The Universal Service Fund has done little or nothing for universal service. Mobile phones and the internet have become ubiquitous in rural areas and among those of low income. Most schools, libraries, and healthcare facilities have been hooked up for years (to the dismay of many teachers). This is thanks to the alacrity of today’s high technology, massive private investments, profound improvements in service quality and proficiency, and constantly falling prices. The Federal Communications Commission program has been marginal at best and sometimes perverse. The program’s defects are due in large part to the political insulation and financial self-dealing that the challengers in the Supreme Court case regard as unconstitutional. If the program passes muster, it will be a beta-tested model for agencies that consolidate regulating, taxing, and spending, managed by agency “stakeholders,” governed only by aspirational legislative standards (make good things universal, and have a nice day!). With the court’s imprimatur, that would be the next growth trajectory of autonomous executive government.

Missouri was the first state to ask the Federal Communications Commission to return Rural Digital Opportunity Fund broadband funding awarded to providers in the state who later defaulted on their awards. But it may not be the last. Louis Riggs (R-5), a Missouri state representative who helped spearhead the letter sent by the state’s attorney general to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr asking for the funding, said that officials in other states are having weekly calls to discuss similar letters to be sent by additional states. Missouri could do a lot with its portion of the defaulted RDOF funding and is in a better position than federal administrators to determine how to use it, State Rep Riggs argued on our phone call, reiterating a point he made in an op-ed piece that he penned for the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. “We know what to do with it; we’ve been doing it now for a number of years,” he said.

The Wireless Infrastructure Association released results from a nationwide survey of U.S. enterprise IT professionals responsible for or knowledgeable of their company’s in-building and campus wireless network deployments and plans. Highlights from the survey include:

• The Need for Connectivity: Traditionally, the highest concentration of in-building wireless deployments has and continues to be in larger, complex facilities, such as stadiums, large hotels, convention centers, corporate headquarters or expansive commercial spaces. However, the survey results show a growing concentration of planned and/or newly installed in-building and private wireless networks are in smaller building sizes compared to their deployed counterparts.

• Going Cellular: Overall, security, business fit, and cost remain the main drivers for selecting wireless networks over other wired and Wi-Fi options. 

• Education is Key: Overall, the survey results showed the importance of experience for establishing technical familiarity with in-building wireless solutions and the need for targeted education for enterprise IT managers who are in the planning stage.

These comments are submitted to emphasize the unprecedented nature of this news distortion proceeding, and to express our strong concern that the Federal Communications Commission may be seeking to censor the news media in a manner antithetical to the First Amendment. The undersigned commenters comprise a bipartisan group of former FCC Chairs and Commissioners. These individuals served under both Republican and Democratic leadership, and from that experienced perspective, express deep concern about the breadth of the content regulation authority asserted by this proceeding. The FCC has long recognized that “[t]he First Amendment, as well as Section 326 of the Communications Act, prohibits the Commission from censoring broadcast material and from interfering with freedom of expression in broadcasting.”1 The Commission has also long acknowledged the risks to free expression and a free press created by its “news distortion” policy—a policy that has never been codified as a rule. To mitigate those constitutional concerns, the Commission has construed the policy exceptionally narrowly. It has enforced the policy very rarely, and it has adopted guardrails requiring that complaints be summarily dismissed in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances are not remotely present here. As described in the Center for American Rights’ complaint,2 this proceeding concerns two different broadcasts of the same interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris, which aired on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and “60 Minutes.” Both broadcasts aired footage of the same question, and each program aired different portions of the response. The complaint sought the release of the unedited transcript, which the Commission has now secured along with the video of the interview. The transcript confirms that the editing choices at issue lie well within the editorial judgment protected by the First Amendment and that the Commission’s January 16 dismissal of the complaint was legally correct.3 Yet the Commission has reopened the complaint and taken the highly unusual step of inviting public comment, even though the proceeding is adjudicatory in nature. These developments have unjustifiably prolonged this investigation and raise questions about the actual purpose of the proceeding.  The Commission’s departures from its typical practice and precedent are especially troubling when viewed in context. This Administration has made no secret of its desire to revoke the licenses of broadcasters that cover it in ways the President considers unfavorable.4 And the Administration has also decreed that this Commission and other historically independent agencies—including but not limited to the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission—will now operate directly under the President’s “supervision and control.”5 By reopening this complaint, the Commission is signaling to broadcasters that it intends to act at the behest of the White House by closely scrutinizing the content of news coverage and threatening the regulatory licenses of broadcasters whose news outlets produce coverage that does not pass muster in the President’s view.  We recommend that the Commission reverse course and once again dismiss the news distortion complaint as meritless. In doing so, the agency should reaffirm its foundational and long-held commitment to acting as an independent agency and not as a censor. Any other path contravenes the First Amendment and the great American free speech tradition.  

The Federal Communications Commission proposed rules to help ensure that emerging Next Generation 911 networks are reliable and interoperable, which will help first responders save lives. The nation is transitioning from legacy 911 technology to NG911, which will use Internet Protocol-based infrastructure to support new 911 capabilities, including text, video, and data. For NG911 to be fully effective, these networks must safeguard critical components and support the interoperability needed to seamlessly transfer 911 calls and data from one network to another. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted seeks comment on proposals to:

• Update the Commission’s existing 911 reliability rules to ensure that they apply to service providers that control or operate critical pathways and components in NG911 networks.
• Update the reliability standards for providers of critical NG911 functions to ensure the reliable delivery of 911 traffic to NG911 delivery points.
• Establish NG911 interoperability requirements for the interstate transfer of 911 traffic.
• Modify the certification and oversight mechanisms in the current 911 reliability rules to improve reliability and interoperability in NG911 systems while minimizing burdens on service providers.
• Empower state and local 911 authorities to obtain reliability and interoperability certifications directly from covered 911 service providers, so that 911 authorities can more easily address reliability and interoperability concerns within their jurisdictions.

According to co-op leaders, synergies between electric service and fiber broadband at cooperatives are improving safety, reliability, and even workplace culture. “Electric co-ops deploying fiber broadband for future-proof high-speed internet and grid communications are reporting wide-ranging benefits that are serving their members’ needs now and into the future,” said National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Broadband Director Cliff Johnson. At Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, safety improvements were a primary goal when it launched a broadband project in 2018, said CEO Patrick Grace. The supervisory control and data acquisition system that the fiber network enabled provides real-time grid monitoring and communications and helps reduce risks for line crews. "Folding in safety with broadband was first and foremost,” Grace said. “The combination of broadband and electricity impacts safety and has made us better on both.”