Blair Levin

Let’s discuss the current Broadband Policy State of Play and how the election may affect it. There are four fundamental goals of broadband policy:

The Federal Communications Commission concluded in 2009 that AM radio was dying: Listeners under 35 were “almost non-existent.” Responding to lagging consumer interest, vehicle manufacturers began leaving AM tuners out of cars—especially in electric vehicles, where the tuners are subject to electromagnetic interference. So why, weeks ago, did the House Commerce Committee overwhelmingly pass a measure requiring manufacturers to include AM radios in all new vehicles?

There is a political consensus that the United States should continue its nearly century long commitment to assuring that the tools of modern communications are universally accessible and affordable. There is also a consensus that the primary program through which we keep that commitment—the Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Fund (USF)—is breaking down.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions produced sweeping changes to how regulation works in the United States, shifting power from agencies to the courts. Investment will now take place against the backdrop of the “judicial veto,” where a wide range of potential litigants and sympathetic judges will decide which regulations actually go into effect, and when. According to conventional wisdom, scaling back the regulatory state will help businesses. However, the court’s rulings will suppress business investment in three unintended ways.

On September 9^th I testified to the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology at a hearing entitled “From Introduction to Implementation: A BEAD Program Progress Report.

I recently testified at a Senate Communications Subcommittee Hearing in support of legislation to extend the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).

Your written testimony noted various affiliations. Which companies that receive ACP have you or your employers received funding from since the program’s inception?

At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing, one of the witnesses produced a study (the EPIC study) that concluded that ACP led to inflation in broadband services. In addressing your question of which studies Congress should rely on, I think the EPIC study demonstrates the very problem you raise.

I am confident in opining that the lack of broadband in homes of children attending school will make the problems in our educational system worse, not better.  The fact that the problem of reading scores pre-dates the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) does not make it less of a problem.  Nor does it address the question of whether ACP can be helpful in addressing low reading scores, particularly as artificial intelligence develops personalized ways to assist young readers in overcoming specific decoding problems that serve as barriers to their learning to read. Again, I would urge Congr

Senate Commerce Committee  Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked New Street Research Policy Advisor and Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Blair Levin to clarify remarks Levin made about the negative impact the end of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) will have on the Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. Levin answered saying that BEAD does not fund the cost of deployment broadband to an unserved or underserved area; rather it funds the difference between the cost of deployment and what a provider would be willing to invest to serve that area.