel — posted on X Saturday, shortly after President Donald Trump gave a national address explaining his decision to join in Israel's attack on Iran. After initially declining to answer a question about Iran outside a Brooklyn church Sunday morning, Cuomo later addressed the subject with reporters in Midtown. 'Iran cannot have nuclear capability. That's number one,' he said. 'It's dangerous, not only for the region, it's dangerous internationally. It's dangerous for the United States.' Despite the animus, they two agreed Trump abused his authority by not seeking the authorization of Congress before approving the bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites. 'Donald Trump ran for President promising to end wars, not start new ones,' Mamdani said in his statement. 'Today's unconstitutional military action represents a new, dark chapter in his endless series of betrayals that now threaten to plunge the world deeper into chaos.' Cuomo told reporters Sunday he supported taking out Iran's nuclear facilities, but not Trump's decision to do so unilaterally. 'I don't support the way he did it. I do believe he should have consulted Congress,' Cuomo said. 'I believe this is more of the same: This is Trump saying I don't have to follow the rules.' The former governor also said New Yorkers should get ready for a retaliation from Iran and said he would be on high alert for an attack at an airport, for example. 'Who do you want in charge in that situation?' he asked, suggesting he would be the best candidate to respond. 'Who's handled situations like hurricane Sandy and COVID and terrorist threats? This is not a job for on-the-job training.' Meanwhile, Mayor Eric Adams said he and his team met with NYPD liaisons posted in Middle Eastern countries, including Israel, to discuss the potential fallout of the bombing. The mayor likened the situation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and said the city was on watch to make sure the conflict did not manifest among the various communities living in the five boroughs with a stake in the fate of the Middle East. 'We will keep New Yorkers updated as we move forward, but at this time there is no one, clear, credible threat,' he said. While voters rank affordability and public safety among their top concerns, the Israel-Hamas war has nevertheless become a flashpoint in the New York City mayoral race. Cuomo readily campaigns against antisemitism, criticizes his opponents who haven't visited Israel and is backed by major Orthodox Jewish leaders. On Sunday, he campaigned in the religious Borough Park section of Brooklyn as GOTV weekend came to a close. A super PAC supporting him has spent millions of dollars going after Mamdani — who would become the city's first Muslim mayor — in ads and mailers, many of which call him antisemitic. Mamdani rejects those claims and says the PAC has engaged in bigotry. Jeff Coltin contributed to this report.

The Hill

an hour ago

• The Hill

Iran's ‘proportionate response' will be set by military, envoy tells UN

Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, condemned the United States' involvement in its conflict with Israel, and said the nation's military would determine its response after President Trump on Saturday ordered the bombing of three of Iran's nuclear sites. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly warned the warmongering US regime to refrain from stumbling into this quagmire, even though Iran reserves its full and legitimate right under international law to defend itself against this blatant US aggression and its Israeli proxy,' he said at the United Nations. 'The timing, nature and the scale of Iran's proportionate response will be decided by its armed forces.' The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on the escalating war on Sunday afternoon. Iran, the U.S. and Israel were among the nations that spoke to the attack during the meeting. Iravani described the action as the U.S. helping Israel carry out its 'vile agenda.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Trump on Saturday for directing U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. 'President Trump and I often say, 'Peace through strength.' First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight, President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength,' Netanyahu said in a video on the social platform X. Iravani said the Israeli president had hijacked 'U.S. foreign policy, dragging the United States into yet another costly, baseless war.' Dorothy Shea, the interim U.S. ambassador to the U.N., spoke ahead of Iravani, and defended Trump's actions. 'Iran has long obfuscated its nuclear weapons program and stonewalled good faith efforts in recent negotiations, Madam President, the time finally came for the United States in the defense of its ally and in the defense of our own citizens and interest, to act decisively,' she said in explaining Saturday's bombing. Shea told the council that Iran, for decades, 'has been responsible for misery and countless deaths across the Middle East. Iran's government and its proxies have also killed numerous Americans, including American service members in Iraq and Afghanistan.' She accused Iranian officials of ramping up 'hostile bluster and rhetoric' over recent weeks.