U.S. Senators Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) have introduced a bill that would not only reauthorize the USDA’s ReConnect Loan and Grant program.

As part of the reauthorization, the proposed legislation aims to improve and expand the program so that Communications Union Districts (CUDs) would be eligible for federal broadband subsidies.

According to the announcement, the reauthorization would set a baseline of symmetrical 100 megabits per second (Mbps) connections for broadband grants, up from the program’s dated current standard of 25/3 Mbps.

The bill also clarifies that the USDA can make grants, loans, or grant-loan combinations under ReConnect, and claims to “improve coordination and communication among stakeholders at the federal level.”

“The last few years have shown all of us how important high-speed broadband is to our communities. From online school and remote work to telemedicine, a good connection is essential,” Senator Welch said of the reauthorization. 

“Many rural communities don’t have access to broadband at all, let alone the higher speeds needed to participate in today’s digital economy.”

The duo are quick to point out that over a third of Americans lack access to one or no broadband provider, and more than 45 million Americans lack fixed terrestrial 100 megabit per second (Mbps) downstream broadband, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) minimum standard for broadband access.

As states struggle to readjust their plans to expand high-speed Internet access in the wake of the Trump administration “termination” of the Digital Equity Act, Vermont is working to address the multi-million dollar shortfall by aligning the state’s Digital Empowerment initiative with its newly established Affordable Long Drop Program.

The Affordable Long Drop Program was established to provide grants to eligible Internet service providers (ISPs) in order to cover the connection costs for Vermonters whose homes are beyond standard drop distances.

Typically, an ISP will pay for a standard drop, which is the final external link that connects a provider's distribution network to the end-user's location – a distance that most often spans a couple hundred feet or less.

In rural areas around the country, community-minded operators like telephone and electric cooperatives will often cover the first quarter of a mile. This has also been the case in Vermont, where many of the state’s Communications Union Districts (CUDs) have been footing the bill to cover as much as the first 2,000 feet of drop distance. But, as with any predominantly rural state, there are a number of homes located just beyond that 2,000 foot range.

The construction costs of extending fiber lines can get pricey the further the home is away from the main fiber routes. Vermont’s Affordable Long Drop Program aims to help pay for the drops costs of the last mile networks that are currently being built across the state to help ensure residents in harder-to-reach locations can still get Internet access.

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).”

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.

The Trump administration’s dismantling of a popular broadband grant program has been greeted with disgust and anger by those doing the heavy lifting to bridge the country’s digital divide, leaving many states' planned broadband expansions in limbo, and affordable broadband advocates contemplating potential legal action.  

The unprecedented choice to destroy digital skills training and broadband adoption programs created by an act of Congress is seeing escalating pushback by a growing coalition of frustrated lawmakers and state broadband offices.

Last week, President Trump announced via a Truth Social post that he was ending the Digital Equity Act, falsely claiming that the program was “unconstitutional” and “racist.”

“No more woke handouts based on race!” the President said. “The Digital Equity Program is a RACIST and ILLEGAL $2.5 BILLION DOLLAR giveaway. I am ending this IMMEDIATELY, and saving Taxpayers BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!"

Image

But the popular program was perfectly legal, barely focused on race, and was proving to be of broad benefit to countless Americans – including many of the President’s own supporters in long-neglected rural counties.

The $2.75 billion Digital Equity Act was passed by Congress as part of the 2021 infrastructure bill. It mandated the creation of three different grant programs intended to shore up equitable, widespread access to affordable Internet, while providing the tools and digital literacy education needed to help neglected U.S. communities get online.

A legal challenge to the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to kill a law passed by Congress seems all but certain.

Legislation that would require ISPs operating in Massachusetts to offer qualifying low-income households high-speed Internet service for $15 per month is set to have its first legislative hearing.

The hearing is slated to run from 11 am to 1 pm ET today before the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy. Committee members will hear testimony on multiple bills, including two companion pieces of legislation known as An Act Preserving Broadband Service for Low-income Consumers – S.2318 (filed by State Sen. Pavel Payano) and H.3527 (filed by State Rep. Rita Mendes).

The proceedings can be viewed here.

Inspired by New York Law

The hearing in Massachusetts comes as similar legislation is being considered by state lawmakers in Vermont and California – all three of which are modeled on New York’s Affordable Broadband Act which, after numerous legal challenges, went into effect in the Empire State in January of this year after the US Supreme Court declined to intervene and overturn a U.S. Appellate Court ruling that upheld the law.

Like the New York law, the bill being proposed in Massachusetts requires ISPs operating in Massachusetts to offer qualifying low-income households high-speed Internet service for $15 per month.

However, the Massachusetts bill set the minimum speed at 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) download to mirror the increased FCC definition for minimum broadband speeds that had been raised from the previous benchmark of 25/3 Mbps, which was the federal standard when the New York law was written.

*The following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Jake Neenan was originally published here.

States are moving ahead with their Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program processes after the Commerce Department extended for 90 days the deadlines for final spending plans.

“In Michigan, we are in the thick of reviewing, scoring, and deconflicting 392 applications that we received in our first grant round,” said Eric Frederick, head of the state’s High-Speed Internet Office. “It’s a very busy time for us.”

He spoke Wednesday on  a Fiber Broadband Association webinar.

Image

The state received 32 applications to serve more than 78 percent of its 248,000 eligible locations in its first round, which ended April 9 and was restricted to fiber projects. Frederick said the state is planning to start discussing grant agreements with successful round one applicants “within the next month or so.”

Michigan is also planning to release a draft of its BEAD grant agreement, the contract grant winners will ultimately sign with the state, this week for public comment, Frederick said. The state was allocated more than $1.5 billion from the $42.45 billion program.

The Trump administration on Tuesday gave all states a 90-day extension on their deadlines to submit their lists of selected projects for approval, documents that were originally due one year after a state’s initial BEAD implementation proposal was given the federal green light. The National Telecommunications Administration, the Commerce agency handling BEAD, said states could require additional time to submit those proposals in light of forthcoming rule changes.

Vermont’s Otter Creek Communications Utility District (CUD) says it has completed its ambitious fiber deployment, bringing affordable access to more than 6,000 homes and businesses in the Rutland County region of the Green Mountain State.

Otter Creek is another example of the way Vermont’s long under-served communities are bonding together via innovative new partnerships taking direct aim at the digital divide.

When last we had checked in on Otter Creek CUD, the CUD had just received a $9.9 million grant by the Vermont Community Broadband Board (VCBB). Otter Creek CUD then leveraged that grant funding to form a public-private partnership with Consolidated Communications.

Image

Otter Creek CUD Chair Laura Black tells ILSR that the partnership involved 335 miles of new fiber passing *6,000 locations. Of the total target reach, 1290 locations had never had broadband access previously. Between the Otter Creek grant awards and contributions from private providers, more than $24 million has been invested in Rutland County to expand fiber access.  

“We partnered with the existing ILEC business in most of our area, Consolidated Communications, to build and operate the fiber network with both their own contribution and grant funding we were able to secure,” Black said. “As well, a portion of our area was peeled off to allow the ILEC in three of the towns in our District to be served by the existing small ILEC business – Shoreham Telephone – under their own grant funding program (EACAM).”

Vermont’s Communications Union Districts (CUDs), which were the subject of a recently released ILSR report, continue to make steady inroads in delivering high-quality broadband access to long-neglected rural Vermont residents.

In 2021 the Vermont legislature passed Act 71, ensuring CUDs would play a key role in expanding fiber access in the Green Mountain state. In Vermont, municipally-led CUDs – municipal entities created by two or more towns with a goal of building communication infrastructure – can legally fund needed broadband expansions through debt, grants, and donations – but not taxes, though they themselves are tax-exempt nonprofits.

The CUD model allows municipalities to bond together to tackle broadband network deployments that might otherwise prove too costly or logistically difficult if attempted alone.

The results have been transformative for state residents long underserved or completely unserved by the state’s regional incumbent monopoly providers. Locals at times have likened the transformation to moving out of the “dark ages.”

Much of Vermont’s $150 million ARPA-based broadband package went toward assisting CUDs in a state where 85 percent of municipalities and 90 percent of all underserved locations fall under an existing CUD’s jurisdiction.

Many rural healthcare facilities are struggling to keep their doors open. Some have been shuttered. Add to that the looming federal budget crisis threatening to end Medicare payments for telehealth and the urgency of what a coalition of Vermont healthcare leaders, librarians, and state broadband officials are doing comes into view. 

It’s called VITAL VT (Virtual Integration for Telehealth Access through Libraries in Vermont) – an exploratory effort being launched with a $10,000 grant from the Leahy Institute For Rural Partnerships, working in collaboration with the University of Vermont Medical Center and the Vermont Library Association.

The aim is to leverage the state’s unprecedented deployment of community-owned fiber networks and create a scalable, community-centered telehealth model. 

“We’re really looking to find any way to make any of our community members in Vermont get access to care – easier, better, quicker. So we’re wondering if telehealth (hubs) might be the right answer for that, if we’re able to put it right in people’s libraries, right in their own towns,” Roz King, chief of research for emergency medicine at the University of Vermont, told local CBS affiliate WCAX.

Data-mapping ‘Healthcare Deserts’

In speaking with ILSR this week, King said what spurred the initiative was a talk given by one of UVM’s medical students who noted how Vermont was beginning to see “healthcare deserts where in some rural counties PCP’s were aging out and no one was there to provide healthcare (services).”