I write regarding reports from my home state—the commonwealth of Pennsylvania—of payment issues with the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). As my colleagues and I work to find long-term funding solutions for ACP, both the FCC and companies that administer and benefit from ACP must do right by Americans who rely on the it. I’ve heard from constituents across the commonwealth that some of these households have encountered issues receiving their benefits. Specifically, some service providers are requiring that users show proof of one month of service before qualifying for the discount. As a result, families are being forced to foot the bill of the first month—a cost that some can’t afford. This is wrong. ACP exists to cover these costs. If the providers force them to pay, it means the program is not living up to its original mission. With this concern in mind, please provide answers to the following questions:

• Is the FCC aware of this issue?

• Is the FCC currently investigating if this is happening and which service providers may be participating in this practice? And if not, does the FCC have plans to do so?

• In the FCC’s interpretation, does this action violate statute authorizing ACP?

Playbook 3.0 combines four deep-dive modules that aim to help state broadband offices as they make decisions on key aspects of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program and complete their initial proposals for NTIA review before a December 27 deadline. The Broadband Infrastructure Playbook 3.0 includes the following modules that offer solutions to some of the most challenging BEAD proposal requirements:

• Permitting: Access to State and Local Rights-of-Way and Infrastructure

• Achieving Digital Opportunity through BEAD Grants (Extremely High Cost per Location Threshold)

• Broadband Mapping Challenge Processes

• Cybersecurity and Supply Chain Risk Management Under the BEAD Program

In the months before President Joe Biden signed the historic infrastructure law on November 15, 2021, Republicans and Democrats wrangled over how much to spend on broadband. Democratic lawmakers sought $100 billion, while their Republican counterparts countered with $65 billion. The final score was $65 billion, with $42.5 billion of that earmarked for infrastructure in the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. Crucially, the BEAD Program adopted a new definition of what adequate broadband would look like: 100 Megabits per second download and 20 Megabits per second upload. It turns out, that speed threshold is serving as a key reason why money from BEAD and other programs will be used to cover already-subsidized projects under an older Federal Communications Commission program that has only recently completed some broadband builds using older technology. Broadband Breakfast has analyzed the data and spoke with experts and former FCC officials about the pitfalls and problems with the Connect America Fund Phase II, or CAF II, a $10 billion funding program that started in 2014.

On April 25, 2023, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled “Broadband Speed: FCC Should Improve its Communication of Advanced Telecommunications Capability Assessments.” The report examines the extent to which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has communicated how it reviews its minimum fixed-broadband speed benchmark, and how it determines whether to update the benchmark, and the extent to which the minimum speed requirements of selected federal and state broadband programs differ from the FCC’s benchmark, and stakeholders’ views on any implications of these differences. The GAO recommends that the FCC Chair “should provide consistent communication in [the FCC’s] reporting of how it determines whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed and when updating the related metrics it uses to assess broadband speeds and deployment.” The FCC agrees that transparency and consistency are important principles to follow as we determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion to all Americans. In response to GAO’s recommendation, on July 19, 2023, I shared a revised draft Section 706 Report Notice of Inquiry which seeks comment on ways the FCC can provide consistent and transparent communications to the public about how it reviews, and determines whether to update, the advanced telecommunications capability evaluation metrics required by Section 706.

On October 17, 2023, Republican Members of the House Commerce Committee wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel expressing their disappointment and opposition to the FCC opening a proceeding to reclassify fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. On October 31, Chairwoman Rosenworcel replied saying "Everyone, everywhere in this country needs access to broadband to have a fair shot at 21st century success... That is why the FCC acted on October 19, 2023, to initiate a proceeding to ensure a fast, open, and fair internet and to restore the agency’s authority over broadband service. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that we adopted proposes to reinstate enforceable, bring-line rules to prevent blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. These rules would ensure that the internet remains open and a haven for creating without permission, building community beyond geography, and organizing without physical constraints. They are also rules that have been upheld in court. In other words, our legal system has already pronounced the rules we have proposed lawful and proper under the Communications Act."

The Oklahoma Broadband Office (OBO) released the state's draft Digital Equity Plan with one goal in mind: to fulfill Oklahoma's Digital Promise. That promise, more specifically, is to ensure all Oklahomans can access and use affordable internet to advance health care, education, business, agriculture, public safety, and community development. The draft Digital Equity Plan describes the strategies, objectives, and actions that the OBO will take to achieve this promise. OBO is accepting public comments on the draft plan until November 13, 2023. Oklahoma's vision is that Oklahomans will have access to the information, resources, and skills needed to participate in society to the fullest and to remain competitive in a digital marketplace. Oklahoma's mission or Digital Promise is to close the digital divide by encouraging and facilitating partnerships across sectors, offering targeted grants to communities and organizations that address digital equity gaps, and by supporting communities’ digital equity planning and programming.

The Superior (WI) City Council approved an ordinance that has made broadband internet a public utility. This means that the city can go through with the construction of its own broadband internet service for residents. Slow and expensive internet has been a major problem for Superior residents. Having broadband as a public utility was the project’s final step before construction could start. Residents will be able to choose to be on the city’s internet service when it is completed.

LinkNYC 5G kiosks are part of a citywide program to provide free high-speed internet and other services to people in the city. Stretching more than 30 feet in the air, the kiosks offer free Wi-Fi, free charging, nationwide phone service, and other digital services. Some residents of Carnegie Hill on the Upper East Side say new LinkNYC 5G towers are slated there too, and would violate the historic look of the neighborhood, which stretches from East 86th Street to East 96th Street and from Third Avenue to Central Park. The installation of the 32-footers started in July 2022, and the agreement with the city requires the overwhelming bulk of the new kiosks to be built north of 96th Street in Manhattan or outside of Manhattan. But opponents, including elected leaders, say there are other options that are less obtrusive and more aesthetically pleasing.

My perception of internet service providers (ISPs) and cellular advertising is that companies push the envelope more every year in trying to make claims that can give them a marketing edge over the competition. What’s funny about many ads is that carriers try to differentiate themselves from their competitors, even though their peers are delivering essentially the same product to the market. The competition between cable companies and fiber overbuilders, however, is not based on equivalence. There is a clear technical advantage of a 300 Mbps broadband connection on fiber versus the same connection from a cable company. Cable companies know when a fiber network shows up in a market that they will lose customers who care about signal quality, but cable company marketers never stop trying to make a pitch that makes them sound better than fiber. One of the latest examples comes from Comcast, which has started to advertise itself as the 10G ISP. Verizon took exception to Comcast’s advertising and asked the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs to get Comcast to stop using the term 10G. NAD ruled that the 10G term was not factual and said Comcast should stop using it. The participants in the NAD generally comply with NAD rulings, but this time, Comcast is appealing the ruling. As an outsider, it’s pretty easy to agree with Verizon in this case. The 10G term was based on some theoretical future upgrade to meet the CableLabs 10G specifications, and Comcast’s coaxial networks today cannot achieve that speed. The only example of where Comcast has a 10 Gbps capability today is where it has upgraded to a 10 Gbps fiber platform—a tiny portion of the overall Comcast network.

In an attempt to boost broadband competition, Canada's telecommunication regulator, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), is forcing large phone companies to open their fiber networks to competitors. Smaller companies will be allowed to buy network capacity and use it to offer competing broadband plans to consumers. Evidence received during a comment period "shows that competition in the Internet services market is declining," the CRTC announced. CRTC hasn't made a final decision on fiber resale. But in the meantime, until a more permanent ruling is made, large telephone companies in Ontario and Quebec will be "required to provide competitors with access to their fibre-to-the-home networks within six months," the CRTC said. Fiber-provider Bell protested the ruling by announcing "its intention to reduce capital expenditures by over $1 billion in 2024-25, including a minimum of $500 to $600 million in 2024, money the company had planned to invest in bringing high-speed fibre Internet to hundreds of thousands of additional homes and businesses in rural, suburban and urban communities."

The Justice Department secured a landmark agreement with Apple to resolve allegations that Apple illegally discriminated in hiring and recruitment against U.S. citizens and certain non-U.S. citizens whose permission to live in and work in the United States does not expire. Under the agreement, Apple is required to pay up to $25 million in backpay and civil penalties, the largest award that the department has recovered under the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The settlement agreement resolves the department’s determination that Apple violated the INA’s anti-discrimination requirements during Apple’s recruitment for positions falling under the permanent labor certification program (PERM). The PERM program is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It allows employers to sponsor workers for lawful permanent resident status in the United States after completing recruitment and meeting other program requirements. Any U.S. employer that utilizes the PERM program cannot illegally discriminate in hiring or recruitment based on citizenship or immigration status. The department’s investigation, which started in February 2019, found that Apple engaged in a pattern or practice of citizenship status discrimination in recruitment for positions it hired through PERM, and that the company’s unlawful discrimination prejudiced U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, lawful permanent residents, and those granted asylum or refugee status.