I applaud private efforts to address low-income adoption, particularly Comcast’s Internet Essentials, which is the oldest and most extensive program. Comcast started the program in 2011 and has continually studied and changed the program to improve its outcomes. That is the path the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress should follow with the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). But the question ignores how the ACP, by focusing on improving the demand side of the equation, improved the supply side of low-income offerings.  ACP caused the private sector to improve the quality of their offerings to lower income Americans—both in terms of the price actually paid by the consumer and the quality of the service—in response to greater aggregate demand from lower-income households. Moreover, I don’t think that private efforts alone will solve the problem of universal broadband, in the same way that the admirable private efforts providing meals for the hungry would not eliminate the need for SNAP or the commendable charitable efforts related to healthcare would not eliminate the need for Medicaid.

NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association advises stakeholders to heed four recommendations regarding the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment funding program. NTCA’s first recommendation applies to providers that don’t plan to apply for BEAD funding, as well as those who plan to do so. Noting that most states are just beginning the BEAD challenge process, NTCA said the challenge process is critical to determining areas eligible for funding. The association also had some advice about the size of project areas that could apply to state broadband offices. “Smaller, right-sized project areas target funds to the areas that most need them and will encourage program participation by those best able to serve them.” NTCA’s third recommendation was to use the most future-proof technology possible. Although the association didn’t use the word “fiber,” that’s clearly what it had in mind. NTCA’s fourth recommendation applies to legislators and advocates for not taxing broadband grants. Taxing grants could deter small and rural providers from participating in many states, NTCA said.

In a series of orders beginning in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission has acted to promote the widespread deployment of broadband networks that are open, affordable, and accessible to all. Four of these previous orders have been reviewed by the D.C. Circuit; the challenge to a fifth order is currently pending (but in abeyance) there as well.  The D.C. Circuit has approved aspects of the FCC’s orders but disagreed with others—on several occasions remanding to the FCC for further action or additional deliberation. Thus, for more than a decade, the D.C. Circuit has repeatedly engaged with the FCC concerning the lawful contours of the agency’s Open Internet rules.  Respondents submit that it would be most efficient, and in the interest of justice, to transfer this latest round of follow-on litigation to the D.C. Circuit.

If there are any telephone companies in the US that are experts at closing the digital divide it’s the ones in Alaska. The state encompasses 663,267 square miles, which is more than Texas, California and Montana combined. And Alaska’s MTA has been connecting citizens of the state for over 70 years, so it has a lot of experience. MTA is a cooperative where its customers are also its owners. Michael Burke, CEO of MTA, said the company covers broadband subscribers across 10,000 square miles, which is about the same size as the state of Maryland, but with less than 2% population density. Although the Alaska Telephone Company, which won the US Department of Agriculture's ReConnect grant in 2022 quoted the cost to run fiber at $204,000 per passing. Burke said MTA's cost is closer to $9,000 to $10,000 per passing. Burke said MTA will apply for Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment grants, but “It’s more just continuing to do fiber-to-the-home builds and upgrades.”

Telephone companies may want to ditch copper and focus on the next best thing (i.e., fiber). But states aren’t about to let them off the hook. According to New Street Research, ILECs seeking to end their carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations are getting pushback from states because consumers might not have another option for internet access—including wireless. A COLR is a telecommunications service provider that’s required to serve upon request all customers within its designated service areas. It must provide basic telephone service, such as free access to 9-1-1 and directory and operator services. In March 2023, AT&T petitioned California’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) asking to be relieved of its COLR obligation. In May 2024, the California PUC issued a proposal rejecting AT&T’s request to withdraw as a COLR.