Harold Feld

The Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program has lived a highly dramatic life since Congress created it as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.The most recent high-stakes drama involves the state of California.

On October 29, Senior Vice President at Public Knowledge Harold Feld testified at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing regarding First Amendment freedoms. "I have been an advocate for First Amendment freedoms––especially the right of the public to hear diverse views and production of local news critical to an informed democracy––for over 25 years," he said.

A bipartisan group of 14 signatories representing 11 organizations asked Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr to move forward with updating EPFD limits to boost competition in the satellite marketplace, lower costs for consumers, and strengthen American leadership in space. The groups stress that doing so will “unlock the full potential of LEO satellites both domestically and abroad.” The letter was filed in the FCC docket 25-157, “Modernizing Spectrum Sharing for Satellite Broadband.”

Congress is poised to vote on the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act to fund the government, including a portion drafted by Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) that would both jeopardize the future of Wi-Fi and threaten to kill the growth of private networking.

The five-member Federal Communications Commission has just two commissioners—Chairman Brendan Carr and Commissioner Anna Gomez.  Which means, for the first time since anyone can remember (perhaps ever), the FCC lacks a legal quorum to do business. So what happens? Does that mean the FCC just shuts down? Does the agency proceed on autopilot?

Public Knowledge submitted reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission regarding the In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete request for comments. Public Knowledge's comments focus on the insufficient legal basis for the Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding. "Public Knowledge urges the FCC to terminate this unlawful proceeding and follow the appropriate steps, as outlined by law, if it seeks to delete, delete, delete some of the very rules that protect the public the most. The Commission must remember its core constituency—the public, not the President.

A discussion about the need for a sector-specific digital regulator and suggests how to design that regulator to enhance competition and protect consumers.

There are a few specific areas the Federal Communications Commission may focus on the potential and responsibility for AI in spectrum and communications networks generally:

Rarely does Congress speak as definitively and clearly as it did with Section 1754: ordering the Federal Communications Commission, within 2 years to enact regulations to “eliminate” existing digital discrimination on the basis of “income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin” and to prevent it from recurring in the future. The FCC should interpret this instruction for what it is: a rebuke of the last 25 years of failed policies and “light touch” regulation under the apparent delusion that for the first time in 90 years “the market” would bring universal service to all

Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to permit interactive computer services to exercise editorial discretion when publishing third-party content, without facing liability. This case seeks to hold YouTube liable for publishing objectionable third-party content. Section 230 does not allow this. Petitioners try to work around this clear statutory prohibition by characterizing their theory of liability in different terms.