Broadband Policy Cornerstone: Dedicated Deployment Funding
State-funded infrastructure programs can help close remaining network gaps, support upgrades, and give states flexibility after federal funds expire
This analysis is part of a series exploring policy cornerstones that states can adopt to pursue universal broadband connectivity.
To help every state establish universal high-speed internet access, The Pew Charitable Trusts has identified four cornerstones of a foundational broadband policy framework. Dedicated state deployment funding—along with affordability, and speed and scalability requirements—plays an essential role in reaching this achievable goal.
States began funding broadband deployment well before the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the digitalization of modern life. They have also served as the primary implementers of major federal broadband programs, including the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program and the Capital Projects Fund, navigating complex and shifting federal guidance while working with local communities and internet service providers (ISPs).
Most federal investment is time-limited and subject to changing priorities, and preliminary evidence suggests that 1 million to more than 2 million locations could remain unfunded through BEAD. Even in communities where federal deployment efforts succeed in delivering broadband access, states will continue to face localized challenges related to maintenance, upgrades, emerging service gaps, and evolving broadband needs. To effectively pursue their individual paths towards universal access, states need durable funding mechanisms of their own.
As of 2026, 40 states have statutes authorizing a broadband infrastructure funding program. However, statutory authorization does not guarantee meaningful investment. Only 19 of those 40 states are currently providing state funding for broadband deployment, while the remainder have relied largely on federal funding programs to support deployment efforts. As a result, the structure and scope of funding varies significantly across states, ranging from long-standing funds that receive recurring appropriations to those that receive little if any state money and rely primarily on federal support.
Many states do fund a range of related programs, including middle-mile networks linking local providers to the broader internet, pole replacement funds, and public Wi-Fi programs. They also rely on traditional tools such as tax incentives and bonding authority to provide additional financing for broadband expansion.
But amid the billions of dollars in federal money made available for broadband deployment in recent years, states have remained largely dependent on federal sources for network development. Such reliance creates uncertainty because federal funding may fluctuate over time and limits state independence in directing money to meet local needs.
How dedicated state broadband deployment funding fits within the cornerstones
Broadband deployment funding helps establish last-mile connections to homes and businesses by extending networks into areas where market incentives are weak. The other policy cornerstones help ensure that those investments deliver lasting value: Speed and scalability standards support network performance, while affordability policies help households maintain service over time and assure ISPs a stable subscriber base. Together, the cornerstones help maximize the value of public investment.
Why dedicated state broadband deployment funding matters
Like all essential infrastructure, broadband requires sustained commitment—beyond what any one-time funding program can deliver—to reach and maintain connections for all users. Three factors explain the importance of public funding in closing persistent access gaps:
- High deployment costs. Broadband investment in rural, remote, or difficult-to-serve areas can exceed the amount that providers can recover through subscriber revenue, particularly with technologies like fiber.
- Limited private return. Where projected revenues are low, particularly in rural or low-income areas, ISPs may have little incentive to build, upgrade, or maintain networks without public support.
- Ongoing upgrade and maintenance needs. Broadband networks require upgrades, maintenance, and expansion as technology, consumer demand, and community needs change.
Dedicated state deployment funding helps pick up where private-sector investment leaves off. When states establish eligibility and funding requirements, they are better able to target areas of need and promote goals including infrastructure scalability.
Some states had begun to establish dedicated funding even before the influx of federal investment began in 2021. This trend has continued: In 2025 alone, 26 states allocated a combined $1.3 billion to a range of broadband programs. However, that total is highly concentrated in California ($76.1 million), Maryland ($345.5 million), New Mexico ($164.8 million), and Texas ($491.1 million), which together accounted for approximately 80% of available funds. Most states operate on a smaller scale; for example, appropriations were $22.2 million in Illinois, $11 million in Wisconsin, $5.7 million in Nebraska, and $242,100 in Arizona. This variation underscores why states may enter the post-BEAD period with very different capacities to address future deployment, maintenance, and upgrade needs.
State approaches to broadband deployment funding
States have taken different approaches to establishing vehicles for funding and sustaining broadband development. Some states provide support through ongoing appropriations, dedicated funds, state universal service funds, or more comprehensive funding structures that include broadband among other eligible uses. Other states maintain a fund or broadband deployment program in statute but have provided limited state appropriations or have relied solely on federal funding.
These approaches illustrate an important distinction for policymakers: While a statute can establish a funding mechanism, state appropriations determine the scope, continuity, and impact of how state broadband funds are put to use.
Ongoing state deployment funds
Several states dedicate resources to broadband deployment through recurring appropriations. Minnesota’s Border-to-Border program, the Virginia Telecommunication Initiative (VATI), and Wisconsin’s Broadband Expansion Grant program are examples of this approach. Although their program funding structures differ, all three maintain statutory mechanisms for directing state resources toward broadband deployment. For example, Minnesota allows appropriations to remain available until they are expended, while Virginia and Wisconsin rely on recurring appropriations and transfers through their respective budget processes.
Since 2014, Minnesota has awarded more than $323 million in broadband grants through the Border-to-Border program, using a combination of state and federal funding, with $50 million in state appropriations in 2025. Virginia has supported VATI since 2017, steadily increasing its commitments over time, and appropriated $50 million during the 2025-26 legislative biennium (with an estimated $20 million for new last-mile broadband deployment projects). Since 2013, Wisconsin has awarded roughly $360 million in state and federal funds through its Broadband Expansion Grant program, including $212 million in state appropriations. The program also receives ongoing funding from the state universal service fund, with a floor of at least $2 million annually; in fiscal year 2025, that appropriation totaled $11 million. These programs illustrate how states can play an active role in broadband deployment even as federal funding remains available.
Other states maintain broadband investment through funding structures that support multiple connectivity needs. Texas’ Broadband Infrastructure Fund represents one example of this model. Backed with $1.5 billion in 2023 and authorized to run through 2035, the fund can support broadband deployment as well as related investments, such as pole replacement projects, 911 service upgrades, and state matching requirements for federal programs.
Similarly, the California Advanced Services Fund, established in 2007 and funded through the state’s universal service framework, supports six funding accounts, including a Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account for middle-mile and last-mile deployment, a broadband Adoption Account for broadband access and digital inclusion grants, and additional accounts focused on public housing, line extensions, and grant writing and technical assistance. For fiscal year 2026-27, the state allocated $136.2 million across these accounts, including more than $58 million for the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account. Both California and Texas demonstrate how states can create flexible funding structures capable of addressing multiple connectivity needs over time.
A primary advantage of maintaining ongoing state deployment funds is continuity. Consistent state funding has enabled an increase in network availability, allows ISPs to plan for steady buildouts, and helps states make ongoing upgrades and address emerging coverage gaps.
Funds with limited or lapsed state investment
Several states maintain statutory authority to administer broadband funds but have provided limited or no state funding in recent years, often because federal programs have temporarily reduced the need for state dollars.
The Broadband Expansion and Accessibility of Mississippi program, for example, has maintained statutory authority to administer broadband funds and contributed administrative funding, but the state has primarily relied on federal funding for last-mile deployment. The Tennessee Broadband Accessibility Grant Program provided a series of scaled investments from 2018 to 2020 but has not received additional funding since then. In Missouri, a broadband grant program remains authorized in statute but has not received funding in recent years and is set to sunset in 2027.
As federal deployment funds are exhausted, states with limited state broadband investment may face decisions about whether to restart, expand, or redesign their funding programs.
The importance of sustaining state investment
With all types of state funding tools, their long-term value depends on whether policymakers continue funding them. Recurring, predictable funding provides states with the capacity to respond to future deployment and upgrade cycles.
This point is particularly relevant as BEAD implementation moves toward construction. Although the $42.45 billion in BEAD funds represent the largest single broadband investment in U.S. history, state leaders have emphasized that significant work will remain after deployment funds are exhausted. Leaders in Colorado, New Mexico, Maine, and Texas anticipate ongoing responsibilities related to network oversight, mapping and data collection, and planning and evaluation. A 2026 analysis by CostQuest Associates, a broadband consulting, data, and technology firm, found that market needs will increasingly shift from upfront construction costs toward long-term operations and maintenance. In September, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration released guidance directing states to use a portion of their remaining $21 billion in unspent BEAD non-deployment funds for an additional deployment round targeting locations still unserved by BEAD. However, any other purposes these funds could serve remain unclear, as additional federal guidance is pending. States that establish and continue funding broadband infrastructure mechanisms will be better positioned to address challenges related to future deployment, maintenance, and network upgrade needs.
Conclusion
Dedicated state infrastructure funding provides states with a mechanism for sustaining broadband progress beyond any single federal program. By establishing funding resources in statute, states can continue addressing deployment gaps, support network upgrades and maintenance, and retain the flexibility to address evolving economic, geographic, and policy needs.
Federal broadband programs can provide significant resources, but funding levels, program requirements, and implementation rules may change over time. State funding, established in statute, provides a more sustainable approach for supporting long-term broadband needs. The question facing states now is not whether broadband investment remains necessary, but how those investments will be supported when current federal programs are exhausted.
In May 2026, the Federal Communications Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding reforms to the Universal Service Program for High-Cost Areas, which has long provided support for broadband deployment in rural communities. Although the outcome of that proceeding remains uncertain, it serves as a reminder that federal broadband programs and funding mechanisms can evolve over time, creating challenges for states and providers that rely on them.
States do not need to wait for future federal action. As state broadband offices transition from deploying federal funds to addressing long-term oversight, maintenance, planning, and expansion needs, dedicated state funding can provide the continuity needed to sustain progress toward universal access. States that establish durable funding mechanisms will be better positioned to respond to change and to continue expanding broadband access in the years ahead.
Colby Humphrey leads research for The Pew Charitable Trusts’ broadband access initiative.
People
