In the wake of the election, and with potential major changes ahead for the national "Internet For All" effort, many in the broadband world are wondering: where do we go from here?

That's what the next Building For Digital Equity (#B4DE) livestream event seeks to answer, inviting you to wear your ugly sweater, join the free virtual gathering, and dive into what a post-Biden administration broadband world may look like.

Slated for December 16, 2024 from 3 to 4:15 PM ET, the "Reflect, Recharge, Reach Forward" themed livestream promises to offer penetrating insights and practical ideas on the way forward.

Registration is now open here.

Image

Co-hosted by Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR) Community Broadband Networks Initiative and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA), the popular (and free) online event will feature two prominent figures in this space: NDIA Executive Director Angela Siefer and New Street Research Policy Advisor Blair Levin.

Now that the election has been settled, many in the broadband space are wondering what, if anything, will change with the incoming Trump administration.

Of course no one has a crystal ball, but there are a number of telecommunication policy developments we will be tracking, which include numerous fronts where there will likely be changes.

What those changes will be exactly will only become apparent sometime next year.

BEAD and DEA

The BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment) program and Digital Equity Act (DEA) programs are at the center of the universe in the national effort to ensure everyone has high-speed access to the Internet.

Image

However, in the run-up to the election, GOP leaders were highly critical of the BEAD program, saying it was taking too long to dispense funds to build new networks, questioned the NTIA favoring the building of fiber networks, and criticized aspects of the effort they consider to be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Blueprints for BEAD is a series of short notes and analysis on nuances of BEAD that might otherwise get lost in the volume of material published on this federal funding program. Click the “Blueprints for BEAD” tag at the bottom of this story for other posts.

Few people dispute the vital importance of affordability in closing the digital divide. A 2021 Pew Research Center survey found that nearly half of all people without broadband cited cost as a barrier, with 20 percent listing cost as the primary reason for not subscribing to broadband service.

Research from EducationSuperHighway pegged that number even higher, estimating that lack of affordability explained about two thirds of the remaining digital divide in the country.

As the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program steams ahead, questions about affordability have come to the fore. After all, deploying tens of thousands of miles of new fiber is only half the equation. BEAD will help build the physical networks necessary to connect the millions of households that still lack access to high-speed Internet service, but will it make a difference if they still can’t afford a plan? This possibility is all the more likely in light of the Affordability Connectivity Program’s (ACP) untimely demise.

Image

BEAD’s low-cost plan requirement sought to ease such concerns about affordability. To ensure households with limited financial means would actually see the benefits of the program’s massive infrastructure investment, this requirement mandated that all networks built using BEAD funds offer a low-cost plan for eligible subscribers.

On July 24, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 9-7 that the Universal Service Fund is unconstitutional. 

The decision throws a whole raft of federal broadband programs - including those which help schools pay for connectivity, those which help homes pay for home Internet access, and more - into a state of uncertainty. 

All signs point to a stop at the Supreme Court for final ruling on the future of the program. On the most recent episode of the Connect This! Show, hosts Christopher Mitchell (ILSR) and Travis Carter (USI Fiber) were joined by regular guests Doug Dawson (CCG Consulting) and Kim McKinley (UTOPIA Fiber) as well as special guest Casey Lide (Keller and Heckman Law Firm) to talk about the decision. They discuss the impact of the decision in the long-term, including how the USF fits into the jigsaw puzzle of federal broadband funding programs and what we can expect to see if the decision is upheld. 

Watch the segment below.

Email us at [email protected] with feedback and ideas for the show.

Subscribe to the show using this feed or find it on the Connect This! page, and watch on LinkedIn, on YouTube Live, on Facebook live, or below.

This is Part 2 in a two-part series discussing comments submitted to the FCC in response to a petition filed by Fiber-To-The-Home Council proposing a new Gigabit Community Race to the Top program.

In Part 1 of this post, I focused mainly on the complaints filed by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) against FTTHC’s Race to the Top proposal. While there was nothing new in those arguments (we see them all the time from industry spokespeople), I wanted to highlight their errors in light of this promising proposal to promote community networks. This post will focus on some of the more technical arguments which further demonstrate the industry’s false assertions.

NCTA attacks the FCC’s authority to implement Race to the Top, claiming that neither Section 254 (addressing universal service) nor Section 706 (addressing “advanced telecommunications capability”) of the Telecom Act authorize such a program.

The cable lobby’s argument against Section 254 authority hinges on the statute’s requirement that universal service funds only support services in small and rural markets that are “reasonably comparable” to those available in the rest of the country. Therefore, NCTA argues, Race to the Top would “enable a small number of communities to receive faster broadband speeds than the vast majority of Americans in urban areas have chosen to purchase.”

NCTA essentially believes its members get to dictate American broadband policy. If the majority of Americans “choose to purchase” only single-digit Mbps (megabits-per-second) broadband because that’s the only affordable option in their area, then the FCC cannot subsidize faster networks, anywhere. Or so argues the NCTA.

Even more tortured is the NCTA’s argument against the FCC’s Section 706 authority to implement Race to the Top. Section 706 instructs the FCC to regularly assess the deployment of “advanced telecommunications services,” and when it finds that such services are not rolling out fast enough, the FCC must make efforts to accelerate deployment.

This is Part 1 in a two-part series discussing comments submitted to the FCC in response to a petition filed by Fiber-To-The-Home Council proposing a new Gigabit Community Race to the Top program.

The Fiber-To-The-Home Council (FTTHC) recently submitted a proposal to the FCC to create a Gigabit Communities "Race to the Top" program. The proposal suggests granting unclaimed portions of universal service funds (USF) to qualifying entities in small and rural markets willing to build gigabit networks. While the proposal may need some adjustments, the idea holds potential for encouraging community owned networks and we hope the FCC takes the next step by opening an official rulemaking proceeding.

What makes this proposal so promising for community networks is that it may not require grantees to qualify as “eligible telecommunications carriers” (ETCs), a technical requirement placed by the FCC on USF recipients. This requirement virtually assures that USF funds go to already established telcos and not to upstart community networks.

Instead, Race to the Top lays out its own qualifying criteria which opens the door for a broader variety of recipients, including co-ops, nonprofits and municipalities, taking a similar approach as the federal stimulus BTOP program. Furthermore, Race to the Top has the potential to improve on BTOP in one major aspect by focusing on last-mile networks, which BTOP grants largely shied away from.

The FCC comment period for this initial proposal has closed and the majority of submitted comments are supportive. But I want to highlight some of the misleading comments submitted by a few industry lobby groups - National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) and USTelecom. This post will focus on the NCTA, the main lobbying apparatus of the massive cable corporations. A future post, Part 2, will discuss the others.