Federal

In a series of orders beginning in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission has acted to promote the widespread deployment of broadband networks that are open, affordable, and accessible to all. Four of these previous orders have been reviewed by the D.C. Circuit; the challenge to a fifth order is currently pending (but in abeyance) there as well.  The D.C. Circuit has approved aspects of the FCC’s orders but disagreed with others—on several occasions remanding to the FCC for further action or additional deliberation. Thus, for more than a decade, the D.C.

The press is suddenly full of articles talking about how some internet service providers (ISPs) are offering affordable rates to low-income homes now that the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) monthly subsidy has died. Some ISPs are extending the $30 discount for a limited time, while others are offering more affordable broadband plans than in the past. Other ISPs are only making a nod towards affordable broadband and some aren’t giving any discounts to low-income households.

NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association advises stakeholders to heed four recommendations regarding the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment funding program. NTCA’s first recommendation applies to providers that don’t plan to apply for BEAD funding, as well as those who plan to do so. Noting that most states are just beginning the BEAD challenge process, NTCA said the challenge process is critical to determining areas eligible for funding.

A draft of key research, sponsored by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, “The Implications of Section 230 for Black Communities,” was posted on the Social Science Research Network. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act enables technology platforms to host and remove user-generated content without fear of liability for either the content or the moderation decisions.

How should we balance freedom of speech with the flood of slanderous statements, extremist manifestoes and conspiracy theories that proliferate on the internet? The United States decided decades ago to let private companies solve that quandary themselves. The Supreme Court made this position official in three major rulings in the 1990s and early 2000s. But lawmakers aren’t sure about this arrangement, now that giant online platforms are the new town square. A series of federal court cases will address these questions. Courts have faced six broad questions about online speech:

This paper hypothesizes that Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) enrollment decisions are not solely individual, but also influenced by community-wide considerations, such as housing costs, share of occupied houses, presence of anchor institutions such as public libraries, and population density (i.e., whether a place is urban or rural). The paper develops a regression model that predicts ACP enrollment rates among eligible households at the 5-digit zip code geography as a function of the variables discussed above.

A fair reading of Dr. John Horrigan’s work would start by adopting his insight that the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is part of a three-legged stool that during the pandemic helped increase broadband adoption and sustain it for low-income households.

Through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, established by Congress in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pennsylvania was allocated over $1.1 billion to deploy or upgrade high-speed Internet networks to ensure that everyone has access to reliable, affordable, high-speed internet service.

The Federal Communications Commission made some changes to the recent Net Neutrality Order between the version that got approved on April 25 and the final version that was released to the Congressional record. One of the most interesting changes was to clarify rules pertaining to carriers creating fast lanes. The original order included language that prohibited paid prioritization, which is generically referred to as fast lanes.

The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) came to a close at the start of June, due to a lack of funding and a failed effort in Congress to pass extended appropriations in time. But the program is not entirely dead yet. A couple of potential paths forward have reemerged in Congress.