Remaining BEAD Locations Are in Denser, But Still Low-Density, Areas

Areas where BEAD locations are situated average 41% more dense than the older, larger set of eligible locations from the latest FCC data but are still 85% less dense than the typical area for a served location.

Key Takeaways

• The ACLP recently released an analysis of BEAD BOTB data showing that the number of locations eligible for BEAD has decreased notably since the program’s inception.
• Building on those findings, the ACLP utilized eligible location lists in 48 states (necessary data for SC & WV has not been made available) to analyze how the density of areas where eligible locations are situated has changed over time.
• The areas where these locations are situated average 41% more dense than the older, larger set of eligible locations from the latest FCC data but are still 85% less dense than the typical area for a served location.
• This means that some of the costliest-to-serve locations, those in very-low-density areas, have been served or otherwise removed from BEAD eligibility, but remaining areas are still much less dense than typical served areas.

BSL Density

One proxy for estimating how much the cost-to-serve eligible locations might have changed over time is by measuring the BSL density in the areas in which they are located (i.e., distance between locations). In general, it is more expensive to serve low-density areas, where locations are farther apart, than it is to serve areas with locations that are closer together, like in a city or suburb. This generally holds true for most terrestrial networks, which benefit from economies of scale and scope. Density is probably less important for LEO satellite. Indeed, LEO might even benefit from serving less dense areas, allowing it to spread its finite capacity over fewer customers in certain areas.

The FCC’s BDC data provides a hexagonal geographic grid system called H3, which allows for a straightforward calculation of density, by looking the number of BSLs in a given geographic hexagon. At the H3’s “8” resolution (i.e., hexagon size “8”), a given hexagon has an area of about 0.3 square miles. For each size 8 hexagon, we counted the number of BSLs present. Then, we computed an average density across all eligible locations. In other words, we calculated how dense an area each eligible location is in, then took an average across all eligible locations, yielding the average density of areas in which eligible locations are situated.

For this analysis, we utilized three lists of eligible locations:

• FCC Data – Eligible locations identified as those in the December 31, 2024 FCC BDC data where no service was available from a terrestrial (non-satellite) technology with speeds greater than or equal to 100Mbps download and 20Mbps upload, and marked as “low latency.”
• Post Challenge Locations – Aggregated as part of our analysis of state location lists released following the BEAD Challenge Process.
• Benefit of the Bargain Locations – Aggregated as part of our analysis of state location lists as part of the Benefit of the Bargain process.

Results

Nationwide, the density of areas where eligible locations are situated increased by 42% between December 2024 FCC data (the latest available) and the most recent “Benefit of the Bargain” (BOTB) location lists published by the states. In other words, remaining eligible locations are in denser areas, meaning that some of the costliest low-density locations have been removed from eligibility. This can be for a variety of reasons, including new service, enforceable commitments, challenges by ISPs, and updates/corrections to FCC data.

This effect is not consistent across states—instead, the average density of areas where eligible locations are situated has increased in 32 states and decreased in 16. States which saw a smaller percent change likely have seen the characteristics of eligible locations remain similar even as their number has shrunk. On the other hand, states with larger percent change likely have seen a shift in what the typical eligible location looks like as a consequence of less total eligible locations.

In addition, the average density of areas with eligible locations varies widely by state, highlighting the varying market dynamics which will determine which technologies bring service to remaining eligible locations. For example, states like Arizona, Florida, and Rhode Island have their eligible locations in much denser areas than Maine, Nebraska, and Vermont.

A much smaller change was observed between post-challenge and BOTB location lists. In most states, changes in density were minimal. Those states where a large change was observed tended to have few locations, and thus the nationwide average went unchanged between post-challenge and BOTB lists.

While an increase in density was observed, the density of areas with eligible locations is still 85% less dense than the average area with served locations. In other words, while cost-to-serve may have decreased somewhat, these areas are still lower-density compared to the typical broadband serviceable location in the country, and thus likely still more expensive to serve.

Table 1 below shows, by state and nationwide, the average density of BSLs in locations where BEAD eligible locations are situated. For comparison, an average density for served locations as of the latest FCC data is also provided. Table 2 shows the difference in density compared to eligible locations identified in December 31, 2024 FCC data, and to served location density.

Of note, the nationwide “USA” figures do not include South Carolina or West Virginia, as post-challenge locations were not made public for West Virginia, and BOTB locations were not made public for South Carolina.

Table 1: Average BSL Density Among Eligible Locations

State	FCC Served	FCC Eligible	Post Challenge Eligible	BoTB Eligible
USA	317	33	46	46
AK	182	44	34	34
AL	150	23	32	32
AR	159	22	28	29
AZ	462	89	201	201
CA	511	67	71	72
CO	385	28	37	37
CT	219	73	67	63
DE	303	72	72	71
FL	299	69	92	106
GA	172	29	37	38
HI	375	37	30	34
IA	226	17	22	23
ID	263	34	34	32
IL	376	29	34	33
IN	237	28	40	34
KS	264	19	26	20
KY	189	16	34	34
LA	273	41	60	53
MA	294	45	70	64
MD	383	61	105	28
ME	109	14	13	13
MI	280	32	34	34
MN	229	20	22	19
MO	250	22	29	29
MS	135	30	28	28
MT	201	34	32	27
NC	150	23	23	23
ND	197	59	24	28
NE	280	22	25	9
NH	121	16	31	25
NJ	412	75	93	93
NM	327	37	36	36
NV	550	94	92	78
NY	446	22	25	26
OH	286	26	58	59
OK	249	45	25	24
OR	335	26	29	30
PA	471	21	25	25
RI	349	96	191	122
SD	188	21	22	22
TN	165	21	25	24
TX	345	36	46	46
UT	344	39	49	49
VA	228	23	33	33
VT	95	15	17	17
WA	300	38	37	34
WI	238	19	20	19
WY	227	27	25	27

Table 2: Eligible Location Area Density Compared to FCC 2024-12-31 Data

State	Vs. FCC Eligible	Vs. FCC Served
USA	41%	-85%
AK	-23%	-81%
AL	42%	-79%
AR	29%	-82%
AZ	126%	-56%
CA	9%	-86%
CO	34%	-90%
CT	-14%	-71%
DE	-1%	-77%
FL	53%	-65%
GA	29%	-78%
HI	-6%	-91%
IA	34%	-90%
ID	-5%	-88%
IL	16%	-91%
IN	18%	-86%
KS	2%	-92%
KY	112%	-82%
LA	30%	-81%
MA	42%	-78%
MD	-55%	-93%
ME	-9%	-88%
MI	4%	-88%
MN	-5%	-92%
MO	32%	-88%
MS	-5%	-79%
MT	-22%	-87%
NC	1%	-84%
ND	-52%	-86%
NE	-59%	-97%
NH	53%	-79%
NJ	23%	-77%
NM	-3%	-89%
NV	-17%	-86%
NY	19%	-94%
OH	123%	-80%
OK	-45%	-90%
OR	14%	-91%
PA	14%	-95%
RI	26%	-65%
SD	3%	-89%
TN	14%	-86%
TX	25%	-87%
UT	28%	-86%
VA	48%	-85%
VT	10%	-82%
WA	-10%	-89%
WI	1%	-92%
WY	3%	-88%