Telecommunications Act of 1996

Already the Federal Communications Commission’s busiest docket, the effort to restore network neutrality rules saw a rush of new comments on December 14, the deadline for initial submissions by interested parties looking to affect the outcome of the proceeding. Replies to those comments are due January 17, 2024, after which the FCC can schedule a vote on a final rulemaking. A majority of FCC Commissioners support restoring the rules by reclassifying internet access as a Title II telecommunications service subject to FCC regulation as a common carrier.

A third US Appeals Court has concluded that the Federal Communications Commission is on sound constitutional footing when it comes to delegating oversight of the billions of dollars in government advanced telecommunications subsidy money it hands out annually with a big assist from the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC is within its authority to delegate administration of those funds through a private company—USAC—because the government regulator maintains control and oversight.

When it comes to the technological advances that have graced our ever-expanding, ever-crowded, ever-exploitative prisons, observers rightly tend to point out the insidious panopticon they’ve enabled: sophisticated surveillance and security networks that ensnare the lives of nearly 2 million people locked up throughout the United States. But the technology that prisoners themselves use and depend on is frequently overlooked.

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel appointed six members to the Board of Directors of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). Each appointee was nominated in response to two Public Notices soliciting nominations for the Board position listed below, including a Public Notice seeking nominations for the newly created Tribal board member position. The three-year term for these positions begins on January 1, 2024. 

"The USF is a critical tool to provide, among other things, Lifeline internet and voice service to low-income Americans, and reduced-rate internet access to schools, libraries and healthcare providers. Today's opinion underscores the importance—and the validity—of the Congressionally-mandated USF program.

The Federal Communications Commission is currently accepting comments in regard to the minimum speed requirements for broadband. The CEOs of Google Fiber, ALLO Fiber and Ting Internet sent a letter to the FCC, urging it to update its definition of broadband to symmetrical upload and download speeds of 100 Mbps. The FCC currently defines broadband as having download speeds of 25 Mbps and upload speeds of 3 Mbps.

For 20 years, proponents of so-called Title II net neutrality have argued the only way to ‘save the internet’ is to impose 1930s-era Ma Bell telephone regulations on today’s broadband networks.

In comments filed at the Federal Communications Commission, Public Knowledge commended the FCC for acting to restore net neutrality as well as creating the proper authority allowing for commonsense consumer protections for broadband users.

Today’s decision is a victory for the many rural and urban consumers and anchor institutions across the country who rely on the services supported by the federal Universal Service Fund. The USF has been, and continues to be, a critical tool to narrow the digital divide and help address connectivity gaps. The court’s ruling affirms that Congress’ directive to the FCC—over 25 years ago—to collect contributions in support of this vital Fund is constitutional. Other courts considering similar challenges should reach the same conclusion.

The Federal Communications Commission reaffirmed its Wireline Bureau’s prior decision to reject the long-form application of Starlink to receive public support through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) program, based on the applicant’s failure to meet the program requirements. Starlink had sought a review of a decision and asked the FCC to find that Starlink is reasonably capable of meeting its performance obligations in its winning bid areas. Starlink argued that (1) the Bureau disregarded FCC policy and the long-form application review process by applying heightened scrutiny to St