16 Dec The BEAD Funding Timeline [Updated for 2025]
The BEAD Funding Timeline [Updated for 2025]
The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program is an ambitious effort to bring reliable internet access to underserved and unserved regions of the United States. With billions of dollars allocated to states, it’s one of the boldest initiatives to date in bridging the digital divide. But ambition alone doesn’t cut it; execution matters. And that’s where timelines become important—especially for a program as vast and complex as BEAD. If you’re trying to navigate the moving parts, it helps to know where each state stands.
The BEAD funding timeline varies across states, each with its own specific process. The structure is similar across the board, but the details vary depending on state processes, politics, and priorities. If you’re working in broadband, or even just trying to make sense of the rollout, the best thing you can do is get a state-by-state perspective.
Here’s a detailed breakdown of the BEAD program timeline across different states.
The BEAD Program Timeline in a Nutshell
Though specifics vary, the BEAD program runs on a phased timeline—a logical sequence that every state follows. Essentially, there are three core stages:
- Prequalification: This is the starting point for states. Here, states open the application window for entities—like ISPs, cooperatives, municipalities, and nonprofits—to prove their participation eligibility. It’s a gatekeeping measure to make sure only capable players get involved.
- Challenge Process: Once prequalified applicants are identified, states initiate a challenge phase. This is where stakeholders (other providers, local authorities, even community groups) have a say in the accuracy of the state’s broadband data. They might contest which areas are classified as underserved or unserved, or whether existing infrastructure has been accurately represented. It’s a messy but necessary part of making sure funds go to the right places.
- Grant Awards: The final phase involves issuing funds to approved subgrantees for actual broadband infrastructure projects. Depending on the state’s rigorous processes, this can happen fairly quickly—or drag on for months.
That’s the pattern: prequalification, challenge, funding. Every state runs on this same broad framework, but timelines are far from identical. Let’s go state by state to get the specifics.
State-by-State BEAD Program Progress and Allocations
Progress is uneven. Some states are moving quickly through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, while others are stalled in earlier stages. BEAD allocates over $42 billion to close the digital divide. But what happens after that money is allocated? It turns out there’s a lot of complexity in getting it deployed.
Most states are in the early stages, even if they’ve cleared the initial challenge of proposal approval. The table below gives a clearer view of how each state is doing.
| State/Territory | Allocation Amount | Unserved Locations | Progress Details |
| Alabama | $1,401,221,901.77 | 331,206 | Initial proposal approved; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Alaska | $1,017,139,672.42 | 88,185 | Initial proposal approved; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Arizona | $993,112,231.37 | 177,325 | Initial proposal approved; ISP selection not started. |
| Arkansas | $1,024,303,993.86 | 215,621 | Challenge process not concluded; Public funding proposal not yet released. |
| California | $1,864,136,508.93 | 306,910 | Initial proposal approved; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Colorado | $826,522,650.41 | 147,484 | ISP selection ongoing; Awaiting public comment release. |
| Connecticut | $144,180,792.71 | 11,693 | Initial proposal approved; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Delaware | $107,748,384.66 | 2,052 | ISP selection incomplete; Challenge process concluded. |
| District of Columbia | $100,694,786.93 | 184 | Funding proposal not yet released; Challenge process concluded. |
| Florida | $1,169,947,392.70 | 272,962 | ISP selection not started; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Georgia | $1,307,214,371.30 | 315,780 | Challenge process concluded; ISP selection not started. |
| Hawaii | $149,484,493.57 | 11,671 | Initial proposal approved; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Idaho | $583,256,249.88 | 85,902 | Initial proposal approved; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Illinois | $1,040,420,751.50 | 239,688 | Initial proposal approved; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Indiana | $868,109,929.79 | 202,021 | Challenge process not concluded; ISP selection not started. |
| Iowa | $415,331,313.00 | 83,509 | Challenge process not concluded; ISP selection not started. |
| Kansas | $451,725,998.15 | 87,489 | Challenge process concluded; ISP selection ongoing. |
| Kentucky | $1,086,172,536.86 | 259,258 | ISP selection not started; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Louisiana | $1,355,554,552.94 | 296,777 | ISP selection finalized; Funding proposal released. |
| Maine | $271,977,723.07 | 42,264 | Challenge process concluded; ISP selection not started. |
| Maryland | $267,738,400.71 | 44,411 | Challenge process not concluded; Public funding proposal not yet released. |
| Massachusetts | $147,422,464.39 | 12,522 | Initial proposal approved; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Michigan | $1,559,362,479.29 | 368,390 | Challenge process concluded; ISP selection in progress. |
| Minnesota | $651,839,368.20 | 135,984 | Initial proposal approved; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Mississippi | $1,203,561,563.05 | 268,365 | ISP selection not started; Public comments expected soon. |
| Missouri | $1,736,302,708.39 | 337,484 | Challenge process not concluded; ISP contracts pending. |
| Montana | $628,973,798.59 | 104,534 | Proposal approved; ISP selection in early stages. |
| Nebraska | $405,281,070.41 | 70,478 | Public funding proposal drafted; ISP selection next step. |
| Nevada | $416,666,229.74 | 51,689 | Challenge process concluded; ISP selection not complete. |
| New Hampshire | $196,560,278.97 | 25,572 | Challenge process concluded; ISP selection not started. |
| New Jersey | $263,689,548.65 | 43,324 | Initial proposal approved; Challenge process not concluded. |
| New Mexico | $675,372,311.86 | 114,997 | Challenge process not concluded; ISP selection progressing slowly. |
| New York | $664,618,251.49 | 149,369 | Public funding proposal released; ISP selection underway. |
| North Carolina | $1,532,999,481.15 | 376,039 | Proposal approved; Challenge process recently concluded. |
| North Dakota | $130,162,815.12 | 7,988 | Challenge process concluded; ISP selection not started. |
| Ohio | $793,688,107.63 | 183,709 | Public funding proposal pending; Challenge process not concluded. |
| Oklahoma | $797,435,691.25 | 150,718 | Challenge process not concluded; ISP selection pending. |
| Oregon | $688,914,932.17 | 122,384 | Challenge process concluded; Public funding proposal not yet released. |
| Pennsylvania | $1,161,778,272.41 | 278,536 | Challenge process concluded; ISP selection ongoing. |
| Rhode Island | $108,718,820.75 | 2,309 | Challenge process approved; Minimal ISP progress. |
| South Carolina | $551,535,983.05 | 119,580 | Challenge process concluded; ISP selection in advanced stages. |
| South Dakota | $207,227,523.92 | 28,397 | Challenge process not concluded; ISP selection not started. |
| Tennessee | $813,319,680.22 | 186,394 | Public proposal review in progress; ISP finalized. |
| Texas | $3,312,616,455.45 | 779,378 | ISP selection in progress; Challenge process concluded. |
| Utah | $317,399,741.54 | 41,535 | Challenge process not concluded; ISP engagement ongoing. |
| Vermont | $228,913,019.08 | 33,646 | Challenge process concluded; Public funding proposal soon. |
| Virginia | $1,481,489,572.87 | 364,156 | Challenge process complete; Public feedback on funding awaited. |
| Washington | $1,227,742,066.30 | 236,535 | ISP selection finalized; Public funding soon released. |
| West Virginia | $1,210,800,969.85 | 271,624 | ISP finalized; Awaiting public comments on proposals. |
| Wisconsin | $1,055,823,573.71 | 253,097 | Proposal approved; ISP contract pending finalization. |
| Wyoming | $347,877,921.27 | 39,215 | ISP selection in progress; Challenge process incomplete. |
Sources: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Internet For All
Why Keeping Up With the BEAD Timeline Matters
You might be thinking: this all sounds incredibly complicated. And, well, it is. The BEAD program’s structure is inherently complex, and part of the reason it’s this way is that digital inequality is complex. Different states have different needs. A one-size-fits-all approach would have been simpler—but probably ineffective.
Keeping track of the BEAD timeline is essential for stakeholders—ISPs, municipalities, or non-profits. Missing a prequalification deadline can mean missing out on millions in funding. Overlooking a challenge phase could mean an area you want to serve is suddenly off-limits because someone else got their foot in the door. And missing grant applications could mean you’re watching from the sidelines while others get a head start.
This timeline isn’t just about dates—it’s about opportunities. Understanding when and where funds become available allows you to be proactive rather than reactive. These details could make or break a project if you’re working in broadband expansion.
What’s Next for the BEAD Program?
The action will ramp up as the BEAD program moves into the grant awarding phase. The focus will shift from planning to implementation, where the real work begins. The infrastructure projects funded by BEAD are about more than just laying fiber or building towers. They connect families, create opportunities, and level the playing field.
Here are a few things to keep an eye on:
- Refined Mapping: States like Arkansas have shown that precise broadband mapping can make a big difference. More states are likely to follow suit, enhancing transparency.
- Challenge Outcomes: The results of the challenge processes—particularly in places like Oklahoma—will significantly affect who gets served first. Stakeholders need to stay engaged.
- Local Partnerships: The BEAD program encourages partnerships—public-private, municipal-ISP, and otherwise. The emphasis on cooperation will likely increase as funding decisions become final, especially in states like Texas, where smaller ISPs can benefit from flexibility around financial requirements.
Conclusion
The BEAD program is ambitious. It involves many overlapping timelines and stakeholders, making it complex. It’s essential. And like any big, ambitious effort, the key to succeeding in it is understanding how it works. The timelines are evolving, but so are the opportunities—and those who stay informed are the ones best positioned to seize them.
If you’re a stakeholder in the broadband industry—whether you’re an ISP, a nonprofit, or part of a municipality—stay connected. Watch for updates. Participate in challenge processes. Apply early if you can. And keep an eye on this guide—we’ll continue updating it as the BEAD funding story unfolds.