All 32 Democratic members of the House Commerce Committee introduced the Leading Infrastructure For Tomorrow’s America Act, or LIFT America Act. The sweeping legislation will modernize the nation’s infrastructure, rebuild the economy, combat climate change, and protect public health and the environment. The legislation invests more than $312 billion in clean energy, energy efficiency, drinking water, broadband, and health care infrastructure. Support for Expansion of Broadband Internet Access Nationwide:

• $80 billion for the deployment of secure and resilient high-speed broadband to expand access nationwide by funding connections to the internet in unserved and underserved rural, suburban, and urban areas, facilitating crucial connectivity that will lead to stronger small businesses, more jobs, and a powerful economy in communities that have been left behind. This investment will allow for 100 percent broadband deployment throughout the nation.
• $15 billion in grants for the deployment and implementation of Next Generation 9-1-1 services across the country to protect American lives through more accessible, interoperable, effective, and resilient 9-1-1 services that allow callers to send text messages, images, or videos to 9-1-1 in times of emergency.
• $5 billion in federal funding for low-interest financing of broadband deployment with a new program that would allow eligible entities to apply for secured loans, lines of credit, or loan guarantees to finance broadband infrastructure build out projects.
• $9.3 billion for broadband affordability and adoption to ensure that everyone can afford internet service and have the knowledge and tools to use the internet in ways that meet their needs.

H.R. 1848

In Jan, bills aiming to advance broadband connectivity by allowing public entities to participate in the retail broadband market were presented in the House and Senate of the Washington State Legislature. The two bills have both cleared their respective chambers, and are waiting to be heard in committees of the opposite legislative chamber. Both bills aim to grant public entities, such as Public Utility Districts (PUDs) and ports, the authority to operate as Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Some are concerned part of the legislation will allow incumbent ISPs too much leverage to convince the WA Broadband Office that some community broadband initiatives — aimed at connecting the unserved, creating a more competitive marketplace, and improving end-user experience — classify as “overbuilding”. Laura Loe, Executive Director of Share the Cities, called lobbyists’ utilization of the term overbuilding an “excuse to not allow public entities to eat into private profits,” which echoes a point made more substantively by John Sallet in the recently published report, Broadband For America’s Future. In that report, Sallet wrote “what some call ‘overbuilding’ should be called by a more familiar term: competition.”

The Biden Administration’s goals of restoring a functional federal government, driving economic recovery, and “building back better” lend themselves to a new strategy for universalizing broadband, with a three-pronged approach to directly address each of the barriers I have described that have stalled universal access. First, any significant plan for investing in infrastructure must include sufficient funding in the form of grants and loans for both initial capital investment and ongoing operations and maintenance of universal, future-proofed broadband networks. Second, the Administration should recognize that the task of universalizing broadband has become too important to remain solely the domain of telecom policy. Rather, broadband needs to be elevated to reflect its role as part of the foundation for almost every aspect of the domestic recovery, from remote learning to rural development, telehealth to structural equality. Third, policymakers and advocates need to recognize that, for better or worse, Internet service is going to continue to be provided, on the whole, by a handful of private companies. If the government is going to subsidize companies’ network deployments, then the dollars should be conditional on providers offering affordable services for the lifetime of the network. Similarly, if the government is going to subsidize adoption, the taxpayer should get a volume discount, not pay retail rates or settle for sub-standard service that continues to disadvantage low-income consumers.

[Paul de Sa is a co-founder of advisory firm Quadra Partners and served as Chief of the FCC’s Office of Strategic Planning from 2009-12 and 2016-17.]

Policymakers and other stakeholders are becoming more aware of the hazards of assuming everyone has online access. Many are interested in understanding the places where online access may be lower than the norm and the population groups that may have limited or no access to the internet. Recent work I have done sheds light on some of these issues. Close examinations of high-speed internet adoption gaps in Maryland, Connecticut, and Illinois highlight the variations among different geographies and demographic groups. Two key points are worth highlighting from those broadband adoption reports, which are based on an analysis of American Community Survey data. A growing number of state policymakers view closing the digital divide as a part of larger strategies to address the economic and social disruptions of the pandemic. This is heartening to see. Having data on the nature of the gaps should help them as they formulate policies to get more people online.

[John B. Horrigan is a frequent contributor to Benton's Digital Beat and a Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute, with a focus on technology adoption, digital inclusion, and evaluating the outcomes and impacts of programs designed to promote communications technology adoption and use.]

A growing number of school districts across the country, spurred in part by the coronavirus pandemic, are going into the cell tower business. Many school districts have tried for years to provide internet service to needy families with mixed success. The rise of cell towers—typically the province of large telecommunications companies—means that a more sturdy local infrastructure is taking shape that could outlast the emergency of the pandemic. Many school districts have tried for years to provide internet service to needy families with mixed sccess. The rise of cell towers—typically the province of large telecommunications companies—means that a more sturdy local infrastructure is taking shape that could outlast the emergency of the pandemic. 

Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced bipartisan legislation to provide E-Rate Support for School Bus Wi-Fi to help close the homework gap while students travel on their daily school bus routes. The legislation expands eligibility for the Federal Communications Commission E-Rate program to reimburse schools that equip school buses with Wi-Fi technology.  According to the FCC, one in three households lacks broadband access, and a December study estimated that nearly 17 million students are stuck in the homework gap without internet access at home to complete their school assignments. The COVID-19 pandemic brought the digital divide into stark contrast, and school districts turned to other funding to provide Wi-Fi hot-spots on school buses and parked them throughout communities. The bill is also co-sponsored by Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AR). Companion legislation was introduced in the House by Representative Peter Welch (D-VT). (S. 741 | H.R. 1673)

Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T held events to update investors and analysts on spectrum auction results, and laid out plans for expanding their 5G networks. There is "no question" the carriers' new spectrum holdings will improve consumers' experience of using 5G, said Craig Moffett, founding partner and analyst at MoffettNathanson. But the carriers largely expect it will take several years to put the new spectrum to use. This spectrum auction helps the carriers, especially AT&T and Verizon, fill a key gap in their 5G networks. Three categories of spectrum are used to build 5G networks. High-band, or "millimeter wave," networks provide blindingly fast speeds but limited geographic coverage. For that reason, it only makes sense for carriers to build high-band networks in densely populated areas like cities and airports, where many cell sites can be installed close to each other." Low-band spectrum provides much broader coverage, making it effective for use in nationwide 5G networks, but data speeds are only marginally faster than on 4G LTE. Mid-band is the "Goldilocks" spectrum that balances speed and coverage, which has largely been lacking in US 5G networks until now. Carriers bid on mid-band spectrum in the latest auction, and it didn't come cheap.

• Verizon spent $52.9 billion to more than double its mid-band spectrum holdings. The company plans to allocate $10 billion more in capital expenditures over the next three years, on top of its existing spending plans, to put the new spectrum to use.
• AT&T bid $27.4 billion to bolster its mid-band holdings, and expects to spend between $6 billion and $8 billion in additional capital from 2022 to 2024 on the mid-band network buildout.
• T-Mobile had an advantage coming into the auction: a significant amount of mid-band spectrum already in its portfolio, thanks to its $26 billion acquisition of Sprint. As a result, T-Mobile spent just $9.3 billion to fill select gaps in its network.

The Federal Communications Commission's Office of Managing Director announces that the proposed universal service contribution factor for the second quarter of 2021 will be 0.334 or 33.4 percent.

T-Mobile says it will use its customers’ web browsing and app usage data to sell targeted ads unless those customers opt out. It sounds very creepy.  But it’s also a good example of just how much of our data can be and is collected through our mobile devices and how few rules there are for the carriers we’re forced to trust with it. Mobile carriers figured out a long time ago that they have two ways of making money off of their customers: what those customers pay to use their services, and then, what carriers earn by selling the data those paying customers provide as they use those services. The latter is buried under lengthy and confusing privacy policies and account settings, and most customers don’t even know it’s happening. There is a little bright spot here: These companies claim that they don’t attach your personal information, like your real name or address, to this data. They either just lump you in with a large anonymous pool of customers to use as aggregate data, or they assign a unique identifier to you, attach a bunch of categories based on interests or demographic information inferred from your data to that identifier, and then give that to third-party advertisers to target their ads to. That’s supposed to prevent advertisers from knowing your real identity, but depending on what’s used as an identifier and how specific the data attached to that identifier is, it could be easy enough to re-identify you through it. You just have to trust that T-Mobile (or Verizon or AT&T) and their advertising partners won’t do that.