We write to express our disappointment and opposition to your announcement that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote to reclassify fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Not only is this bad public policy, but it is also unlawful. Reclassification and the associated heavy-handed regulations that accompany this action continues to be a solution in search of a problem. We seek the following information by October 31, 2023:

1. When did the FCC begin drafting the Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)? Please also provide each draft considered by your office and the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB).
   • a. Please provide the date and time that you shared the Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet NPRM with each commissioner.
2. Which FCC employees, officials, or contractors participated in drafting the NPRM? Please provide their names and job titles.
3. Provide any FCC work product (emails, memos, documents, other written communications), including from the Office of General Counsel (OGC), raising potential legal or litigation concerns stemming from the NPRM.
4. Has the FCC conducted an economic analysis of this proposal? If so, please provide that analysis.
5. 5. Did anyone at the FCC discuss reclassification of broadband with the Executive Office of the President (EOP) before your September 26, 2023, announcement? If so, who from the FCC and EOP, and when? Please provide their names and job titles.
6. Which interest groups and stakeholders have met with your office or the WCB to discuss reclassification of broadband prior to your September 26, 2023, announcement?
   • a. Did any of these groups receive any funds from the Affordable Connectivity Outreach Grant Program? If so, please provide the name of the group and the amount of funding provided through the grant program.
7. Has the FCC received any formal complaints about broadband providers engaging in the blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization that you seek to prohibit? If so, please provide those complaints.
8. Do you commit to not regulate rates for broadband service either ex ante or ex post?
9. Do you agree with statements made by third parties that, “If we don’t save net neutrality, you’ll get the internet one word at a time” and that enacting the Restoring Internet Freedom Order would cause the “end of the internet as we know it”?
   • a. Have these predictions come true?
   • b. Did anything change with the Internet’s performance following the adoption of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order?
10. Do you agree that our nation’s broadband networks withstood the challenge of increased usage during the Covid-19 pandemic without reclassifying broadband under Title II?
11. You concluded your dissent in the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order by stating “So let’s persist. Let’s fight. Let’s not stop here or now. It’s too important. The future depends on it.” That same day, FCC headquarters received a bomb threat and, days later, then-FCC Chairman Pai received a death threat. Do you believe your rhetoric and the rhetoric of your allies contributed to these acts?
    • a. Will you commit to using tamer and less hyperbolic language when discussing this proceeding?
    • b. Will you commit to disavowing any similar language used by supporters of your proposed actions?

Small rural internet service providers (ISPs) had until the end of September to tell the Federal Communications Commission whether they wanted to participate in the Enhanced ACAM program. The E-ACAM program extends subsidies to these small providers through 2038, and in exchange the providers will serve all locations in their territory with 100/20 Mbps broadband, making most of them ineligible for the BEAD program. The results are in: providers electing to participate in E-ACAM cover 682,581 Unserved and Underserved locations nationally. 1.3 million Unserved and Underserved locations would receive E-ACAM offers by the FCC. The accepted E-ACAM offers cover 52.5 percent of the Unserved and Underserved locations that were made offers. How does this affect states and their BEAD programs? Well, it’s still a big change in some states like Nebraska, where 47 percent of Unserved and Underserved are part of either RDOF or E-ACAM. And it makes a big difference in South Dakota, where 31 percent of their locations will be covered by E-ACAM. But it isn’t the sea change I expected.

Through a recent partnership announcement with Ciena, eCommunity Fiber is poised to extend its open-access fiber network in Georgia and beyond. Launched by parent company A2D, an open-access local exchange carrier, the privately-funded eCommunity Fiber network currently serves five cities within Clayton County in Georgia. eCommunity is now gearing up for its second Georgia deployment, with plans to cross other state lines in 2024. Open-access networks are deployed by one company and then leased to multiple internet service providers, which can then offer broadband service to end customers. Providers serving through the eCommunity network include ConnectFast, Culture Wireless, Momentum Telecom, and Syringa Networks. Lumen and Nitel services are also available for businesses in the area.

The state of Mississippi will be getting one of the largest allotments in the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) rural broadband funding program–$1.2 billion. The funding comes on top of $151.5 million that the state was awarded from the Capital Projects Fund and an earlier award of $32.6 million from the Broadband Infrastructure Program (BIP). “We started with a smaller award and the awards have been getting larger and larger," said Sally Doty, director of the Office of Broadband Expansion and Accessibility of Mississippi (BEAM). That experience helped Doty and others in her office gain experience that should serve them well in administering the BEAD program. Doty noted, for example, that initially, she didn’t realize how important archaeologists would be to broadband funding programs. “You have to have them to get the necessary approvals,” she said. When asked if the $1.2 billion in BEAD funding will be enough to make broadband available to everyone in the state, Doty said, “It’s going to be close.” The answer, she said, will depend on a variety of factors, including awards made using the CPF money awarded to the state and the percentage of matching funds that awardees are willing to contribute.

Statewide telehealth use jumped dramatically among low-income Californians covered by Medi-Cal in March 2020, when telehealth visits began to be reimbursed at the same rates as in-person visits. We find comparable trends in California’s community health centers (CHCs)—primary care clinics that serve all comers—for Medi-Cal and undocumented patients. However, telehealth can still pose challenges for those who are uncomfortable with technology or lack English proficiency. And California’s persistent digital divide in access to broadband connection and devices can also be a barrier to using telehealth. California plans to continue many policies established during the public health emergency that broadened the availability of Medi-Cal-covered benefits and services through telehealth. And telehealth will continue to be an important resource for undocumented patients after Medi-Cal is expanded to all residents, regardless of age or immigration status, in January 2024. However, challenges lie ahead, particularly in addressing language barriers common among immigrants and enhancing technological literacy.