HB 18 expands the authorized uses of the Broadband Infrastructure Fund (BIF) to include early warning and emergency notification systems, as well as interoperable emergency radio systems, for use in natural disasters and other emergencies. While the bill is presented as a targeted response to recent tragedies, such as the 2024 Smokehouse Creek fire and the 2025 Central Texas floods, its practical effect is to broaden the scope of a program that was already controversial for its government-driven approach to broadband infrastructure. For lawmakers and stakeholders who supported the creation of the BIF, this bill will likely be viewed as a way to address pressing public safety needs. For those who opposed the BIF’s creation, HB 18 represents an expansion of a program that should not exist in the first place.
From a limited-government perspective, HB 18 grows the scope of state activity by adding new categories of infrastructure eligible for state-funded grants, contracts, and loans. It entrenches the BIF further into Texas’ policy landscape, increasing the likelihood that the fund will be maintained or even expanded in the future. Although the bill does not require a new appropriation in this session, using existing, already-appropriated funds, it still diverts those funds from their original purpose and could prompt future calls for replenishment at taxpayer expense. The legislation does not increase regulatory burdens on individuals or businesses, but it does expand the government’s role in markets where private providers and non-profits, such as Starlink or Texas Disaster Link, already operate and innovate without ongoing state subsidies.
The timing and framing of the bill are also important to consider. HB 18 leverages legitimate public concern following highly visible disasters to justify enlarging a state program rather than exploring market-based solutions or public-private partnerships. By funding these projects through the BIF, the state assumes a role that could instead be filled by competitive service providers, philanthropic organizations, or local initiatives better able to tailor solutions to specific communities. This approach risks creating an ongoing dependency on state funding for services that could be sustainably delivered outside of government.
If one’s policy goal is to limit government involvement in infrastructure markets and to prioritize private-sector or non-profit solutions, then HB 18 moves in the wrong direction. It expands the scope of the BIF, reinforces the fund’s permanence, and sets a precedent for using emotional momentum from disasters to grow state programs. On these grounds, and consistent with prior opposition to the BIF’s creation, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 18. This position maintains philosophical consistency, resists expansion of state programs into market-driven spaces, and pushes for alternative approaches that rely on private innovation and voluntary cooperation rather than expanded state funding authority.
- Individual Liberty: The bill does not impose new restrictions on personal freedoms, create criminal penalties, or mandate individual actions. However, by expanding a state-controlled funding program into new areas it increases the degree to which government is involved in markets that could be served through voluntary exchange and civil society. This may, over time, reduce the scope for purely market-driven solutions in emergency communications, thereby indirectly limiting the range of choices individuals have outside of state-sponsored channels.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill’s approach centralizes responsibility for deploying and funding early warning and emergency radio systems within the state, rather than fostering local initiative, private investment, or community-based solutions. While it may improve coordination and speed of deployment during disasters, it risks disincentivizing private actors, non-profits, and local governments from independently developing or maintaining their own resilient systems.
- Free Enterprise: Expanding the Broadband Infrastructure Fund into emergency communications blurs the line between public safety infrastructure and commercial services that private companies (e.g., Starlink, satellite communication providers) could offer competitively. This can distort the market by directing public dollars to certain projects or vendors, possibly crowding out innovative or more cost-effective private-sector alternatives.
- Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly affect property rights, as it does not include eminent domain authority or new regulatory restrictions on land or communications equipment. That said, the expansion of government funding in the sector may shape market dynamics in ways that influence private investment decisions in infrastructure deployment.
- Limited Government: This is the area of greatest concern. By expanding the scope of an already controversial state program, the bill moves away from the principle of keeping government functions narrowly tailored to essential duties. While emergency communications are arguably within a core public safety role, this bill embeds them within a broadband program designed for market infrastructure, thereby broadening the government’s footprint into additional service areas. For those committed to limiting government’s role, this represents mission creep and a step toward greater state entrenchment in communications markets.
