Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Outside broadband expert tells Genesee County commissioners fiber will attract jobs and expand affordable access
Summary
Gigi Son, a Benton Institute senior fellow, told a county committee that municipally owned fiber networks drive economic development, lower costs and are more future‑proof than satellite or wireless; she said federal BEAD deployment funds currently exclude much of the county, strengthening the case for local action.
Gigi Son, introduced to the Genesee County Community and Economic Development Committee as a Benton Institute senior fellow and public advocate, told commissioners the county should consider building its own fiber network to attract businesses, improve digital equity and support long‑term economic growth. "If you want to bring new people, if you want to revivify the county and the cities in the county like Flint, you really need to have connectivity," Son said during a virtual briefing. "It is absolutely necessary."
Son outlined three primary reasons to invest in municipal fiber: economic development and attraction of businesses and residents; affordable, high‑quality access for residents and institutions; and longer service life and scalability compared with satellites or fixed wireless. She said fiber offers symmetrical upload and download speeds and can be upgraded to higher capacities by adding strands of fiber, while satellite systems have shorter lifespans and can be limited by topography or weather. "Fiber is more expensive up front, but over the long run it's less expensive and better for your residents," Son said.
The presentation also covered federal funding. Son explained that, while the bipartisan infrastructure law created a $42.5 billion broadband deployment program (BEAD) and Michigan received a roughly $1.66 billion allocation, Genesee County is currently mapped as ineligible for BEAD deployment funds. That, she said, reduces available federal subsidy for county deployment and bolsters the argument for a locally led network. She cited local survey data she said showed about 63% of respondents dissatisfied with internet service and roughly 13% lacking access to a network at all.
Commissioners asked about funding alternatives, the Commerce Department’s allowable uses of unspent BEAD resources (including adoption and training), and the tradeoffs between fiber, fixed wireless and satellite. Son said non‑deployment funds may be used for digital adoption programs, but not as direct subsidies to lower subscription costs; she also noted the Affordable Connectivity Program was not renewed by Congress. She offered to provide follow‑up materials and one‑on‑one technical assistance by email.
What happens next: commissioners said staff would share Son’s contact information, review the county’s broadband study materials, and consider whether to pursue feasibility or pilot work for county‑led fiber projects.
