In January 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed requiring internet service providers to display broadband consumer disclosure labels prominently at the point of sale. In response to the FCC’s request for comment, the CyLab Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University conducted a large-scale user study to gain insight into what information is most important to US consumers when shopping for broadband internet services as well as what terminology and presentation formats make this information most understandable and useful to consumers. In addition, we examined the FCC’s proposed 2016 broadband consumer label formats and proposed our own broadband consumer disclosure label formats. We surveyed broadband internet consumers in a two-phase online study, recruiting from a diverse pool of 32,000 consumers who had previously participated in Consumer Reports’ consumer initiatives related to broadband internet. Across both survey phases, we received a combined total of over 2,500 completed surveys. In the first phase, we evaluated the 2016 labels to gain insights into what information was most important to consumers and what information caused confusion. We then created new label designs based on our results from the first phase. In the second phase, we compared the effectiveness of our new label designs with the 2016 labels. After analyzing our survey results, we made further revisions to our new label designs. Among many recommendations following the study, one key recommendation is that broadband labels should include a range of information valued by consumers but should highlight the information they value most, including information on cost, speed, and reliability.

[Dr. Jon Peha is a professor of electrical & computer engineering and of engineering & public policy at Carnegie Mellon University and the former chief technologist at the FCC.]

The Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program has $42.5 billion available to cover some of the costs of bringing broadband to unserved and underserved rural areas. States will administer the program but must first have a plan approved by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and, as new research from BroadbandNow shows, some states face an important hurdle as they prepare their plans—a hurdle that involves anti-municipal broadband laws. A total of 21 states have laws in place that prohibit or restrict municipal broadband networks, BroadbandNow notes. And those laws are at odds with rules for the BEAD program, which say that states must disclose whether they will waive anti-municipal broadband laws, including laws that either prevent municipalities from applying for BEAD funding or that “impose specific requirements on public sector entities, such as limitations on the sources of financing, the required imputation of costs not actually incurred by the public sector entity, or restrictions on the service a public sector entity can offer.” If a state does not plan to waive the laws, it must describe how the laws will be applied in connection with the application process. According to the researchers, the NTIA has included language in the BEAD rules that could enable municipalities to apply for funding directly if their state will not consider their applications. The upshot, according to the researchers, is that recalcitrant states “will almost certainly delay the timeline for receiving funding.”

Broadband internet access and speeds will increase for homes and businesses in and around Madelia, Minnesota thanks to a collaboration by the companies Midco, Crystal Valley Cooperative, and Land O’Lakes. Land O’Lakes and Crystal Valley helped Midco in finding locations to place infrastructure. Rather than laying a lot of new fiber lines to homes and far-flung farm sites, the project uses a system of towers and antennas to get high-bandwidth signals to customers. “The Madelia project is a bit unique, it is a hub site,” said Ben Dold senior VP of operations for Midco. “We were able to put a tower up at Madelia and that tower brings wireless internet connectivity to a bunch of other towers and allows us to beam that high quality, high bandwidth signals to the spoke towers. Then we put up antennas to homes to provide the signal,” he said. Dold added that it's a cost-effective and quick way to get broadband out without putting fiber to every home along the way. The project cost $112,000 and Midco received $67,000 in federal funding from the Federal Communications Commission's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. The system has 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload speeds. The service costs $100 per month with the first six months free. The Madelia project and others they have done or are doing is the result of federal funding via projects they won in a “reverse auction," where companies bid on projects and describe what they will deliver, the total estimated cost of the project, and the matching funding they will put in. 

Shreveport (LA) Mayor Adrian Perkins made good on another part of his smart city initiative that he campaigned on four years ago. Mayor Perkins joined library officials and others to launch the start of Universal Digital Access. Mayor Perkins says that by using hi-tech gadgets mounted on the garbage trucks, the city mapped out areas of the city that don't have good internet access. "Many of the libraries are actually within that digital desert. So we were able to bring together this extremely innovative partnership so we can provide internet into areas where the city of Shreveport has never been able to have it before," the mayor explained. So the city is partnering with Shreve Memorial Library to bridge that digital divide. Cellular towers have been put atop three library branches so far, with more to come. The towers will provide free Wi-Fi to homes and businesses within range—perhaps a thousand properties near each hot spot. To take advantage of the program, citizens will need a library card. That's the ticket to getting a kit that contains a free modem, SIM card, window mount, and instructions. They'll be available on a first-come, first-served basis. The administration says $500,000 has spent on the city's cellular network, using American Rescue Plan (ARPA) funds.

As a Commissioner focused so deeply on the digital divide, I’m especially thrilled about what a golden era in commercial space could mean for broadband. New satellite broadband systems promise more choice and better performance for many Americans, including those who live, work, and travel in some the toughest-to-serve places. Making space innovation sustainable is a multidimensional problem. They can even improve the reach of terrestrial broadband networks, through satellite backhaul and, perhaps one day soon, base stations flying in low-Earth orbit. Importantly, these systems are also improving the resilience— and agility—of our broadband infrastructure. They’re empowering first responders, survivors, and governments to ad-hoc more powerful and more secure networks more quickly, sometimes mere moments after disaster strikes. But it begins with focusing on competition as a pillar of our strategy in space—including our strategy on spectrum access. Here's how I think we can sustain a competitive environment:

• First, if we want to attract the investment required to launch, maintain, and upgrade a satellite network, then the satellite spectrum we assign must remain investment-grade. 
• Second, we must aspire to more than just a few non-geostationary orbit broadband systems in orbit. 
• Finally, we must keep looking for ways to promote spectral efficiency in satellite.

On November 8, America could accomplish another political first: Electing two US senators from the idiosyncratic, increasingly ideological world of Silicon Valley venture capital. But neither one is from California. As a political force Silicon Valley is mostly known for its money, which it donates mainly to Democrats (although those donations have slightly shifted right in recent years). But as a source of political ideas, it’s something different, incubating a nationalist strain of conservatism better embodied by Blake Masters and J.D. Vance — positioned to potentially win Senate seats in Arizona and Ohio, respectively. In a sense, both candidates are testament to one person’s influence: Peter Thiel, the multi-billionaire tech investor who is a business and ideological mentor to both, and who funds their campaigns. But their politics aren’t identical to Thiel’s techno-libertarian views — they’re a new take on conservatism with strong roots in the tech circles from which they come, and decidedly different from your garden-variety Republican in the rest of the country.