The Biden Administration recently announced the designation of 31 ‘tech hubs,’ areas intended to become hotbeds of innovation, across the United States. The more than two-dozen new tech hubs will ‘have the tools they need to compete on a global scale,’ including Economic Development Administration funding opportunities and access to a range of technical assistance from agencies such as the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Small Business Administration. According to Eric Smith, the Tech Hubs Program Director at the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration, 22 of the designated tech hubs significantly benefit small and rural communities and six include a tribal government. As part of the program, the Department of Agriculture “will work with Tech Hubs to identify any relevant rural electric cooperatives that could help provide reliable, affordable energy and broadband access in their regions as needed."

As the Federal Communications Commission gets ready to vote on pole attachment reforms, industry groups and internet service providers submitted a fresh round of comments weighing in on what changes need to be made. The FCC has had an open proceeding on pole attachments since 2017, but it has yet to adopt new rules. In November 2023, the FCC published a 91-page proposal that aims to address cost-sharing between pole owners and attachers, pole attachment disputes, among other issues. NCTA – The Internet & Television Association requested the FCC include “stronger language” and additional examples in its Declaratory Ruling “to help ensure that pole owners are not able to shift the entire cost of pole replacements to attachers when the pole replacement is not ‘necessitated solely’ by the new attachment.” Charter expressed support for the NCTA’s suggestions, which can help “remove some of the most egregious infrastructure impediments to broadband deployment.” USTelecom asked the FCC to remove a reference in the Draft Order about depreciated poles, arguing that just because a pole is “fully depreciated,” it doesn’t mean the pole “already requires replacement at the time an attachment request is made.” 

An extraordinary, first-ever, nationwide effort in digital equity and opportunity is currently underway. Thanks to funding provided under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), all 50 states and six territories are in the final stages of developing first-of-their-kind statewide digital equity and digital opportunity plans (Plans). Only a year ago, not a single state or territory had developed a comprehensive statewide Plan of this scale focused on the full spectrum of internet adoption issues. As we approach the end of the year, and with many plans now made available for public review and comment, I step back here to consider some of what has been developed and achieved—even before the Plans are provided to the overseeing federal entity, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. I consider the critical issue of metrics—what are the goals that are developed by the states, and how do they propose to measure current status and then track changes toward those goals?

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society's Broadband Breakthrough is a community engagement and broadband planning program focused on rural farming communities—because today, broadband is a necessary tool to innovate farming practices and allow for sustainable, targeted, and efficient resource use. The goal of Broadband Breakthrough is to help other rural farming communities understand the value of improved broadband access—and provide the resources, tools, and work required to get better broadband and chart a path for smart farming. The first Broadband Breakthrough cohort engaged five Illinois counties—Edgar, Hancock, McLean, Ogle, and Schuyler—to plan their broadband futures. Through our work with those counties, we learned a number of important lessons:

• First, no one will understand the connectivity needs of a community needs better than members of the community themselves. The first step for Broadband Breakthrough communities is to find and engage a team of local leaders committed to focusing on the broadband plan.
• Second, Broadband Breakthrough communities signed up to improve broadband access because they understand that without reliable connectivity, their community goals cannot be met. But that intuitive understanding is not enough; they need to quantify and detail local needs.
• Third, most of the Broadband Breakthrough communities came into the process with a vague notion of wanting better broadband. But a community broadband vision is essential.
• Fourth, it is through understanding broadband technologies, ownership models, and financing options that communities are empowered to find the right provider partners.
• Finally, there's a range of federal, state, and local broadband funding opportunities available these days. Communities must learn how to best position themselves to maximize access to those funds.

These lessons and much more about Broadband Breakthrough can be found in Broadband Breakthrough: Infrastructure Planning Tools for Rural Farming Communities. I am also happy to announce that the Illinois Soybean Association is providing funding for a continuation of the Broadband Breakthrough program in Illinois in January 2024. And a national foundation is supporting the Benton Institute to bring Broadband Breakthrough to select counties in the state of Missouri, also early in 2024.  

Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY) announced that applications are now open for the $100 million Affordable Housing Connectivity Program, a partnership led by Empire State Development’s ConnectALL Office in consultation with New York State Homes and Community Renewal to design and install broadband infrastructure at 100,000 affordable housing units across New York State. The program, which is federally funded through the Treasury Department's Capital Projects Fund under the American Rescue Plan Act, is the largest targeted investment in affordable housing connectivity in the nation. New York’s Affordable Housing Connectivity Program is a competitive grant program designed to fund high-speed, reliable broadband infrastructure to and within low-income housing buildings. Internet service providers are invited to apply for $100 million in federal funding for retrofits to provide internet infrastructure in affordable housing rental units to support high-speed internet.

Spend a little time with Idaho State Broadband Program Manager Ramón Hobdey-Sánchez and it’s easy to see his enthusiasm for his home state. “I have a passion for public service and there are few things that I love more than the State of Idaho,” Hobdey-Sánchez said. “Broadband and internet connectivity is something that we can all agree is good for individuals, communities, and the state. Whether it is improving the economy or delivering access to things previously unavailable.” It’s a good thing that Hobdey-Sánchez has a positive, half-full attitude because until recently, he’s been the sole member of Idaho’s Office of Broadband. Despite this, Hobdey-Sánchez and the Idaho “office” accomplished quite a bit in 2023, including tentatively awarding $119 million in Capital Projects Fund (CPF) dollars to 14 different applicants for 17 separate projects. Hobdey-Sánchez anticipates that CPF funds will connect approximately 35,000 homes and businesses. Earlier in 2023, Idaho awarded more than $26 million to projects that included a north-south middle mile backbone to connect commercial, non-profits, local communities, and rural internet providers. 

There are a lot of fiber networks owned by government entities. I find it perplexing that a lot of these networks are used only for government purposes and nothing else. In some cases, commercial use of the networks is prohibited by the original source of funding that paid for the network. However, a lot of these government-owned networks could be used for commercial purposes. There are some governments that have decided to share the excess capacity. Some networks were built in collaboration with a commercial partner that uses part of the network. In some cities, dark fiber is being leased to internet service providers. But overall, I would guess that a majority of the excess capacity on government fiber networks is sitting idle, with no plans for use. It’s a shame not to utilize excess fiber capacity at a time when there are so many possible uses for the extra fiber. It’s particularly hard to understand why cities that don’t have vigorous broadband competition aren’t taking advantage of fiber networks. While many cities are being successful in luring internet service providers to build last-mile fiber networks, the vast majority of cities are still served primarily by a cable company that is the only source of fast broadband. Every government that owns fiber ought to be taking a hard look at whether they are getting the best deal for citizens by sitting on idle fiber assets. These networks are sunk investments, and it’s wasteful to not make the fiber available for purposes that will benefit the community.

It has come to our attention that the Federal Communications Commission intends to vote on a Report and Order that would violate Congress’ Resolution of Disapproval vitiating the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Privacy Order. Since the FCC has no authority to ignore Congress’ exercise of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), we urge you to withdraw the draft Report and Order to avoid resurrecting substantially similar parts of the 2016 Broadband Privacy Order that Congress nullified. The FCC’s proposed rules in the Report and Order are clearly “substantially similar” to the nullified 2016 rules. Specifically, the requirements in the Report and Order governing notification to the FCC, law enforcement, and consumers, as well as the recordkeeping requirements with respect to breaches and notifications, are substantially similar to the notification and recordkeeping requirements disapproved by Congress. As lawmakers with oversight responsibility over the FCC, we have repeatedly identified actions taken under your leadership that exceed legal authority. In this case, the FCC is defying clear and specific direction not to issue requirements that are substantially similar to parts of a rule disapproved by Congress. We therefore urge the FCC to rescind the draft Report and Order and remove it from the FCC’s December Open Meeting agenda