I am writing to provide an update on the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which is on the brink of shutting down due to lack of funding.  This program is the largest broadband affordability effort in our Nation’s history.  Today, more than 23 million households nationwide count on it to get online and stay online, including vulnerable seniors, veterans, school-aged children, and residents of rural and Tribal communities.  Unless Congress acts, April will be the final month that those who count on the ACP—one in six households across the country—will receive the full benefit toward the cost of their broadband service.... To illustrate the extent of the service loss that may result from the end of this program, the attachment to this letter provides updated data on the number of enrolled ACP households in each state, territory, and congressional district.  Based on estimates of state-by-state participation rates, more than three-quarters of the states, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have ACP participation rates among eligible households of 30 percent or higher.... When Congress asked the Commission to set up the ACP to further this goal, we did so in record time.  The result has been the most consequential broadband affordability effort in our history.  I want you to know that the agency remains ready to keep this program running, should Congress provide additional funding.  We have come too far to allow this successful effort to promote internet access for all to end.  

The importance of high-speed internet was seared into the American psyche by scenes of children sitting in parking lots and outside fast-food restaurants to attend school online during the COVID-19 pandemic. During that same period, health care providers and patients like Cindy Westman say being connected also became a vital part of today’s health care delivery system. Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) participant Westman said her internet connection has become so important to her access to health care she would sell “anything that I own” to stay connected. Westman lives in the small town of Eureka, Illinois, and has been diagnosed with genetic and immune system disorders. Her 12-year-old daughter has cerebral palsy and autism. She steered the $30 saved on her internet through the ACP toward taking care of her daughter, paying for things such as driving 30 minutes west to Peoria, Illinois, for two physical therapy appointments each week. And with an internet connection, Westman can access online medical records, and whenever possible, she uses telehealth appointments to avoid the hour-plus drive to specialty care.

In late 2023, U.S. News & World Report surveyed 2,500 Americans about their internet bill costs over time, their internet service reliability, and how satisfied they are with the internet service they get for their money. Not surprisingly, the cost of internet service – like that of many other basic expenses, including groceries and utilities – has been rising, and the price users pay tends to increase over time. According to our latest survey, the average current cost of a U.S. internet bill is $89, compared to an average bill of $77 when the customer first signed up for internet service. That upward cost trend was also apparent in our late 2023 survey report, as more than half of respondents (53%) said they were originally paying between $20 and $60 per month for internet service when they initially signed up with their current internet provider. New Jersey residents tend to get hit the hardest by internet bills. According to our newest survey, customers in that state have the highest average monthly internet bill at $126. They also have the highest average bill increase, with the current price about $28 more than their price at signup. On the flip side, customers in Montana have the lowest average internet bill at $70 per month. Those in North Dakota have the lowest average bill increase – in fact, their average bill actually dropped by $4 from signup until now.

The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has accepted Oklahoma’s Digital Equity plan. Using $882,088.00 from the State Digital Equity Planning Grant Program, Oklahoma created a plan aimed at addressing disparities in digital access, skills and affordability across the state. 

Minnesota didn’t wait for the federal government’s help to make funding available for rural broadband deployments. The state’s Border to Border program is often cited as a model for rural broadband funding. That heritage should help the state as it moves forward on implementing its portion of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) rural broadband funding program. Bree Maki, Minnesota’s executive director of the Office of Broadband Development, that while her job first and foremost is to represent and advocate for the state’s interests in the BEAD program, that can be tricky sometimes due to conflicting requirements among the different entities involved. “We’ve been told that states know best and we are eager to get going, but some of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) guidelines and requirements can make it challenging,” Maki said. “We may need to apply for waivers because our definitions of broadband—and what is considered unserved and underserved—are different than BEAD.” The BEAD program considers a location unserved if service levels are below 25/3 and underserved if service levels are between 25/3 Mbps and 100/20 Mbps, while the state of Minnesota considers a location to be unserved if it lacks wired broadband service of 100/20 Mbps. In the end, Maki looks forward to the day when she can look back and see the differences she and her office made for Minnesotans. 

On February 28, 2024, ten entities filed a petition for rulemaking asking the Federal Communications Commission to provide an option for 5/5 megahertz broadband networks in paired 896-901 MHz and 935-940 MHz spectrum (900 MHz band).  In this Public Notice, the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau seeks comment on the Petition. In particular, the FCC seeks comment on whether existing rules would be sufficient to protect incumbent narrowband operations from interference, as well as whether those rules would be sufficient to protect operations in adjacent spectrum bands. 

WT Docket No. 24-99. Comments Due:  May 2, 2024. Reply Comments:  May 18, 2024.