Alaska’s BEAD Plan – $113,000 Per Home Sparks Debate

Record-Breaking Costs Under Review

A recent review of Alaska’s tentative BEAD awards revealed total federal support of $777 million, matched with just $49 million in provider contributions, to serve 44,929 locations statewide. That works out to an average of $18,387 per address, with only about 6 percent coming from the private sector.

Some awards stand out for their extraordinary expense:

• GCI:  $43,671 per location
• Nushagak Electric & Telephone:  $57,715 per location
• Quintillion Subsea:  $113,578 per location
• Statewide Average:  $18,387 per location

By contrast, SpaceX’s Starlink proposed connecting more than 14,000 locations at roughly $1,500 each, underscoring the growing tension between fiber deployment and newer low-Earth-orbit satellite solutions.

These cost estimates were compiled by broadband analyst Wes Robinson of Eastex Telephone Cooperative and later verified by Broadband Breakfast and Wireless Estimator.

Why Alaska Is So Expensive — and Why That’s Not the Whole Story

No one disputes that Alaska presents some of the toughest broadband-deployment conditions in the world. The combination of extreme cold, permafrost, mountain ranges, sea crossings, and short construction seasons makes laying fiber dramatically more expensive than in the Lower 48.

Yet, even when these challenges are factored in, Alaska’s per-location costs remain far above national norms. For comparison, New Mexico’s BEAD proposals peaked near $40,000 per location — less than half Alaska’s highest bids.

Under NTIA’s new “Benefit of the Bargain” (BoB) cost discipline rules, states must justify any project whose cost per passing significantly exceeds the national benchmark. That review process could force revisions to Alaska’s proposal before the NTIA grants final approval.

Fiber vs. Satellite: The Policy Crossroads

BEAD was designed to be technology-neutral, allowing states to choose any mix of fiber, fixed wireless, or satellite that meets the program’s performance standards. But Alaska’s plan, like many others, leans heavily on fiber — even for communities where logistics make it a herculean challenge.

Advocates of fiber argue it remains the most reliable, future-proof technology, capable of supporting 10 Gbps service decades into the future. Critics counter that satellite networks like Starlink or OneWeb, or even regional fixed-wireless networks, could reach the same communities faster and at a fraction of the cost.

The choice has real fiscal implications. With more than $1 billion in BEAD funds available to Alaska, each over-budget project could crowd out thousands of unserved homes elsewhere in the state.

What Happens Next

The Alaska Broadband Office (ABO) has completed its public-comment period and is finalizing its proposal for the NTIA’s approval review later this year. NTIA could require cost adjustments or re-bids to ensure compliance with federal affordability standards.

For policymakers and broadband providers, the Alaska case is becoming a national test of how far the U.S. should go — literally and financially — to connect every last household.

Should the government fund six-figure fiber runs to single homes off the Arctic coast? Or should it adopt a “move people to broadband” approach that prioritizes lower-cost, faster-to-deploy technologies?

Either way, Alaska’s BEAD plan underscores the delicate balance between connectivity, cost, and common sense — a tension that every state must navigate as BEAD implementation accelerates nationwide.