Now that New York’s Affordable Broadband Act has gone into effect, other states are looking to mandate low broadband rates for low-income households. The New York law went into effect when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case. State Senator Pavel Pavano (D-MA) of Massachusetts proposed SD1200, “An Act preserving broadband service for low-income consumers”. This law proposes that all internet service providers (ISPs) offer 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) broadband to qualified low-income households for $15 per month. This fee must include equipment rental and any usage charges, meaning no separate charges for modems or for data caps. Unlike New York, there is no exception for small ISPs. The qualification for the discount seems to match the qualification used for the now-defunct federal ACP plan. In California, Assemblymember Tasha Boerner (D-CA) introduced  AB 353 that provides broadband discounts for low-income households. The bill generally requires ISPs to offer affordable home broadband to customers. This proposed law doesn’t yet suggest any specific rates or broadband speeds, but the intention of legislators is to add that requirement at some point. The proposed bill is being linked to the larger Digital Equity Bill of Rights legislation and introduces the legislative concept that ISPs should have affordable rates.

On November 1, 2024, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) and its Wisconsin Broadband Office (WBO) received over $13 million in Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program funding from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). With this funding, WBO will implement the activities in its state Digital Equity Plan. The PSC will use its $13 million to implement key digital equity initiatives, including:

• Awarding grants to expand and support digital navigator programs through the Digital Navigator Competitive Grant program; and
• Offering a Digital Navigator Pilot Program for incarcerated individuals to increase digital skills.

If successful in implementing its digital equity plan, Wisconsin envisions a future in which all Wisconsinites will have equitable access to affordable broadband service and the capacity to fully engage in a digital society. The state recognizes that high-speed broadband will benefit all residents and communities. PSC will help achieve this through balancing the long- and short-term goals outlined in the Wisconsin Digital Equity Plan, engaging in collaborative partnerships, and consistently listening to the stories of covered populations. The PSC is confident that, working together, Internet for All Wisconsin will be achieved.

 A public-private partnership (PPP) that uses public resources (e.g., grant funds) to leverage the expertise of private firms (e.g., established ISPs) is the most effective way to extend broadband networks into unserved and underserved areas. Across the country, states are increasingly relying on PPPs with incumbent ISPs to close digital divides and will likely continue to do so as BEAD funds are doled out. PPPs are governed by contracts, allowing parties to ensure that priorities, timelines, budgets, and other parameters of a project are memorialized and legally protected. Selecting the right partner is critically important. The following discussion highlights the myriad criteria that state and local officials should use when vetting potential partners. 

The Federal Trade Commission launched a public inquiry to better understand how technology platforms deny or degrade users’ access to services based on the content of their speech or affiliations, and how this conduct may have violated the law. Censorship by technology platforms is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal. Tech firms can employ confusing or unpredictable internal procedures that cut users off, sometimes with no ability appeal the decision. Such actions taken by tech platforms may harm consumers, affect competition, may have resulted from a lack of competition, or may have been the product of anti-competitive conduct. The FTC issued a Request for Information (RFI) requesting public comment on how consumers may have been harmed by technology platforms that limited their ability to share ideas or affiliations freely and openly. The public will have until May 21, 2025 to submit a comment. 

President Trump, in small and unprecedented ways, is punishing media companies more than any leader since America's founding. Once considered a bastion for free expression, America's record on press freedoms has fallen to a historic low, according to Reporters Without Borders. Under Trump's second presidency, the press is "under siege," the group argues. American trust in media has hit an all-time low. Most U.S. counties have little to no local news sources anymore. Trump is targeting traditional media sources at a moment of tremendous vulnerability for the industry. These moves, while punitive, are temporary and a new president can easily reverse them. Broader efforts to target media companies by Trump, his administration and a Republican-led Congress recently could be harder to unwind.

It is the policy of my Administration to focus the executive branch’s limited enforcement resources on regulations squarely authorized by constitutional Federal statutes, and to commence the deconstruction of the overbearing and burdensome administrative state.  Ending Federal overreach and restoring the constitutional separation of powers is a priority of my Administration. Agency heads shall, in coordination with their DOGE Team Leads and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, initiate a process to review all regulations subject to their sole or joint jurisdiction for consistency with law and Administration policy. Within 60 days of the date of this order, agency heads shall, in consultation with the Attorney General as appropriate, identify the following classes of regulations:
(i)    unconstitutional regulations and regulations that raise serious constitutional difficulties, such as exceeding the scope of the power vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution;
(ii)   regulations that are based on unlawful delegations of legislative power;
(iii)  regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition;
(iv)   regulations that implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not authorized by clear statutory authority;
(v)    regulations that impose significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed by public benefits;
(vi)   regulations that harm the national interest by significantly and unjustifiably impeding technological innovation, infrastructure development, disaster response, inflation reduction, research and development, economic development, energy production, land use, and foreign policy objectives; and
(vii)  regulations that impose undue burdens on small business and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship.

Agency heads shall determine whether ongoing enforcement of any regulations identified in their regulatory review is compliant with law and Administration policy.  To preserve resources and ensure lawful enforcement, agency heads, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall, on a case-by-case basis and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, then direct the termination of all such enforcement proceedings that do not comply with the Constitution, laws, or Administration policy.