The key findings of this report reflect the need to establish a clearer connection between Federal Communications Commission policy and how Universal Service Administrative Company operationalizes this policy through an FCC-directed Lifeline program strategic plan. Currently no such document exists. This prescriptive document will significantly contribute to the resolution of many of the findings. Broadly, findings, observations, and recommendations span two main categories:

Program Design – considerations for FCC based on its role to establish the vision and guiding policies for the design of the Lifeline program; and

Program Operations – considerations for USAC based on its processes and procedures to administer the Lifeline program according to FCC guidance and policies.

Performance criteria and metrics for the delivery of the Lifeline program’s objectives do not currently exist and needs to be designed in such a way that clearly links FCC’s intended policy outcomes to expectations of USAC in delivering those outcomes. In terms of program design, FCC’s establishment of agreed upon program performance metrics across Availability, Affordability, Burden and Cost Effectiveness is essential to clearly articulate the service delivery expectations of USAC. Across program operations, USAC will use these performance criteria and metrics to distribute resources to most effectively and efficiently deliver the services under the Lifeline program.

Congress is about to make critical decisions about the future of internet access and speed in the United States. It has a potentially once-in-a-lifetime amount of funding to spend on broadband infrastructure, and at the heart of this debate is the minimum speed requirement for taxpayer-funded internet. It’s easy to get overwhelmed by the granularity of this debate, but ultimately it boils down to this: cable companies want a definition that requires them to do and give less, one that will not meet our needs in the future. If Congress goes ahead with their definition of 100 Mbps of download and 20 of upload (100/20 Mbps) instead of what we need—100 Mbps of download and 100 Mbps of upload (100/100 Mbps)—we will be left behind. Building a 100/20 Mbps infrastructure can be done with existing cable infrastructure, the kind already operated by companies such as Comcast and Charter, as well as with wireless. But raising the upload requirement to 100 Mbps—and requiring 100/100 Mbps symmetrical services—can only be done with the deployment of fiber infrastructure. That number, while requiring fiber, doesn’t represent the fiber’s full capacity, which makes it better suited to a future of internet demand.

[Ernesto Falcon is Senior Legislative Counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Katharine is the Associate Director of Policy and Activism at EFF.]

Thousands of Dallas students still don’t have access to reliable internet even after a year and a half of depending on online connections to keep learning. While the city turned to wireless hotspots for expanded broadband access in the early months of the pandemic, they were often unreliable and became expensive as time went on. Now the Dallas Independent School District (DISD) is exploring two potential solutions as a more permanent fix to the digital gulf that has plagued Dallas since the internet was invented: expanding infrastructure throughout the district to broaden the reach of existing Wi-Fi networks and using federal money to bulk-buy internet subscriptions for families in need. Public officials across Texas say they’re committed to better access, as a new law requiring the state to craft a plan to expand broadband access and create an office to oversee the work passed with widespread approval from Republicans and Democrats in the last legislative session. Overall, a number of different plans are being considered city officials and the city and district expect to publish a draft plan by mid-July 2021 that will guide their efforts.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch on said the Supreme Court should revisit the breadth of the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan and explore how it applies to social media and technology companies. That 1964 ruling created a higher bar for public figures to claim libel and has been a bedrock of US media law, but the two conservative justices said it's time to take another look. Gorsuch and Thomas dissented when the court declined to take up a case from the son of a former prime minister of Albania who claimed several statements were defamatory in a book that was later turned into "War Dogs," the Hollywood film. While Thomas has consistently called to revisit the historic ruling, this marks the first time that Gorsuch joined his efforts. "Since 1964," Gorsuch wrote, "our Nation's media landscape has shifted in ways few could have forseen." He added that "thanks to the revolutions in technology, today virtually anyone in this county can publish virtually anything for immediate consumption virtually anywhere in the world."

The Federal Trade Commission has issued a complaint charging Broadcom with illegally monopolizing markets for semiconductor components used to deliver television and broadband internet services through exclusive dealing and related conduct. The FTC's proposed consent order states that Broadcom must stop requiring its customers to source components from the company on an exclusive or near exclusive basis. Broadcom is a monopolist in the sale of three types of semiconductor components, or chips, used in devices that deliver television and broadband internet services, according to the FTC’s complaint. These chips are the core circuitry that run traditional television broadcast set top boxes, as well as DSL and fiber broadband devices. Under the proposed consent order, Broadcom will be prohibited from entering into certain types of exclusivity or loyalty agreements with its customers for the supply of key chips for traditional broadcast set top boxes and DSL and fiber broadband internet devices. The FTC vote to issue the complaint and accept the proposed consent order for public comment was 4-0-1, with Chair Lina Khan not participating.