The record shows that Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) recipients regard using access to broadband as critical to their healthcare. A recent study found that 75% of ACP participants fear that losing access to ACP will result in losing access to healthcare. This is consistent with another large-scale survey found that 45% of adults believe that inadequate access to technology, including broadband and computers, is a barrier to telehealth, and this was especially prominent among rural residents and adults over the age of 65. That is, ACP recipients and the public generally understand that today broadband access is critical to obtaining healthcare services. Second, there are numerous media reports of ACP recipients using and depending on internet access for healthcare. While I am aware that anecdotes are not the same as data, there should not be any doubt as to the impact of ACP on the use of telehealth. Third, there is evidence that when lower income persons have broadband access, they tend to use it for healthcare more than the general population. Fourth, while I agree with the comment that “Telemedicine may be a great benefit to Americans, but the studies cited indicate that it would have been a great benefit without ACP,” we should not be blind to the fact that the United States government, through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration, is the largest provider of health insurance in the country.  If the general public and private insurers benefit from telehealth, then the government, as a provider of health insurance, would benefit as well, particularly given the overlap of those depending on ACP and those depending on Medicaid and Veterans Administration services. Fifth, the question implies that ACP recipients might regard the value of telehealth differently than other broadband subscribers.  There is no evidence that this is true. Sixth, not only do we need ACP for telehealth, but we should also be looking for ways in which we can use telehealth for all Americans to improve outcomes and reduce costs.

More than 23 million households will lose affordable internet access as part of a pandemic-era federal program that provided low-income households with a credit of between $30 and $75 toward their monthly service bill. Without this aid millions of people risk losing their access to the web — or already have. Some lawmakers had been trying to allocate more funds to prevent the program from expiring or ending on June 1, but they were not able to get a vote. The ACP program was one of the first federal programs that directly addressed affordable broadband access and it had an immediate effect. California has the most ACP enrollments of any state, with nearly 3 million households, or about 20%, relying on that funding. And only 47% of eligible households in California enrolled in this program, meaning there were still families that could have had more financial support. An extension of the program is reasonable. A temporary extension of funding for ACP is a short-term solution to the connectivity issue, and lawmakers know that. The internet is constantly evolving with new technologies being introduced daily. We need permanent programs that help those on the wrong side of the digital divide or the gap will continue to grow.

I have been complaining for years about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mapping rule that allow internet service providers (ISPs) to claim marketing speeds instead of something closer to actual speeds. That allows ISPs to report speeds that benefit them in some manner rather than being truthful to the public. There have been big consequences as a result of this FCC decision. Historically, the maps didn't mean much, as they were only used for the FCC's reports to Congress. But the maps started to mean something when the FCC used them to determine eligible areas for ReConnect grants and the Rural Digital Opportunity Fuind—leaving serving areas that in many areas are best compared to Swiss cheese. The FCC recently instituted the new Broadband Labels, which require an ISP to disclose its ‘typical’ download and upload speed and latency for each broadband product. This is a perfect opportunity for the FCC to get speeds right in the labels and the maps, but I don't have much hope that the FCC will do the right thing.

Wisconsin broadband director Alyssa Kenney acknowledges that leading a state broadband office might not be for everyone. But she described the job as exactly what she is looking for because it’s “challenging, exciting and feeds my need to be constantly learning. I’m reading 100 pages a day and as a bit of a bookworm, I love it.” As Wisconsin’s State Broadband and Digital Equity Director, Kenney leads a team of 22 professionals in the state’s broadband office, which will be responsible for awarding $1.06 billion in rural broadband deployment funding. Kenney describes Wisconsin as a broadband-friendly state. “Since the broadband office opened, the state has funded 434 broadband projects, with more than 200 still in progress today,” said Kenney. All of these past projects, Kenney explained, have served to essentially prepare the skilled workforce that will be required as the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment projects roll out.  “Our [state’s] workforce is ready,” she said. 

Windstream is offering free upgrades to its Kinetic fiber broadband service to 33,000 customers currently served by slower speed DSL infrastructure. The company is calling the initiative “Project Glass Echo.” Eligible DSL customers can get speeds of 300Mbps at no extra charge on their monthly bills, regardless of what speed they were previously receiving, said Ben Midanek, Windstream’s chief marketing officer for Kinetic. There are eligible customers throughout Windstream’s 18-state footprint. Two thirds of nearly 20,000 customers in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas are eligible for the upgrade. What makes Windstream’s upgrades challenging is that customers must be moved onto the company’s fiber broadband infrastructure to get the faster speeds.