Michigan is finally inching toward putting its $1.6 billion share of federal Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) funds to work. Nearly five years after the federal bill was passed, the state of Michigan received approval from Washington for it’s final plan in order to access and deploy the funds. Things are moving at the speed of government.   

After years of delays, revised plans from the Michigan High-Speed Internet Office (MIHI) can now move forward. That’s progress. But if Michigan wants this program to succeed, policymakers must stay focused on one simple goal: connecting people to reliable internet quickly and efficiently (rather than using broadband dollars to pursue unrelated policy agendas).  

Part of the delay stems from Michigan’s initial attempt to attach additional policy requirements to broadband funding, even as the National Telecommunications and Information Administration warned against inserting unrelated requirements for internet providers. Earlier proposals emphasized mandates on construction materials, wage rules beyond existing legal requirements, climate reporting provisions, and preferences that risked steering funds away from the unserved rural areas the program was meant to prioritize. These types of requirements can only increase costs, slow deployment, and discourage participation from providers.  

Fortunately, Michigan’s revised BEAD proposal moves in a better direction. The state now emphasizes a technology-neutral approach, allowing fiber, fixed wireless, satellite and hybrid solutions to compete. It also scaled back wage mandates to simple compliance with existing federal law and softened some environmental review provisions. These changes reflect an important reality: broadband policy works best when it focuses on outcomes rather than dictating inputs.  

Michigan should continue down this path. One key lesson comes from ongoing disputes across the country over access to utility poles – an often overlooked but critical factor in broadband expansion. Federal regulators reaffirmed that utilities should not be allowed to shift the costs of fixing their own aging infrastructure onto broadband providers seeking to expand service. When these types of disputes delay deployment or inflate costs, it is consumers, especially those in rural areas, who ultimately pay the price.  

The broader lesson for Michigan is that every unnecessary mandate, regulatory delay, or cost dispute means fewer dollars available to connect homes and more time families spend waiting for reliable service. Meanwhile, the private sector continues to expand access on its own. Nationally, the number of BEAD-eligible locations fell by nearly 60% between 2022 and 2024, with Michigan seeing a 14% reduction. Since then even more households have been connected by private providers acting on their own. Government programs should aim to complement this momentum, not slow it down.  

If Michigan wants BEAD to succeed, it should remain technology neutral, minimize regulatory barriers, prioritize truly unserved areas, and avoid mission creep. The goal should not be complicated: connect people, spend wisely, and get out of the way. 

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.