The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is making billions of dollars available to expand broadband networks throughout rural America—and with these networks, access to all the opportunities and advantages internet service allows.  Billions of dollars for broadband construction also means billions of dollars in construction projects seeking approval from local permitting offices. Reviewing these projects will be no small task, especially in rural areas where local governments have limited resources. What, then, should permitting offices and their applicants do to prepare for the upcoming wave of activity? That was the question posed to nearly 30 of the nation’s leading permitting experts during a recent summit at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy. The experts represented a wide array of permitting stakeholders, including local governments, state broadband offices, federal agencies, civil society organizations, private landowners, and ISPs of various types and sizes. The goal of the summit was to put these experts in conversation with one another and identify areas of consensus and disagreement. The findings from their discussion are explored in a new report—Permitting Success: Closing the Digital Divide Through Local Broadband Permitting. 

When the state of Kentucky made plans to award $300 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for broadband deployments, the priority was on getting high-speed service to the neediest areas first. “Our priority with the ARPA funding was reaching areas that had no service,” said Meghan Sandfoss, executive director of Kentucky’s Office of Broadband Development. The state awarded the $300 million in ARPA funding in two rounds. Projects that had locations lacking service at 10/1 Mbps speeds were given priority, and only locations lacking 25/3 Mbps service were eligible. This approach likely addressed some of the costliest locations to serve, which should help Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) dollars go farther. Sandfoss is hopeful that the $1.1 billion from BEAD will enable Kentucky to get broadband to all eligible locations and still have some money left over for non-deployment purposes. 

California recently lawmakers sent a nationally consequential artificial intelligence bill to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk—America’s most high-profile effort to date to put fresh legal guardrails around AI safety. It’s not clear that Newsom will sign it; influential California Democrats are digging in against it, including Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The California bill considers the possibility of AI causing “critical harms” to humanity, and singles out the largest and most powerful AI models for specific safety requirements. For years, the primary debate in AI circles has been between those (like Elon Musk, or former United Kingdom Prime Minister Rishi Sunak) who think this risk is real, if not imminent, and requires immediate and decisive action—and those who decry it as a self-serving fairy tale spun by Silicon Valley bigwigs who want regulators to put the kibosh on their competitors in the name of safety. If Newsom signs SB 1047 it would be a massive win for the former, moving the conversation around AI safety and “superintelligence” from the realm of the theoretical into the reality of law.