The US Department of the Treasury approved $195.7 million for high-speed internet projects in Washington state from the Capital Projects Fund (CPF). The state estimates the support will help connect about 33,000 homes and businesses to affordable, high-speed internet. The plan approved by the Treasury Department represents 100% of the state’s total allocation under the CPF program. Washington will implement three competitive broadband infrastructure programs that aim to provide reliable internet access to households across the state.

1. Washington’s State Broadband Office (SBO) broadband grant program will prioritize the investment of $118.5 million to provide reliable internet in communities without internet service and then to those with internet speeds below 25/3 Mbps.
2. The state will also invest $43.7 million of its CPF award to the Public Works Board (PWB) Broadband Program – a program designed to provide high-speed internet in distressed rural counties, or areas identified as Indian country.
3. Washington will additionally invest $23.8 million towards the Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) Rural Broadband Program to expand last-mile broadband access in rural areas of the state without reliable internet.

Twenty-seven states are expected to see larger allocations in the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program based on the updated Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Map in comparison with earlier estimates based on older data, according to a new analysis conducted by researchers at Cartesian for provider association ACA Connects. The other 23 states will see less funding, according to the updated estimates. The increase or decrease for 31 states will be no more than 20%. The state that is expected to see the biggest gain is Nebraska, which was originally estimated to receive $210 million but is now expected to receive $633 million — an increase of over 200%. Other big gainers are expected to include Alaska (84%), Iowa (63%), New Jersey (63%), Oregon (60%), and Kansas (50%). The states that are expected to see the biggest drop in comparison with Cartesian’s previous estimates are Arkansas, Michigan, and South Carolina, all of which are expected to see declines of 25%.

A partnership between Common Sense Media, Arizona State University (ASU), and the Digital Equity Institute is working to increase awareness of and enroll eligible households in the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). Through a multipoint marketing campaign targeted to low-income communities with high eligibility for the federal broadband subsidy program, Common Sense Media is directing Phoenix residents toward the ASU Experience Center, a call center with more than 100 phone specialists. Here, trained employees walk Phoenicians through the ACP application process. With the Digital Equity Institute, ASU is working to bring a team of digital navigators to the Experience Center and build off of the partnership with Common Sense Media. With additional funding from Maricopa County, ASU’s Experience Center continues to expand its capabilities to make a range of digital equity resources available to callers. This work could not be done without combining national resources and community knowledge. Local organizations and preexisting digital navigators ground the work in community knowledge and connections, while the policy expertise and resources provided by Common Sense Media help to expand reach. ASU’s Experience Center has the infrastructure and people to run the campaign’s programming end, building off of other efforts to help ensure that everyone is online.

There was an interesting political effort in the Washington State Legislature recently to expand the use of open-access networks. There was language included in Substitute House Bill 1147 that would require that any network funded from Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program grants must become open-access and available to other broadband providers.  Open-access has been a topic in Washington for many years. There was a long-time prohibition against Public Utility Districts (PUDs) from offering retail broadband. These county-wide government-owned utilities wanted to bring better broadband and settled by building open-access networks. Open-access is a network where multiple providers can reach customers. This provides customers with the choice of using multiple providers on the same network. The BEAD grant rules have a clear preference for open-access networks, and any carrier promising an open network will get extra points on a grant application. But the open-access preference is only a suggestion and not a requirement.

The [Federal Communications Commission] exercises tremendous power not only over the media, but also over consumers’ pocketbooks. Through the Universal Service Fund (USF) the agency has imposed burdensome taxes on American consumers to fund inefficient, ever-expanding programs. Nominees must be good stewards of funding and stand up for taxpayers’ interests. Despite being repeatedly excoriated by the [Government Accountability Office] and economists for failing to track where USF money was going, the current FCC leadership failed to learn from past mistakes in setting up the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).  According to the FCC’s own Inspector General, the FCC “did not apply lessons learned” and “failed to implement several important recommendations intended to enhance and safeguard the integrity of the [subsidies].” Proponents for Title II have refused to take accountability for the parade of horribles they manufactured in the lead-up to the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. Rather than articulating meaningful reasons for another policy reversal, they claim they simply want regulatory oversight—in other words, the power to micromanage providers’ pricing and terms of service, and collect billions in new USF taxes—all at the expense of investment, innovation, and consumer choice. Let’s call a spade a spade: any effort to outlaw usage-based pricing is straight-up rate regulation. Worse, bullying providers to ban usage-based pricing would force them to raise prices across the board, making broadband more expensive for all American households.

Federal Communications Commission nominee Anna Gomez left little doubt that if confirmed, she would vote in favor of classifying broadband as a Title II telecommunications service—a move that would enable the agency to prohibit carriers from blocking or throttling web traffic. Gomez told lawmakers that internet access was too essential to remain unregulated. “Title II gives the strongest oversight to the FCC over the service,” she added. Broadband is currently considered a Title I information service—and is largely unregulated. Title II classification, by contrast, would allow the FCC to impose common-carrier regulations—including ones that could prohibit internet access providers from censoring traffic. Another issue set to come up for a vote before the FCC by the end of 2023 is rulemaking on digital discrimination. One topic up for debate, and an area of disagreement between the industry and consumer advocates, is whether the FCC should define digital discrimination as solely "intentional" – as preferred by the industry – versus defining it as practices that produce disparate outcomes, as encouraged by some advocacy groups. Gomez declined to comment directly, telling Sen. Cruz (R-TX), "The issue of digital discrimination is something I know Congress tasked the Commission with looking at... but I need to be able to sit down and dig into the record and look at the notice of proposed rulemaking in order to be able to give you an informed answer." Further, Gomez stressed the importance of the Universal Service Fund (USF) and said she would work with the committee if confirmed, "on addressing ways to ensure that we can protect the program going forward."