Update Below - New Information

NTIA, the federal office administering the largest single investment to expand Internet access across the nation, appears to once again be changing the BEAD program in ways that would only force states to further reduce investment in rural areas.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who oversees the NTIA office, has already introduced delays to the $42.5 billion Internet access expansion program, creating a year-long slow-down at a time when many states could be already connecting homes.

Now, even as the administration claims to be expediting the process, NTIA seems to have added yet another time-consuming wrinkle: a super secret “Best and Final Offer” round imposed on states after submitting final proposals.

Image

A quick reminder of where we are: states were forced to redo all their work in recent weeks to follow new rules aimed at cutting costs by making the program demonstrably worse for hundreds of thousands of families.

Rather than spend money to help get these families access to comparably affordable fiber networks, states now have to push billions toward low-Earth orbit satellite services which offer them far worse connectivity at much higher prices to each subscriber. And yet, NTIA called this process of reducing investment in rural America the “Benefit of the Bargain” round.

On September 10th, in New Prague, the Minnesota Public Broadband Alliance (MPBA) will be hosting an in-person event with speakers aimed at community leaders and residents working to expand Internet access to unserved and underserved homes.

At the moment, featured speakers include:

• Gigi Sohn (American Association for Public Broadband)
• Christopher Mitchell (Director, Community Broadband Networks, Institute for Local Self-Reliance)
• Bree Maki (Director, Minnesota Office of Broadband Development)

On the docket for conversation and questions includes where cities, providers, nonprofits, and other entities fit into the current landscape with respect to the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Act (BEAD), other funding opportunities, and a host of other topics aimed at expanding access to infrastructure.

The MPBA is a coalition of towns, cities, and counties in Minnesota working to drive smart public investment towards broadband infrastructure.

The in-person event is free, but registration is required. Register here.

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN (Restructuring Policy Notice) addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

Recent Trump administration changes to a massive federal broadband grant program are lowering standards for broadband access, shifting the focus away from affordability and equity, and potentially redirecting billions of dollars away from future-proof fiber networks toward slower, more expensive satellite options that don’t seem likely to fix U.S. broadband woes.

But states, worried about losing an historic round of broadband grants, may be too intimidated to be up front about the potential downside of changes the Trump administration calls “the benefit of the bargain.”  

That’s the early story coming out of states like Tennessee, Colorado, and Texas, where state leaders are being forced to dramatically revamp billions of dollars in Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant planning.

In all three states the changes have introduced new delays and lowered last mile quality control standards. But an early look at the revamped bidding process in all three states shows that billions of dollars are likely being redirected away from locally-owned fiber networks to billionaire-owned low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite broadband options insufficient to the task.

Last week, a California Assemblymember who had sponsored legislation for a broadband affordability law abruptly withdrew the legislation. 

But what really killed the broadband affordability bill in California? Was it opposition to the proposed legislation from within the state or pressure from the Trump administration?

The Bill Was Advancing Until…

Modeled on New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), the California Affordable Home Internet Act was first introduced in January. It aimed to require Internet service providers that operate in the Golden State to offer a $15 per month broadband service plan for income-eligible households.

Image

The proposed legislation was introduced as AB 353 by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner and was initially supported by the California Alliance for Digital Equity (CADE).

Over the intervening months, CADE and proponents of the bill offered resources and recommendations on how the bill could be made more effective than the ABA, hoping to avoid the pitfalls that advocates were seeing with the rollout and implementation of New York’s law.

On June 4, the California bill advanced through the state Assembly and moved on to the state senate by a 52-17 margin.