Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Shalanda Young released the final budget results for fiscal year (FY) 2023. Outlays for the Federal Communications Commission were $17.9 billion, $2.3 billion lower than the Mid-Session Review estimate. This is mainly due to lower-than-anticipated outlays for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) and the Emergency Connectivity Fund for Educational Connections and Devices (ECF). Also, Universal Service Fund outlays were $498 million higher than anticipated.

Moving digital equity forward requires getting people in power to care. Francella Ochillo, the former executive director of Next Century Cities, says the starting point for tackling digital equity is acknowledging that some people have better, faster and cheaper access to technology, and some people are left to rely on public resources. It’s important for community organizations to perfect the way they explain this issue and the data about digital equity to make a bigger impact—and get more people to care about digital equity in the first place. There is never enough money to provide adequate resources for digital equity work, said Gigi Sohn, senior fellow at the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, a national organization focused on access to affordable broadband. For example, the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is expected to run out of money in 2024, which would leave families who rely on that subsidy without support. Sohn would like to see more philanthropic organizations and large companies get involved in this effort like the way Comcast has. She referenced Comcast’s 12-year-old Internet Essentials program and the company's efforts to spread the word about ACP. “It’s about enabling full participation in our economy, our democracy, our healthcare system, our education system, and hopefully we can message better, we can get more resources,” Sohn said. “Trust me, I know it’s difficult. It’s been frustrating. But there are more foundations and local foundations also coming into the field.”

This paper examines how the quality of Internet service from existing providers is affected when voters in Colorado approve referenda eliminating a barrier to their local governments providing broadband service. Using a difference-in-differences framework, the research design exploits variation in the timing of a community’s approval of a referendum in order to examine whether incumbent private providers adjust their speed offerings in response to the signal that public entry is more likely. I find no evidence that cable providers’ upgrading behavior responds to the passage of a referendum. However, after a municipality passes a referendum, the largest DSL provider in the state offers speeds in that local area 11%–26% lower than what they would have been otherwise. I find weak evidence that small-time DSL providers substantially upgrade speeds after a referendum passes. Analyses of a referendum’s effect on subscription rates are inconclusive.

Despite vowing to eschew involvement in the latest Network Neutrality drama, I cannot sit back and let stand the resumption of the distorted gospel preached by the anti-network neutrality crowd.  This group has legitimate criticisms, many of which I have tried, via hundreds of law review pages—to analyze, and even endorse, in specific instances. Network neutrality regulation will not create a suffocating Internet rate regulation regime. The Democratic majority has clearly exempted broadband internet access from Title II common rate regulation. By the way, Title II still explicitly applies to wireless telecommunications, like cellphone service, and no one can credibly claim that carriers are severely constrained by overpowering Federal Communications Commission oversight. Network neutrality orders have always applied light-handed regulatory oversight. Title II of the Communications Act does not impose some atavistic, old school “public utility” regulation. Despite the growing efforts of the Supreme Court to prevent regulatory agencies from responding to changed circumstances, the FCC has frequently recalibrated its Title II regulatory toolkit over time. The FCC does not have to insist on an either/or dichotomy,  Nothing in the Communications Act mandates this.  We have had to tolerate decades long regulatory toggling between telecommunications service and information service, because the FCC cannot wrap its head around the reality that convergence requires a nuanced and admittedly more complicated blend of definitions.

The Federal Communications Commission adopted rules to improve Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) by making WEA messages available in more than a dozen additional languages, including American Sign Language; adding increased functionality; and providing public information on where and how WEA is available. At present, WEA messages are available only in English or Spanish. In a new Order, the FCC required wireless providers that participate in WEA to support messages in the 13 most commonly spoken languages in the US as well as English and American Sign Language. Participating wireless providers are to support this expanded multilingual alerting by enabling mobile devices to display message templates that will be preinstalled and stored on the mobile device. The FCC directed its Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to seek comment on various implementation details of the multilingual alerting requirements and future expansion to additional languages. In addition, to help personalize emergency alerts, the Order requires participating wireless providers to support the inclusion of maps in WEA messages that show the alert recipient’s location relative to the geographic area where the emergency is occurring. The Order also establishes a Commission-hosted database to provide the public with easy-to-access information on WEA availability.

Twenty senators penned a letter to the Federal Communications Commission urging the agency to improve access to local media on streaming platforms. Current law and FCC rules state that traditional cable and satellite networks must work directly with a local television station before broadcasting local news, sports, and other programming. However, linear streaming services over the internet are not required to negotiate directly with local television stations. Streaming services have a large and growing portion of the video media market as consumers cut the cord and make the switch from traditional television providers like cable and satellite TV to streaming services over the internet. In 2014, nearly 9 in 10 households subscribed to cable or satellite. In 2023, fewer than half of families subscribe. As consumers show their preference for the freedom that streaming services provide, it is critical for Congress to ensure continued access to local journalism.

On October 27, 2023, Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Rosenworcel will host a listening session in Chicago (IL) to hear from formerly incarcerated people and their loved ones about their experiences using incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS). Participants will explain the critical importance of affordable communications services to incarcerated people, as the FCC works to implement the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022 (Martha Wright-Reed Act). The purpose of this listening session is to obtain additional public comment in support of the FCC's ongoing efforts to ensure just and reasonable rates and charges for IPCS consumers. The program agenda will include opening remarks from Chairwoman Rosenworcel, Sen Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton (D-IL) followed by a discussion with current and former IPCS consumers, providing the FCC with first-hand accounts. The listening session will be incorporated into the record.