New BEAD FEE Act Ties Federal Broadband Cash to Fair Local Permitting Fees

The Broadband Expansion And Deployment Fee Equity and Efficiency Act of 2025, or the BEAD FEE Act, is focused on one thing: making sure that federal money meant to bring high-speed internet to your neighborhood actually goes toward fiber and equipment, not excessive local government fees.

This bill directly targets the local permitting and usage fees charged by cities and counties when broadband providers—who are using federal BEAD Program grant money—try to build or upgrade their networks. Starting now, if a local entity wants to receive or pass along those federal BEAD funds, they can only charge fees that meet a strict set of rules. Think of it as the federal government telling local governments, “If you want our cash, you have to play by our rules.”

The Cost Basis Rule: No More Nickel-and-Diming

The biggest change here is the new rule on fee calculation (Sec. 2). Currently, local governments sometimes charge fees that feel arbitrary or are designed to generate revenue. This bill shuts that down. It mandates that any fee charged for reviewing a construction request or using public land for broadband must be calculated only on the actual, direct costs involved. This means the fee can cover the cost of the city planning staff reviewing the permit application or the cost of fixing a sidewalk damaged during installation—but nothing else. These costs must also be “objectively reasonable.”

For the companies building the infrastructure—the ones getting the BEAD grants—this is a huge win. It means predictable, lower costs, which theoretically translates into faster and cheaper deployment of internet access for consumers, especially in rural areas where the BEAD program is focused. For local governments, however, it means they might lose a revenue stream if they were previously charging more than the “direct cost” to fund other administrative overhead.

Fair Play and Transparency

Beyond cost limits, the bill requires transparency and fairness. Any fee structure must be made public and must be both competitively neutral and technology neutral. This is important because it prevents a city from charging a fiber optic company one price and a wireless provider a different price, or from favoring one major provider over a smaller competitor. Everyone pays the same rate for the same service.

Furthermore, the bill mandates that the fee must be clearly itemized, separating one-time (non-recurring) fees from ongoing (recurring) fees. They also have to distinguish between placing equipment on existing poles versus new construction. This level of detail is designed to remove any ambiguity and prevent providers from being hit with surprise charges, ensuring that the entire process is predictable. If you’re a project manager trying to budget a $10 million buildout, having clear, cost-based fees instead of vague, high charges makes planning much easier.

The Real-World Impact

This legislation tackles a major bottleneck in infrastructure rollout: the local administrative hurdle. We’ve all heard stories about a project being delayed for months over a permit or facing exorbitant fees. By tying federal BEAD funding to these fair fee requirements, the federal government is essentially using its wallet to force administrative efficiency at the local level. The intended result is faster, cheaper broadband deployment for those who need it most. The challenge, however, will be defining what exactly constitutes an “objectively reasonable” and “direct cost”—a term that could lead to plenty of arguments between federal grant administrators and local city attorneys down the line.