Your written testimony noted various affiliations. Which companies that receive ACP have you or your employers received funding from since the program’s inception?

Let me also note that the question—perhaps unintentionally—carries the subtle suggestion that the only enterprises that care about the ACP are the ones who have received funding from the program since the program’s inception.  While it is true that telecommunications providers support continuing the program, so do many organizations outside of telecommunications.  For example—and in support of what I wrote in the several questions related to healthcare, the American Hospital Association wrote a letter to the several Senators in support of extending the ACP program. While they are not directly compensated through the ACP program, it wrote that ACP “can support patients’ access to certain services like telehealth visits, hospital at home, patient portals and electronic patient records, virtual scheduling, and remote patient monitoring — which are not possible without reliable internet.”  It further noted that the ACP is “also critical in continuing efforts to reduce disparities and advance health equity by giving patients in rural and underserved areas the necessary resources to utilize various forms of telehealth, as well as other digital health services.”  Similarly, the United States Chamber of Commerce (along with many local Chambers of Commerce) endorsed the ACP extension, writing that the “program’s focus on internet affordability serves as a critical tool to help connect all Americans, empower full participation in the 21^st Century economy and broaden access to critical services such as education, healthcare and banking." In short, no one should be under the impression that the only companies who benefit from the ACP are telecommunications providers.

The Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules will go into effect July 22, unless the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals places a stay on the rules. Several different groups have filed lawsuits, claiming that the FCC broke the law when it decided to reclassify broadband providers under Title II of the Communications Act. Because the groups filed their lawsuits in seven different circuit courts, a lottery was held to select the court where the cases could be consolidated, and the Sixth Circuit was selected in the lottery. The petitioners in the now-combined lawsuit are asking the Sixth Circuit to delay (or stay) the effective date of net neutrality until the lawsuit is resolved. At the same time, the FCC has asked to move the lawsuit to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

At its annual meeting, the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) announced a number of new developments, including a new branding campaign, mission statement and updates on its efforts to expand adoption of the ATSC 3.0 (aka NextGen TV) internationally as well as the campaign to sunset 1.0. But it was perhaps a comment from Federal Communications Commissioner Brendon Carr in a discussion with ATSC President Madeleine Noland that garnered the most attention. In a Q&A with Noland, Carr compared the transition from the current ATSC 1.0 standard to 3.0 to the evolution of the mobile wireless industry and, with many broadcasters eager to shut down 1.0 to provide more bandwidth for 3.0, what could happen after the 1.0 sunset. Like wireless, the transition to 3.0 is taking a lightly-regulated, market-based approach, which Carr agreed with. “The transition that we see in technologies from a wireless approach is one that we should take here,” Carr said, referring to 3.0. “We largely trust the mobile wireless industry to handle those upgrades in technology… you're getting the playbook here." He added, "We have to get to a point of a level regulatory playing field and increased investment. In broadcasting, we have to allow this flash cut to 3.0 by a date certain and forthrightly and we also need to really consider competition in D.C. around potentially an ‘incentive auction 2.0’ as well.”

Network consolidation and centralization of networks is putting our broadband and voice networks in increased jeopardy. It’s easy to understand why carriers are in favor of the savings that come from consolidation, but it’s vital that we recognize and acknowledge the increased risk that comes as a consequence of choosing efficiency over other factors. One area of particular concern is 911 network consolidation. Carriers have very quietly rearranged the 911 network configuration in the country in a way that puts 911 callers in jeopardy. Historically, 911 was the ultimate local network arrangement. Each city or county had at least one 911 call center. Over time, 911 call centers were consolidated regionally. It’s now fairly routine when a customer calls 911 that the call is routed to a 911 tandem that is many states away before ultimately being routed back to the appropriate local 911 center. In the network world, greater distance means greater risk. A network outage in a distant city can stop or block a local call to 911. There is no doubt that the current 911 configuration is more efficient. But I suspect the government folks in charge of 911 centers and public safety have little idea about the great distances covered by a routine 911 call. There would be a big improvement in 911 safety if the 911 tandems and databases were closer to customers, like the historical 911 networks.