Read the rules for broadband deployment programs such as the Capital Projects Fund (CPF) or Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program and you’ll see a requirement for service providers receiving funding to participate in the low-income Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). Yet the future of that program is uncertain. The program was given an infusion of $14.2 billion, which is expected to run out in 2024. That’s a big problem for the BEAD program, said Kathryn de Wit, Project Director for the Broadband Access Initiative at Pew Charitable Trusts. The US has set a goal of getting everyone in the country connected to affordable high-speed broadband and, according to Director de Wit, both BEAD and ACP are necessary to reach that goal. In addition, de Wit said, ACP eliminates the need for customers to repeatedly sign up and cancel service because they sometimes have trouble paying their bills. In other words, ACP “stabilizes and increases the revenue base” for providers, de Wit said. Without this stability, providers may not be willing to apply for CPF or BEAD funding or may need to scale back on anticipated matching funds, potentially threatening the ability of the programs to meet broadband deployment goals. Whether Congress will pass legislation to continue to fund the ACP or a successor program is unclear, particularly considering that the debt ceiling bill adopted several weeks ago contained various “clawbacks” on government funding programs. One possible solution that could be quickly implemented as a stopgap measure would be to direct unspent funding originally allocated for COVID relief efforts to the ACP program, de Wit said.

Lt. Gov. Suzanne Crouch (R-IN) and the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs announced 216 addresses will gain access to high-speed broadband as a result of $898,075 awarded in the sixth round of the Indiana Connectivity Program (ICP). ICP helps Hoosier residents and business owners, often in rural areas, obtain access to reliable broadband by assisting internet providers with the expense of extending its services to underserved locations of Indiana. Of the 216 addresses funded in ICP’s round six, 208 are households and eight are businesses. Internet providers carrying out the projects are matching over $2.1 million for a total investment of more than $3 million. Broadband providers must complete their projects within nine months of the contract date. The program accepts addresses on a rolling basis.

American Association for Public Broadband Executive Director Gigi Sohn’s hope is that the incumbents that oppose community broadband will come to realize that there are better business opportunities for them to support the concept rather than fight it. For instance, they could have bid on the project in Bountiful City (UT), rather than use shadowy tactics to try and kill it. For decades, these incumbents have argued that taxpayer dollars should not be used to compete against their private investments. In response to that, Sohn said, “I’m sorry to laugh. But please name me one big company that doesn’t take a dime of taxpayer’s money.” She said many of the incumbents that fight municipal broadband get billions of dollars from programs such as the Universal Service Fund (USF), the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), and the Capital Projects Fund (CPF). Now, the incumbents, along with new players, are licking their lips at the prospect of billions of dollars from the government's Broadband, Equity and Deployment (BEAD) Program to build broadband networks in unserved locations. Some of their old knee-jerk tactics of using lobbyists and lawyers to fight municipal broadband may have to change as they begin to actively compete for broadband projects all around the country. “There’s only so many places that need to be wired," said Sohn. "There will come a point where there isn’t an opportunity to build greenfield. The only opportunity will be to actually compete.” She said she would love to see incumbents “lay down their arms” against community broadband and see the future as a competitive business opportunity.

For decades, AT&T, Verizon, and other firms dating back to the old Bell System have known that the lead in their networks was a possible health risk to their workers and had the potential to leach into the nearby environment. They knew their employees working with lead regularly had high amounts of the metal in their blood, studies from the 1970s and ’80s show. Environmental records from an AT&T smelting unit in the 1980s show contamination in the soil. Government agencies have conducted inspections, prompted by worker complaints, that led to citations for violations involving lead exposure and other hazardous materials more than a dozen times over four decades. Over the years, AT&T officials themselves expressed concern about possible worker exposure to lead. Risks include kidney issues, heart disease, and reproductive problems in adults. Yet the companies haven’t meaningfully acted on potential health risks to the surrounding communities or made efforts to monitor the cables. The telecommunications industry’s lead-covered cables have been largely unknown to the public. The industry doesn’t have a program to remove or assess their condition. Some lead experts say the cables should be removed, and any contaminated soil should be taken to an appropriate landfill. Removing a lead-sheathed cable could release lead into the environment during the process but some experts say leaving the lead could result in decadeslong contamination. 

The Federal Communications Commission Privacy and Data Protection Task Force announced new rules to protect consumers against scams that aim to commandeer their cell phone accounts. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel shared the new rules with her colleagues for their consideration. If adopted by a vote of the full FCC, the rules would help protect consumers from scammers who target data and personal information through SIM-swapping scams and port-out fraud by stealing consumers’ cell phone accounts without ever gaining physical control of a consumer’s phone. The FCC is focused on protecting consumers’ data from attacks like these cell phone account scams. To lead and coordinate this important work, Chairwoman Rosenworcel created the Privacy and Data Protection Task Force to work on privacy and data protection issues subject to the Commission’s authority under the Communications Act. The proposed Report and Order would revise the FCC’s Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) and Local Number Portability rules to require wireless providers to adopt secure methods of authenticating a customer before redirecting a customer’s phone number to a new device or provider. It would also require wireless providers to immediately notify customers whenever a SIM change or port-out request is made on customers’ accounts, and take additional steps to protect customers from SIM swap and port-out fraud.