It seems that almost every internet service provider (ISP) going for broadband grants is promising to offer a low-income program by promising to take part in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provides a $30 monthly discount on broadband rates for qualifying households. The discount is available for households earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. I love the idea of the ACP, but I think it’s already time to start the discussion of what happens when the ACP program runs out of money. By my quick math, the ACP will have paid out about $1.3 billion by the end of this April 2022. If the ACP runs out of money, the subsidy will stop. If the fund participants grow at the current rate, then 28 million homes would see an immediate $30 rate increase – one that, by definition, most of them can’t afford. The only way for the ACP to continue is for Congress to continue to fund it. If there are 20 million ACP participants, that’s a new annual federal subsidy program of $7.2 billion per year. At 30 million participants, it’s $10.8 billion per year. There are a whole lot of folks putting energy today into digital equity, and many of them tell me that the $30 discount really makes a difference to families. I’m sure many of them have done the same math as me and must be worried about what happens when the ACP runs out of money. Two years is almost no time in political terms, and anybody who wants the ACP to last more than two years needs to already be lobbying for the replacement funding.

[Doug Dawson is President of CCG Consulting.]

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) gives the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) a specific allocation formula for distributing the $42.45 billion in the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. Importantly, even the allocation of funds to states has to wait until after the Federal Communications Commission is done with their new maps. After all, the formula is based on the number of unserved locations and we don’t trust the existing data on unserved locations. Here, I use the existing Form 477 data to do an initial allocation, then use parameters from existing research to make estimates about how the allocations might change under the new maps. Small changes in the number of unserved locations relative to other states can mean a big swing in funding. Ultimately, the adjustments produce a dramatic swing in funding towards bigger more urban states. This data need thorough peer review—here’s the spreadsheet. However, I think it’s safe to say that given the small amount of unserved housing units nationally (4.1 percent of housing units are unserved), the changes to those numbers that will happen with the FCC’s new maps will lead to big changes in the funding allocation relative to what the existing maps would produce.

[Mike Conlow writes about technology, policy, politics, and economics in various combinations in 'Mike's Newsletter'.]

On April 4 the American Enterprise Institute hosted a discussion on how states can best use the $65 billion for broadband build-out apportioned by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai was joined by Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) followed by a panel discussion with John Bailey and Mark Jamison of AEI, Evan Feinman of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Sarah Oh Lam of the Technology Policy Institute (TPI), and Brent Skorup of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. Sen Fischer said, " I was very proud to be able to support this bill because I think it is so important to make these investments in infrastructure—including roads, bridges, waterways, airports, and especially broadband." She said it was important to include "he technology-neutral speed requirements of 100/20 megabits per second (Mbps) and prioritizing unserved areas." The panelists discussed the broadband mapping efforts and how well states are prepared to receive and make good use of the federal broadband infrastructure support. 

The Ohio Connectivity Champions (OCC) partnered with the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) to help deploy free internet service to more than 6,000 district households during the 2021-2022 school year ensuring online access to health, employment, school, skill improvement, and the economy. In September 2021, CMSD was awarded approximately $12 million from the Emergency Connectivity Fund (now the Affordable Connectivity Program), a federal $7.17 billion program that helps schools and libraries provide the tools and services needed for remote learning during the pandemic. As part of Spectrum’s Stay Connected K-12 program and EmpowerCLE+, more than 6,000 high-speed modems were distributed to households in CMSD’s district. The Champions also help CMSD with address changes, identifying household internet needs, verifying installation of needed internet, ensuring that unneeded modems were returned, and making sure that households that do need modems are scheduled to receive one. “Ohio’s Connectivity Champions are committed to removing the burdens districts face while connecting families to internet,” said Geoff Andrews, chief executive officer of the Management Council, parent organization of OCC. “We are pleased to be part of an initiative that helps Ohioans connect to the internet and participate in the global economy.”

Judging by what T-Mobile executives have shared publicly, the integration of Sprint into the T-Mobile sphere is going swimmingly. But if you’re the Communications Workers of America (CWA), the whole thing stinks. T-Mobile said it plans to finish transitioning all Sprint customers to the T-Mobile network over the next few months. The company also is on track to upgrade or decommission substantially all Sprint sites in 2022. It’s been selectively decommissioning sites since the merger closed. Decommissioning will be heaviest in the first two quarters of 2022, with the target being those 35,000 cell sites. It’s not a direct result of the network shutdown, but as part of the overall transaction, CWA recently reviewed the impact of the merger on jobs. Its comments were submitted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DoJ) to inform their review of corporate merger guidelines. According to CWA, T-Mobile has eliminated 19,840 jobs since the merger. It also closed 32% of its corporate-operated stores, 13% of its third-party stores, and 18% of its Metro by T-Mobile prepaid stores since the merger. The average store closures for other wireless carriers over the same period is 7%. The result of the merger for wireless retail workers, who often move between wireless carriers, is fewer job options and less bargaining power, CWA told the FTC in its comments.

Twitter's board agreed to sell the corporation to Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla and SpaceX. The Open Markets Institute believes the deal poses a number of immediate and direct threats to American democracy and free speech. Open Markets also believes the deal violates existing law, and that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have ample authority to block it. The most obvious problem is that the deal would give to a single man—one who already wields immense political and economic power—direct control over one of world’s most important platforms for public communications and debate. As has been true from the Founding, the American people have an absolute right to ensure the full openness and neutrality of all essential public infrastructure. Specific to communications, we see this in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, in the Telegraph acts of 1860 and 1866, the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910, the Communications Act of 1934, and many other federal and state laws. Americans have also repeatedly used our antitrust laws to prevent concentrations of power over communications, speech, debate, and news. The deal also violates the law at a more technical level. Musk already controls one of the most important internet platforms in the world—in the form of the satellite communications system Starlink. Since the late 19th Century, the US government has routinely acted to prevent mergers between existing essential platforms. Most recently, the DOJ in 2017 attempted to block AT&T’s takeover of Time-Warner. This means that just as we would now expect the US government to block a takeover of Twitter by Google, Facebook, Comcast, or Verizon, the same rules apply to the owners of Starlink.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said, "The FCC has no authority to block Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and to suggest otherwise is absurd. I would welcome the full FCC making it clear that we will not entertain these types of frivolous arguments."

Elon Musk has claimed he is buying Twitter in order to protect free speech. But what does Musk mean by "free speech"? "By 'free speech,' I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people." There are multiple ways to interpret Musk's statement as it relates to United States law, particularly the First Amendment. One interpretation is that Musk doesn't need to change Twitter at all to prevent "censorship that goes far beyond the law." In the US, judges have ruled that private companies like Twitter have a First Amendment right to moderate content. But what of other countries? Is Musk suggesting a different approach in which he'd be willing to restrict speech in any country where the government requires him to do so? Using Musk's explanation of free speech, a government law that prohibits certain kinds of speech is just "the will of the people."

For the first time in its history, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) expanded beyond administering the four universal service programs: E-Rate, High Cost (Connect America Fund), Lifeline, and Rural Health Care. In 2021, USAC rose to the challenge and successfully administered four Federal Communications Commission initiatives, collectively known as the Congressional Response Programs. While this was far from a simple feat, USAC is proud of the effort, the execution, and ultimately the success of the programs, which served those most in need, alongside the universal service programs. 

• The E-Rate program continues to see year-over-year growth. E-Rate processed 19,723 applications, 54 percent of total applications, within 30 days of the window closing.
• The High Cost program undertook efforts to ensure service providers are meeting the obligations of different funds so communities receive access to broadband services.
• The Lifeline program served millions of subscribers, helping to offset the cost of internet service for low-income households. The National Verifier eligibility system can automatically verify the eligibility of more than 60 percent of Lifeline applicants, which decreases the number of manual reviews, thus reducing the cost of operations.
• In 2021, the Rural Health Care (RHC) team launched modernization efforts for the Healthcare Connect Fund application process, which had been a manually-intense process since its inception.