The Map Says Served. The Household Says Not Yet.

Executive Summary

As the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program moves from planning into implementation, a new study from researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara and the University of Southern California offers an important reminder: broadband infrastructure alone does not guarantee digital opportunity.

Using address-level data collected from more than 60,000 locations across California, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Virginia, the researchers found that many BEAD-eligible areas continue to face significant affordability barriers even where broadband service is technically available. Across the states studied, between 65% and 86% of representative broadband plan prices exceeded a commonly used affordability benchmark of 2% of monthly income for low-income households.1

For Michigan, the findings are especially relevant. While the state demonstrated fewer speed deficiencies than some of its peers, affordability remained a significant challenge. The implication is clear: the next chapter of broadband policy must move beyond coverage maps and begin measuring whether residents can actually sustain connectivity over time.1

Looking Beyond the Broadband Map

For years, broadband policy has centered on a straightforward question:

Does service exist at a location?

That question matters. It determines funding eligibility, investment priorities, and deployment plans. It is the foundation of programs like BEAD.

Yet a broadband map only tells part of the story.

A household experiences broadband differently than a map does. Families experience monthly bills, enrollment requirements, equipment costs, reliability concerns, and difficult decisions about how to allocate limited household resources. A location may appear served while remaining functionally disconnected from the educational, economic, healthcare, and civic opportunities enabled by broadband.

The new research paper, Assessing the Broadband Service Gaps and Affordability Barriers in BEAD-Eligible Areas, highlights this distinction.1 The authors demonstrate that high-speed service availability and affordability often do not align. In many communities, broadband may be available but remain financially out of reach for the very households public investments are intended to benefit.1

This observation is particularly important because BEAD represents the largest broadband infrastructure investment in American history, allocating $42.45 billion toward expanding high-speed internet access nationwide.1

The real question is no longer simply whether we are building networks.

The question is whether we are building opportunity.

Measuring What Households Actually See

One of the most valuable contributions of this study is its methodology.

Rather than relying solely on provider-reported broadband availability data, the researchers employed the Broadband-plan Querying Tool (BQT), an automated system that mimics the experience of a consumer shopping for broadband service.1 The tool visits provider websites, enters addresses, and records the plans, prices, and speeds actually offered at those locations.1

This approach provides a more grounded view of local broadband markets and allows researchers to compare advertised offerings against service and affordability benchmarks.

The results reveal a reality many community leaders already understand intuitively:

Availability does not automatically translate into adoption.

The study identified two common patterns across BEAD-eligible areas:

  • Inadequate speeds at prices households can afford.
  • Adequate speeds at prices households cannot afford.

The authors’ subsequent policy analysis concludes that market incentives alone are often insufficient to deliver both reliable service and affordable pricing in many BEAD-eligible communities.2

What the Findings Mean for Michigan

The Michigan findings offer an instructive lesson.

Compared with Oklahoma, Michigan exhibited significantly fewer speed-related deficiencies. However, Michigan was grouped among states where affordability challenges persist despite the availability of relatively robust broadband infrastructure.1

For communities across Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, this distinction is critical.

Historically, broadband advocacy has focused on extending infrastructure into rural and geographically isolated areas. That work remains essential. Distance, terrain, and low population density continue to create deployment challenges throughout many regions.

However, as infrastructure expands, affordability increasingly becomes the limiting factor.

A broadband network that exists but remains unaffordable cannot fully deliver its promised benefits.

Students cannot consistently participate in digital learning opportunities.

Workers cannot fully access remote employment and training opportunities.

Families cannot rely on telehealth services.

Entrepreneurs cannot fully engage in the digital economy.

The connection may pass the home, but opportunity begins when the household subscribes and remains connected.

What This Means for Michigan’s Upper Peninsula

The Upper Peninsula’s broadband challenge has always been about more than infrastructure alone.

The region’s success will depend not only on whether BEAD-funded networks reach homes and businesses, but whether residents can afford to use those networks over the long term. Communities should begin establishing baseline measures today that can track affordability, adoption, digital skills, and community outcomes after deployment.

For regional initiatives such as EUPConnect and emerging community intelligence efforts like the Digital Opportunities Intelligence Network (DOIN), the study highlights the importance of measuring real-world opportunity rather than simply tracking construction milestones.

A completed network is not the finish line.

It is the starting point.

A Community Capacity Perspective

From a Compass perspective, the study reinforces an idea that has emerged repeatedly across digital opportunity initiatives:

Infrastructure is necessary, but infrastructure alone is not sufficient.

Digital opportunity depends on multiple interconnected systems:

  • Affordable connectivity
  • Access to devices
  • Digital skills and literacy
  • Relevant applications and services
  • Trusted local institutions and support networks

These elements work together to transform connectivity into meaningful outcomes.

Without them, broadband remains an underutilized asset rather than a catalyst for community development.

This is why broadband should be viewed not simply as a construction project, but as a community capacity strategy.

The measure of success is not whether a fiber strand exists along a roadway.

The measure of success is whether people can use that infrastructure to improve their lives.

Why Provenance Matters

Another reason this research is important is that it demonstrates the value of evidence-based monitoring.

The researchers combined multiple sources of information, including FCC broadband availability data, demographic information, state BEAD eligibility lists, and direct observations of plans offered at specific addresses.1

This approach aligns closely with one of the central principles of Project Compass and the Digital Opportunities Intelligence Network:

Trust requires provenance.

Communities deserve to understand where information originates, how it was collected, and what assumptions lie behind the conclusions.

As BEAD-funded networks are deployed, communities should continue tracking not only where infrastructure is built, but whether affordability improves, adoption increases, and outcomes become more equitable across regions.

These measurements will ultimately determine whether public investments are creating lasting change.

The Next Digital Divide

The traditional digital divide focused on infrastructure availability.

The next digital divide may focus on sustainable adoption.

The challenge is no longer simply whether broadband reaches a community.

The challenge is whether families and businesses can afford to remain connected and participate fully in an increasingly digital society.

Michigan’s investments through BEAD and related initiatives create a historic opportunity to address both sides of that equation.

Infrastructure will open doors.

Affordability and community capacity will determine how many people are able to walk through them.

Closing Compass Bearing

Broadband maps are useful.

They help us identify where service can be delivered.

But maps do not tell us whether opportunity is being realized.

Only households can tell us that.

As BEAD implementation accelerates across Michigan and the nation, communities should celebrate every mile of new infrastructure and every newly connected location. They should also look beyond construction metrics and ask whether residents are gaining meaningful, sustainable access to education, healthcare, employment, entrepreneurship, and civic participation.

Because in the end, digital opportunity is not defined by whether a network reaches a place.

It is defined by whether people can use that connection to learn, work, create, participate, and thrive.

The map may say served.

The household may still be saying not yet.

Notes

https://broadbandusa.ntia.gov/funding-programs/broadband-equity-access-and-deployment-bead-program.

  1. Koduru, Laasya, Alejandro Alvarado Rojas, Angel Chavez Penate, Siyi Zhou, Francois Bar, Elizabeth Belding, Hernan Galperin, and Arpit Gupta. Assessing the Broadband Service Gaps and Affordability Barriers in BEAD-Eligible Areas. Proceedings of TPRC 53: The 53rd Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy, 2025. Available via SSRN: SSRN Abstract and DOI Landing Page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  2. Galperin, Hernan, François Bar, Arpit Gupta, Elizabeth Belding, and Laasya Koduru. Broadband Affordability and the BEAD Program: Analysis and Policy Recommendations. USC Annenberg Research Network on International Communication, 2026. Available via the Policy Brief and USC Annenberg announcement. ↩