PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 5, 2025
Streamlining Program Efficiency and Expanding Deployment for BEAD Act or the SPEED for BEAD Act
This bill makes certain changes to the Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, including by expanding the broadband technologies that may qualify for funding and prohibiting states from regulating broadband rates in connection with the program.
(The BEAD Program is administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and provides funding to eligible entities for broadband deployment, connectivity, mapping, and adoption projects. Eligible entities include U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia.)
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Specifically, the bill establishes that projects using any broadband technology (e.g., satellite, fixed wireless, or fiber) may qualify for funding, provided the technology meets specified performance criteria. (Original BEAD rules established a preference for fiber projects.)
The bill also explicitly prohibits eligible entities from regulating, setting, or otherwise mandating pursuant to the BEAD Program (1) rates charged for broadband service, or (2) methodologies used to calculate such rates. The prohibition includes rate regulation carried out in conjunction with the existing requirement that subgrantees offer at least one low-cost broadband service option to certain subscribers.
Further, the bill prohibits the NTIA and eligible entities from establishing or enforcing conditions, preferences, or other requirements related to collective bargaining and labor agreements; climate change; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and other topics. The bill also modifies the purposes for which the funds may be used and the treatment of unused funds.
Finally, the bill replaces the term Equity in the program’s name with Expansion.
People & committees
Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-9] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 2, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1870 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1870 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1870 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1870 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-05 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed SPEED for BEAD Act would change rules for broadband deployment grants, affecting grant applicants, broadband providers, and customers. It would require administrators to accept any technology that meets the program’s performance criteria, prohibit grant conditions on specified labor, environmental, and network practices, and restrict administrators’ authority over customer prices. These are proposed changes in the supplied introduced text, not evidence of enacted law.
This Act may be cited as the Streamlining Program Efficiency and Expanding Deployment for BEAD Act or the SPEED for BEAD Act.
shall treat as satisfying the definition of the term reliable broadband service any broadband service that meets the performance criteria established under subsection (a)(2)(L) without regard to the type of technology by which such service is provided.
Neither the Assistant Secretary nor an eligible entity may establish or enforce, with respect to a process of bidding, a grant, or a subgrant under this section, a condition or other requirement
An eligible entity may not regulate, set, or otherwise mandate pursuant to this section the rates charged for broadband service or the methodologies used to calculate such rates
For the provision concerning eligible community anchor institutions, the bill would define “gigabit-level broadband service” as reliable service offered with download speeds of at least 1,000 megabits per second. The supplied amendment does not reproduce the rest of that eligibility definition.
(a) Eligible community anchor institution Section 60102(a)(1)(E) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (47 U.S.C. 1702(a)(1)(E)) is amended
In this subparagraph, the term gigabit-level broadband service means reliable broadband service offered with download speeds of not less than 1,000 megabits per second.
The bill would replace “Equity” with “Expansion” in the specified references to the program’s name and its subsection heading.
(b) Program name Section 60102 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (47 U.S.C. 1702) is amended— (1) in subsection (a)(2)(J), by striking Equity and inserting Expansion; and (2) in subsection (b)— (A) in the subsection heading, by striking Equity and inserting Expansion; and (B) in paragraph (1), by striking Equity and inserting Expansion.
The bill would require the Assistant Secretary to transfer unused allocations to the Treasury’s general fund under the amended deadline provision. The supplied text does not state the deadline or reproduce the surrounding conditions.
(1) Failure to use full allocation Section 60102(c)(5)(C)(ii) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (47 U.S.C. 1702(c)(5)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking deadline, the Assistant Secretary and all that follows through the end and inserting deadline, the Assistant Secretary shall transfer the unused amounts to the general fund of the Treasury.
The bill would replace paragraphs (5) and (6) of the existing use-of-funds provision with a paragraph covering telecommunications workforce development programs. The text does not reproduce the deleted paragraphs or the other permitted uses.
(2) Use of funds Section 60102(f) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (47 U.S.C. 1702(f)) is amended— (A) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking the semicolon and inserting ; and; and (B) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the following: (5) telecommunications workforce development programs.
When an administrator awards a subgrant—a grant passed on to a project recipient—using an area it has defined, it would have to provide a mechanism for applicants to remove locations they determine would unreasonably increase costs or otherwise need removal. It would also have to provide a mechanism to award a subgrant for any removed location.
(D) if the eligible entity awards a subgrant on the basis of a project area defined by the eligible entity, incorporate a mechanism— (i) for a prospective subgrantee to remove from such project area a location that the prospective subgrantee determines would unreasonably increase costs or is otherwise necessary to remove; and (ii) to award a subgrant for any location removed pursuant to clause (i).
The Assistant Secretary and eligible grant administrators would be barred from imposing or enforcing bidding, grant, or subgrant conditions related to the listed labor matters. These include prevailing wages, project labor agreements, union workforces, collective bargaining, local hiring, union neutrality commitments, labor peace agreements, and workforce composition. The prohibition would cover reporting requirements and bid preferences, including conditions already approved during an application process.
Neither the Assistant Secretary nor an eligible entity may establish or enforce, with respect to a process of bidding, a grant, or a subgrant under this section, a condition or other requirement, including a reporting requirement or bid scoring component or preference, of such process of bidding, grant, or subgrant (without regard to whether such condition or other requirement was approved as part of the initial proposal, or any other portion of the application process, of such eligible entity) that relates to— (A) prevailing wages or compliance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code; (B) project labor agreements; (C) union workforces; (D) collective bargaining; (E) local hiring; (F) commitment to union neutrality; (G) labor peace agreements; (H) workforce composition or reporting of workforce composition;
The same prohibition would also cover conditions related to climate change, regulation of network management practices such as data caps, open access, and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Neither the Assistant Secretary nor an eligible entity may establish or enforce, with respect to a process of bidding, a grant, or a subgrant under this section, a condition or other requirement, including a reporting requirement or bid scoring component or preference
(I) climate change; (J) regulation of network management practices, including data caps; (K) open access;
(M) diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Administrators could not require a letter of credit—a financial guarantee—from a subgrant recipient with commercial experience deploying or operating a broadband network using the same or similar technology, if it meets either size test. It must seek funding below 25 percent of annual revenues or seek to serve fewer than 25 percent of the locations already served. Both tests include entities that control the recipient, are controlled by it, or share common control.
Neither the Assistant Secretary nor an eligible entity may establish or enforce, with respect to a process of bidding, a grant, or a subgrant under this section, a condition or other requirement
(L) a letter of credit from a subgrantee that— (i) has commercially deployed or operated a broadband network using technologies that are the same or similar to the technologies relevant to such process of bidding, grant, or subgrant; and (ii) is seeking— (I) funding in an amount that is less than 25 percent of the annual revenues of the subgrantee, including any entity that controls, is controlled by, or that is under common control with such subgrantee; or (II) to provide service to a number of locations that is less than 25 percent of the total number of locations served by the subgrantee, including any entity that controls, is controlled by, or that is under common control with such subgrantee;
For broadband deployment subgrants, administrators would have to treat service meeting the referenced performance criteria as “reliable broadband service,” regardless of its technology. Meeting those criteria would remain necessary; the bill does not reproduce them.
An eligible entity, in awarding subgrants for the deployment of a broadband network using grant funds received under this section, shall treat as satisfying the definition of the term reliable broadband service any broadband service that meets the performance criteria established under subsection (a)(2)(L) without regard to the type of technology by which such service is provided.
The bill would state that the relevant title does not authorize the Assistant Secretary, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or eligible grant administrators to set broadband prices or the methods used to calculate them. This would cover all customers or any subset, including price caps or freezes, encouraging another entity to regulate prices, and using prices to score applications.
(i) Rule of construction Nothing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or an eligible entity to regulate, set, or otherwise mandate the rates charged for broadband service or the methodologies used to calculate such rates, for consumers generally or for any subset of consumers, including through the capping or freezing of such rates, the encouragement of another entity to regulate such rates, or the use of rates as part of an application scoring process.
The bill would also directly prohibit eligible grant administrators from imposing these price controls under the grant section. This would apply even if a price requirement had been approved before enactment or was used alongside the referenced requirement to offer a low-cost broadband option.
(ii) Prohibition An eligible entity may not regulate, set, or otherwise mandate pursuant to this section the rates charged for broadband service or the methodologies used to calculate such rates, including through the capping or freezing of such rates, the encouragement of another entity to regulate such rates, or the use of rates as part of an application scoring process, without regard to whether the regulation, setting, or mandating— (I) was approved, prior to the date of the enactment of this clause, as part of the initial proposal, or any other portion of the application process, of such entity; or (II) is carried out in conjunction with the requirement to offer a low-cost broadband service option under paragraph (4)(B).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated February 2, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on March 5, 2025. It does not establish what happened after those recorded actions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-02-02T19:47:39Z. 2025-03-05: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2025-03-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-05. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not resolve formal earmark status in absent accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains a conditional exemption from a financial assurance requirement for a defined group of providers. Classification as a targeted benefit is not a judgment about its justification.
The letter-of-credit exemption would benefit subgrant recipients with commercial experience using the same or similar broadband technology whose proposed funding is below 25 percent of annual revenues or whose proposed service locations are below 25 percent of locations already served, counting specified affiliated entities. It would give these qualifying providers relief from a financial guarantee requirement within the broadband grant program.
Neither the Assistant Secretary nor an eligible entity may establish or enforce, with respect to a process of bidding, a grant, or a subgrant under this section, a condition or other requirement
(L) a letter of credit from a subgrantee that— (i) has commercially deployed or operated a broadband network using technologies that are the same or similar to the technologies relevant to such process of bidding, grant, or subgrant; and (ii) is seeking— (I) funding in an amount that is less than 25 percent of the annual revenues of the subgrantee, including any entity that controls, is controlled by, or that is under common control with such subgrantee; or (II) to provide service to a number of locations that is less than 25 percent of the total number of locations served by the subgrantee, including any entity that controls, is controlled by, or that is under common control with such subgrantee;
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Feb 2, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI