The Federal Communications Commission adopted a proposal seeking comment on steps to encourage greater participation by eligible Tribal applicants in the E-Rate program, which provides high-speed internet to schools and libraries. Established in 1996, the E-Rate program has provided support for connectivity to and within schools and libraries, allowing students and library patrons to obtain access to essential communications and broadband services. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on how to make the E-Rate program easier for eligible Tribal applicants to encourage greater program participation, including:

• Simplifying E-Rate forms and cost-allocation requirements;
• Providing an additional competitive bidding exemption for low-cost services and equipment for Tribal applicants;
• Increasing the maximum discount rate for Category Two services from 85% to 90% for Tribal applicants;
• Allowing Tribal college libraries that serve a dual role by also serving as the Tribal community’s public library to be eligible for E-Rate support;
• Providing an extended or separate application filing window for Tribal libraries to align with their Tribal procurement requirements and approval processes;
• Increasing the Category Two $25,000 funding floor for Tribal applicants;
• Adding a Tribal representative to the Universal Service Administrative Company’s Board of Directors, which administers the program for the FCC; and
• Considering other potential reforms to encourage greater participation by Tribal or similarly situated small or rural applicants, particularly if they face barriers that impede equitable access to the E-Rate program.

Technology is increasingly at the center of our lives. And as our dependence on the internet and digital communications increases, our workforce must keep up with the evolving skill demand. Despite the high demand for digital skills and the desire for skill-building opportunities among workers, many have not had the opportunity to fully develop such skills. The digital skill divide is the space between those who have the robust access and support needed to engage in skill-building opportunities and those who do not. As technology evolves, the digital skill divide prevents equal participation and opportunity in all parts of life—including people’s ability to get good jobs and advance in their careers. The National Skills Coalition and the Center for Workforce and Economic Opportunity at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta shared research on how rapidly evolving technology is impacting the workforce. Looking at 43 million job postings in 2021, the researchers found that the overwhelming majority of jobs in the U.S. labor market now require technology skills. This demand for technology skills stretches across every industry in the U.S., and nearly every occupation, including entry-level and frontline workers. Understanding this digital transformation—and the digital skill divide that is disproportionately affecting workers of color and small businesses—highlights the importance of workers having a baseline of foundational digital skills to succeed in the 21st century. Here's a quick recap of the findings and recommendations from Closing the Digital Skill Divide: The Payoff for Workers, Business, and the Economy.

The Federal Communications Commission is investigating whether broadband-service providers exaggerated their level of coverage to authorities preparing to distribute billions of dollars in subsidies. At issue are claims by carriers that they already provide high-speed internet service to rural and other underserved areas where it’s not actually available. The Biden administration is awarding $42.5 billion to increase access in these locations. Areas served and unserved are being marked on a map compiled by the FCC. State and local officials, consultants and federal lawmakers have accused wireless providers of overstating the breadth and quality of their service in their reports to regulators. Broad claims of coverage could block potential rivals from obtaining subsidies that would let them more aggressively compete with the established providers. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel revealed that there was an investigation in a Feb. 3 letter to members of Congress concerned about progress in the program. “We have taken several steps to prevent systematic overreporting of coverage by broadband service providers,” Chairwoman Rosenworcel said. “Efforts to intentionally misstate service may be subject to enforcement action. In fact, we already have an investigation underway.” Since then the agency has moved to multiple probes.

In January 2020, former-Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-NY) announced New York City’s Internet Master Plan, setting a path to deliver broadband for low-income New Yorkers by investing in public fiber infrastructure. Shortly after the announcement by Mayor de Blasio, the COVID-19 pandemic hit and made the need for public fiber in low-income areas greater than ever before. In response, former union workers at Spectrum opted to build their own broadband cooperative called People’s Choice Communications, to deliver free high-speed access. But since the election of Mayor Eric Adams (D-NY), this critical progress has not only come to a halt, but it is also now actively being undermined, to the benefit of large cable corporations. Instead of pursuing long-term solutions to low-income access, as outlined by the Internet Master Plan, Mayor Adams has abandoned that plan. Now, the Adams administration is pushing an extraordinarily wasteful proposal dubbed “Big Apple Connect,” that literally just hands money over to cable companies. The original NYC proposal would have created the infrastructure that can lead to the creation of more local solutions like People’s Choice Communications. This would both create competition and drive down prices for everyone, as new entrants enter the market delivering gigabit-level connectivity. Now we know that the Adams administration is actively dismantling equipment that People's Choice Cooperative installed in public housing to make space for expensive, subsidized cable. The existence of a free, unsubsidized connection would not only embarrassingly raise questions about the Big Apple Connect program’s entire premise, but also threaten the cable monopoly of high prices for inferior speeds across the country.

T-Mobile is claiming that the price for its fixed-wireless access (FWA) is locked-in and will never be raised. In the pricing world, that kind of offer is referred to as a price-for-life, although T-Mobile didn’t use that term. This is the kind of idea that comes from marketing folks because it’s a gimmick that makes it easier to sell. But there are some long-term consequences of offering a guaranteed price forever. That tactic would be impossible for a fiber provider, but the average customer doesn’t understand cellular networks well enough to dispute that kind of maneuver. But there are other reasons why price-for-life is a bad idea. The number one issue is inflation. The main problem I have with the price-for-life concept is that it provides an easy path for the marketing department to make sales and earn sales bonuses today while pushing lower margins into somebody else’s lap in future years. My main objection to price-for-life is that it conveys a message to consumers that runs against the philosophy of most small internet service providers (ISP). Most small ISPs pride themselves on offering fair rates all of the time, which makes it easy to favorably contrast themselves with the big ISPs that constantly run special pricing promotions. There is one counterargument to be made in favor of price-for-life. There is value in a customer that never churns. Even if a customer delivers less margin every year by hanging on to a price-for-life product, that customer is delivering a huge accumulated return by paying for a product for a decade or two.

The following Republican Ranking Members for the 118th Congress:

• Subcommittee on Aviation Safety, Operations and Innovation: Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS);
• Subcommittee on Communications, Media and Broadband: Sen. John Thune (R-SD);
• Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, Freight and Ports: Sen. Todd Young (R-IN);
• Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, Climate Change and Manufacturing: Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK);
• Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security: Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN);
• Subcommittee on Space and Science: Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO);
• Subcommittee on Tourism, Trade and Export Promotion: Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC).