A roadmap for the next broadband wave: what Connected Nation’s BEAD Tracker shows about nearly 4 million homes

What the Tracker released today means in plain terms

Connected Nation’s new BEAD Tracker pulls together the proposals states have filed in the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program and points to almost 4 million locations that could finally get high-speed internet with roughly $20 billion in federal support. That’s a big chunk of the country that has waited for this level of funding.

The Tracker is a snapshot of intent: it lists which providers are seeking money, what type of technology they plan to use, and rough estimates of how much it will cost to serve each location. It does not mean money has been awarded. But for investors and policymakers, it is the first clear map of where federal dollars might actually land and what kinds of projects will need the most attention to succeed.

Who showed up to bid, and how much projects could cost

The big picture in the Tracker is familiar: a mix of national carriers, regional fiber builders, electric co-ops, and local providers are competing for funds. National incumbent carriers and large regional players are visible in many states, while a large number of proposals come from smaller, often locally rooted, providers and cooperatives.

Cost patterns are predictable but wide. The Tracker shows that proposed costs per location run from relatively modest sums in denser rural pockets to very high figures in the most remote places. In practice, that means some builds—typically fiber-to-the-home in clustered communities—look affordable on a per-household basis, while others—like builds to widely spread homes in mountainous or island areas—can be many times more expensive. Fixed wireless proposals tend to sit at the lower end of that range, often pitched where terrain or cost makes fiber hard to justify.

Notable proposal types include straight fiber-to-the-home plans, hybrid models that use fiber backbones with fixed wireless last-mile access, and public-private approaches led by utilities or joint municipal projects. Several states include proposals that bundle long stretches of fiber backbone with local last-mile projects; others isolate small pockets of high-need homes for targeted wireless solutions.

Where deployment will be easiest, and where it will hurt the most

The Tracker highlights wide regional contrasts. Large, contiguous rural states with existing fiber corridors—places with a mix of small towns and nearby fiber routes—show the most proposals and the lowest estimated costs per location. Those regions are the low-hanging fruit for rapid deployment.

By contrast, island territories, Alaska, and very remote inland pockets stand out as the most expensive and most complicated to serve. Harsh weather, limited road access, and higher freight and labor costs push per-location estimates up in these places. Tribal lands and areas with complex land access rules also show higher costs and longer timelines.

Another wrinkle is density. Some states have many locations that look cheap to connect because homes sit close together along roads and towns. Others have the same number of homes spread across miles. That simple spatial fact is the main driver of the cost differences exposed by the Tracker.

What investors should watch: suppliers, contractors and ISP strategies

For investors, the Tracker is a practical pipeline forecast. Companies that supply fiber cable, optical gear, and switching equipment are obvious beneficiaries. Vendors such as Corning (GLW) and Ciena (CIEN) will see demand if many of the proposals move to construction. Network equipment makers and optical specialists should find a steady stream of orders from both incumbents and new entrants.

Construction and engineering firms that specialize in utility and telecom builds are likely near-term winners. Quanta Services (PWR) and MasTec (MTZ) are examples of publicly traded contractors that typically pick up large parts of the civil work. Those companies will be tested on execution—meeting deadlines, managing crews, and controlling costs in harder-to-reach areas.

On the ISP side, the picture is mixed. Large incumbents such as AT&T (T), Verizon (VZ) and Charter (CHTR) can use grant money to fill gaps and expand footprint, but they face political and operational trade-offs: public funding tends to come with strings on pricing, build targets, and open-access demands. Smaller regional fiber builders and electric co-ops may be the nimblest—able to win smaller awards and move quickly—but they sometimes lack the capital to scale without partner funding or contracts with larger firms.

Supply chain risk remains real. Many proposed projects assume steady availability of fiber, electronics and skilled installers. Delays or price swings in those inputs will squeeze margins and could push some proposals to the point where states re-evaluate bids. For investors, that means vendors and contractors with strong balance sheets and flexible supply chains look safer than smaller firms that might struggle with the logistics.

Finally, municipal and cooperative models could reshape local markets. Where utilities or co-ops win awards and build open-access networks, incumbent ISPs could face new competition and longer-term pressure on residential pricing and margins.

What comes next and the risks that can still change the picture

The Tracker is an early-stage document in a long process. States still need to vet proposals, resolve overlaps, and finalize plans before sending award recommendations to the federal agency overseeing BEAD. That process involves legal reviews, public comment periods, and often direct negotiations with bidders about scope and price.

Key near-term milestones to watch are state approvals, potential challenges or protests to award decisions, and the federal sign-off that unlocks money and timelines. Procurement rules and state-level constraints—such as local permitting and pole-attachment timelines—can stretch months into years on tougher projects.

Investors and policymakers should also treat the Tracker’s numbers with caution. They are proposals, not guaranteed contracts. They often include optimistic timelines and cost estimates that assume efficient permitting and stable prices for materials and labor. Duplicative proposals, overlapping claims, or changes in state priorities can shrink or re-route the pipeline the Tracker shows today.

In short: the Tracker gives a first, useful map of where federal broadband funds could be spent. It points to significant work for vendors and contractors and shows where policy attention will be needed most. But the road from proposal to lit home is still long—and the final impact on corporate revenues and local connectivity will depend on approvals, procurement skill, and the real-world costs of building in the hardest places.