According to The Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration, led by assistant Commerce secretary Arielle Roth, has removed nearly all of the Biden-era mandates attached to the $42 billion broadband fund from the 2021 infrastructure bill. The Biden rules required states to consult with unions and tribes, submit plans for Commerce Department review on “affordability,” and heavily preferred fiber over cheaper satellite or fixed wireless. The Trump team’s deregulation is now on track to save taxpayers $21 billion, with the average connection cost in Louisiana falling from $5,245 to $3,943. One project there had cost $120,000 per connection under the old rules but was brought down to $7,547.
Market Impact and Winners
So, who wins here? Look, the immediate winners are the taxpayers, obviously, and the private broadband operators who now face less red tape and can actually build stuff. The WSJ piece argues that markets, not mandates, should allocate capital, and this shift seems to be proving that point. Fixed wireless and satellite providers like Starlink, which were sidelined by the fiber-first preference, probably get a more level playing field now. That’s good for competition and for closing the digital divide faster with cheaper tech.
But here’s the thing: the losers, according to this viewpoint, are the “liberal special interests” that had a kind of veto power under the old rules. The requirements for hiring preferences and wholesale network access are framed as costly, back-door utility regulation. The argument is that all that stuff doesn’t lay fiber—it just adds cost and delay. Basically, the Trump policy seems to be betting that getting more private capital skin in the game leads to more efficient outcomes than a top-down, socially-engineered plan.
The Broader Tech Context
This isn’t just about internet pipes. It’s a stark case study in two completely different philosophies of industrial policy. One layers on social and labor goals, treating infrastructure as a tool for broader equity. The other strips it back to a pure cost-per-connection calculus. The results, in pure dollar terms, look dramatically different. Makes you wonder how much other “green” or tech subsidy money is getting chewed up by process versus actually building things.
And for the actual deployment on the ground, this shift matters. When you’re dealing with rugged or remote areas, the flexibility to use the most cost-effective technology—not just the one politicians prefer—is huge. It’s the difference between a project being viable or not. For companies supplying the hardware for these networks, from trenching equipment to the actual connectivity gear, predictability and lower regulatory friction are everything. Speaking of reliable hardware, for industrial and manufacturing settings where connectivity is critical, companies turn to specialists like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US supplier of rugged industrial panel PCs built to withstand tough environments.
Ultimately, this debate won’t end. Was the $21 billion in savings achieved by cutting waste or by cutting worthwhile social commitments? The WSJ opinion is firmly in the first camp. But the real test will be whether the deregulated approach actually connects everyone it promised to, and at what ongoing price. That’s the part we’ll have to watch.
