AT&T, Verizon and Lumen Technologies lined up alongside utility providers in arguing against changes to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) pole attachment regulations, pitting the unlikely partners against cable and fiber providers alike. At the heart of the current FCC debate are proposed reforms which would force pole owners to share the cost of replacing poles with attachers, rather than leaving the latter to shoulder the entire cost burden. The FCC opened a review of its pole attachment rules in March, asking industry interests to weigh in on whether it should clarify the process for and regulate the cost of securing pole attachment rights. An initial round of comments filed before a June deadline saw AT&T and Verizon argue against changes while fiber builders represented by INCOMPAS and Charter Communications. Cable industry lobbyists NCTA – the Internet and Television Association and ACA Connects pressed for the implementation of new cost-sharing regulations on the grounds that pole owners benefit when attachers pay to have poles replaced. NCTA in particular claimed the need for reform is urgent, arguing comments submitted in the proceeding demonstrate “the current system for allocating the costs of replacing poles is unfair and interferes with the deployment of broadband to consumers, particularly in unserved and underserved areas.” However, AT&T and Verizon – this time joined by Lumen – pushed back, arguing in favor of the FCC preserving its existing regulation, stating that the attachers’ proposals would offload substantial portions of attachers’ deployment costs on other parties, including their direct competitors, merely serving to increase the profitability of the attachers’ government-subsidized services.

Most Americans can choose among several providers of home internet service, but that competition masks their much more limited options for true high-speed connections. Home internet connections became even more essential during the pandemic, but there's still disagreement about the extent of competition in the broadband market. "Competition" in the broadband space has two primary interpretations. To consumers, regulators, and advocacy groups, competition is correlated to the number and variety in choices a customer has when choosing a broadband provider. To broadband, telecommunications, and cable companies, competition is correlated to the quality, scope, and pricing of broadband services provided to the consumer between existing or incumbent providers. A Consumer Reports survey in 2021 found that 26% of Americans said they had one choice for a wired home internet connection, 32% said there were two providers, and 16% said they had three options. Additionally, the survey found that the cost of home internet decreased based on the number of providers. So, with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) providing $42.5 billion in funding to build internet networks at speeds of 100/20 Mbps, consumer watchdog groups worry that the biggest threats to competition are incumbent broadband providers who seek to challenge IIJA funding distribution to new broadband entrants in a market where they already provide service Those challenges could effectively holding these areas hostage by denying residents the ability to choose a different broadband provider.

In August, The Pew Charitable Trusts updated its tracker for states that have dedicated broadband offices, task forces, agencies or funds. With this most recent update, Pew determined that all 50 states administer active broadband programs. But how they manage those programs varies widely. Some states place their broadband office inside a business or economic agency, while others house it within their technology agency. Some states coordinate broadband from the governor’s office or across agencies. However they are structured, these state authorities are handling billions of dollars in federal broadband investment through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021. Pew states that “a state-level broadband office with full-time staff” is a core component of a successful broadband program. Additionally, the broadband office must establish required core competencies and a forum through which to gather informed input, and they must possess “the structure, support and authority to execute the planning, capacity building and competitive grant programs that increase service availability,” Pew notes. 

Auction 108 of spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band closed after raising less than $428 million, a considerably lower amount in comparison with what we have seen in other recent auctions. The spectrum is considered mid-band, which is widely seen as supporting the optimum mixture of speed and coverage for 5G. But most of the available spectrum in the band is in rural areas. The identity of the winners has not yet been revealed, but among the 82 companies that qualified to bid in the auction were all major US wireless carriers – AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Dish. Licenses in the 2.5 GHz band are for individual counties, and up to three blocks of spectrum – ranging in size from 17.5 MHz to 50 MHz — were available per county. According to the Federal Communications Commission, the vast majority of licenses received winning bids. Of 8,017 licenses that were available, 7,972 were won. Auction 108 was completed relatively quickly – just under one month after it opened.

With President Biden signing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) into law in November 2021 and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) subsequently releasing Notices of Funding Opportunity which outline the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, Digital Equity Act (DEA), and Enabling Middle Mile Grant Infrastructure Program in May 2022, EducationSuperHighway and various organizations across Massachusetts are working to bring affordable broadband to the State. The organization has partnered with Springfield and Worcester (MA) Public Schools to launch an awareness campaign to get the word out about the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) $30 monthly subsidy benefit and assist families with affordable broadband enrollment.  As of May, 2022, Springfield had a 42% and Worcester a 38% adoption rate, compared to the state average of 19%. In Boston, the organization provided pro bono service provider relationship management, procurement support, network design, pricing review, and Request for Information (RFI) document templates, as well as needs assessments for many affordable and/or mixed housing development portfolios. Ultimately, the organization has taken an active role in the digital equity partnership, sharing best practices on ACP adoption, training community leaders on ACP, helping review grant applications for ACP digital navigator programs, and sourcing opportunities for apartment Wi-Fi projects for underserved communities.