This Act establishes a rigorous new vetting process for companies seeking major federal funding to build rural broadband networks through the High-Cost Universal Service Fund.
Erin Houchin
Representative
IN-9
The Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2025 mandates the FCC to establish a rigorous new vetting process for companies seeking major grants from the High-Cost Universal Service Fund. This process requires applicants to prove they possess the necessary technical skills, financial stability, and operational capability through detailed proposals. The FCC will judge these applications based on established standards and the applicant's past performance in government broadband programs. The Act also institutes steep minimum penalties for applicants who default on their commitments early.
FCC Must Vet Broadband Grantees Harder: New Rules Aim to Stop Failed Rural Internet Projects
The Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2025 is basically the federal government saying, “We’re tired of throwing money at failed internet projects.” This bill targets the High-Cost Universal Service Fund (USF), which hands out massive grants to companies promising to bring fast internet to rural areas.
What’s happening now is that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has to create a whole new, much tougher screening process within 180 days for any company seeking these large grants—what the bill calls “covered funding.” If a company wants that money, they can’t just fill out a quick form anymore; they have to submit a detailed proposal proving they have the technical chops, the cash, and the operational know-how to actually build the network they promise. Think of it as a mandatory, high-stakes job interview before the check is cut.
Putting the 'Service' Back in Universal Service
For rural folks waiting on broadband, this is a big deal. We’ve all heard the stories: a company wins millions in a government auction, promises gigabit speeds, and then either delivers a network that barely works or, worse, folds completely. This bill tries to stop that cycle. The FCC must now scrutinize an applicant’s track record, checking if they’ve followed the rules in past government funding programs. This means if a company has a history of promising the moon and delivering dial-up, they should get screened out.
Crucially, the FCC is directed to evaluate applicants against “reasonable, established standards” for their finances and technical ability. While that term “reasonable” leaves some room for interpretation by the FCC—a potential point of concern for smaller, innovative firms—the intent is clear: only serious players with proven capability should get taxpayer dollars. For the family trying to run a business or a student trying to do homework in a remote area, this vetting process increases the odds that when a network is promised, it actually gets built and works reliably.
The Price of Bailing Out
If the new vetting process is the carrot, the new penalty structure is the stick. The bill mandates steep minimum penalties for any company that wins a funding award and then defaults or backs out before they get final authorization to proceed. The minimum fine for a violation is set at a whopping $9,000, and the total forfeiture amount can’t be less than 30 percent of the support they were supposed to receive (unless the FCC makes a special exception).
Why does this matter to the average person? Because these penalties are designed to deter speculative bidding. In the past, some companies might bid low just to win the grant, hoping they can figure out the logistics later, or simply bail if the project looks too hard. By making the cost of walking away so high, the bill ensures that only applicants genuinely committed to the project will participate. This saves the USF—and ultimately, consumers who pay into it—from wasted time and resources, getting reliable broadband to the hardest-to-reach areas faster.