For more than a decade, federal programs have relied on Federal Communications Commission (FCC) data to answer a deceptively simple question: who has broadband internet access and who does not? The answer determines where billions of dollars in federal infrastructure funding go. Getting it right matters enormously. Getting it wrong means money fails to reach places that need it most.

Two recent actions by the FCC—a coverage restoration process that will launch May 7, and a draft rulemaking that would significantly streamline how the agency collects broadband data—raise important questions about whether the National Broadband Map will get more accurate or less, and what the implications are for the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program (BEAD) Program, the largest broadband deployment program in American history.

Why the National Broadband Map Matters

The FCC's National Broadband Map, launched in November 2022, was supposed to fix a problem that had plagued federal broadband policy for years. For most of the previous decade, the FCC measured broadband deployment by census block—counting an entire census block as "served" if a provider reported it could offer service to at least one location in that block. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) documented in a 2021 report (Broadband: FCC Is Taking Steps to Accurately Map Locations That Lack Access, GAO-21-104447), this method overstated service, particularly in rural and tribal areas where a census block can cover a large geographic area.

The 2020 Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act (Broadband DATA Act) required the FCC to fix this problem by shifting to location-specific data—mapping availability address by address, not block by block—built on a "location fabric," a dataset of every structure in the United States where broadband could be deployed. The National Broadband Map was the result.

The National Broadband Map represented a genuine improvement. Stakeholders and researchers acknowledged that the location-level granularity was a marked step forward. But a 2025 GAO report (Broadband Programs: Agencies Need to Further Improve Their Data Quality and Coordination Efforts, GAO-25-107207) found that significant problems remain. Federal agencies—including the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of the Treasury—rely almost exclusively on the National Broadband Map to target tens of billions of dollars in broadband deployment funding. Yet GAO found that the accuracy of the data on the National Broadband Map "is uncertain." The FCC, GAO concluded, had not documented or assessed whether its processes for verifying provider-submitted data were sufficient—meaning the agency could not know whether its own quality controls were working. GAO made 14 recommendations across the four agencies. Six were directed specifically to the FCC, and the FCC agreed with all six. Those recommendations called on the FCC to:

1. formally document its internal policies and procedures for conducting data validations, verifications, and audits, and making enforcement referrals;
2. assess and document the results of its data collection monitoring to identify any deficiencies in those processes;
3. take steps to remedy any deficiencies it identifies;
4. clearly define and document—in collaboration with NTIA, USDA, and Treasury—what 'covered data' means in the agencies' information-sharing memorandum of understanding;
5. clearly define and document timelines for agencies to submit funded project data to the Broadband Funding Map (an interactive, online tool that displays federal government-funded broadband infrastructure projects across the U.S.); and
6. clearly define and formally document the agencies' broadband funding de-duplication process, preventing two federal programs from funding broadband deployment to the same location.

The Problems with Provider Data

The National Broadband Map is built primarily on data that broadband internet access service providers submit to the FCC twice a year through the Broadband Data Collection. Providers report the maximum advertised speeds they offer at each location—not the speeds customers actually receive. GAO noted that this advertised-speed methodology, combined with a rule allowing a provider to report a location as served if it could begin service within 10 business days, even if it isn't currently serving it, likely results in overstating service quality and availability.

To check provider claims, the Broadband DATA Act requires the FCC to establish challenge processes—allowing consumers, states, local governments, and tribal entities to dispute provider data—as well as verification and audit procedures allowing FCC staff to independently test claims. Where a challenge is upheld, a provider concedes, or FCC staff cannot verify a provider's reported coverage, the location or area is removed from the provider's map data. Between November 2022 and November 2023 alone, consumers, states, local governments, and tribal governments submitted approximately 8 million challenges to fixed availability data. The FCC accepted and submitted nearly 4 million of those challenges to providers, and about half were ultimately conceded, resulting in updates to the map. As GAO noted, the rate of successful challenges demonstrates that a "nontrivial amount of inaccurate data" ends up on the National Broadband Map even after the FCC's validation processes run.

Under existing rules, once a location or area is removed from a provider's reported coverage—whether through a lost challenge, a concession, a verification inquiry, or an audit (verifications are typically triggered by third-party referrals or FCC staff review, while audits are random or targeted FCC-initiated reviews)—that removal "persists" from one filing round to the next. A provider cannot simply re-file the location. The theory is straightforward: if a location was removed because coverage couldn't be verified, the provider should have to demonstrate something new before the location gets added back.

Enter the Coverage Restoration Process

On April 29, 2026, the FCC's Broadband Data Task Force and Office of Economics and Analytics released a Public Notice (DA 26-420) announcing the launch of a coverage restoration process, effective May 7, 2026. The process gives broadband providers a formal mechanism to restore previously removed locations or coverage areas to the National Broadband Map.

To use the process, a provider submits broadband availability data through the Broadband Data Collection system, including locations previously removed. The system flags this as a restoration request. The provider then selects reason codes explaining why the location can now be served and submits infrastructure data—technical documentation of the network facilities that would support coverage—to support the claim. Providers have until the opening date of the next Broadband Data Collection filing window to complete a restoration request; if they miss that deadline, the request becomes moot, and they must start over in the next filing round.¹

This initial process is limited, applying only to locations removed for reasons where infrastructure data is relevant—meaning cases where a provider lost or conceded a challenge under specific challenge category codes (FCC-assigned codes that classify the type of error alleged, e.g., service not available, speed not accurate), or where coverage was removed due to a verification or audit. Locations removed for other reasons are explicitly excluded "at this time." 

The FCC frames the restoration process as legally required—its rules and the Broadband DATA Act's mandate to verify accurate data both point toward the need for a path back onto the map for providers who genuinely can now serve a location. That framing is reasonable on its face. But several things about the process are worth watching closely.

Public Notice Issues to Keep an Eye On

The Public Notice raises a few issues that stakeholders might want to track.

The tension between accuracy and restoration.

The challenge and verification system exists precisely because providers were overstating coverage. Successful challenges are not aberrations—they are evidence that the system is working. A restoration process is in direct tension with that purpose unless it sets a genuinely high evidentiary bar. The infrastructure data requirement is designed to provide that bar, but the draft rulemaking described below proposes could lower it.

Scale is unknown.

The Public Notice does not say how many locations have been removed from the National Broadband Map through challenges, verifications, and audits, how many providers are affected, or what portion of removed locations are eligible for the initial restoration process versus excluded. Without that information, it is impossible to assess the potential scope of map changes that could result.

The "at this time" problem.

Locations removed for reasons where infrastructure data is not relevant are excluded from the initial process—but only "at this time." What happens to those locations is explicitly deferred to the draft rulemaking discussed below, which proposes to potentially eliminate any data requirement for restoration in some cases.

The Proposal to Streamline Broadband Data Collection 

Released the same day as the Public Notice, the draft Sixth Report and Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC-CIRC2605-02)—circulated for tentative consideration at the FCC's May 20 open meeting—takes two parallel tracks: 1) a Report and Order adopting final rule changes, and 2) a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking public comment on additional changes.

What the Order Would Do

The tentative final rules would make several largely administrative or clarifying changes. The most substantive: the FCC will now automatically remove a provider's coverage from the National Broadband Map when an audit or verification finds the data inaccurate, rather than requiring providers to file corrected data within 30 days. The old system required a provider to self-correct; the new approach lets FCC staff make the correction directly. Broadband providers and their industry associations supported this change to reduce burdens on these companies.

The Order also eliminates the requirement that providers be separately notified of Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric) challenges during the development cycle—streamlining a process that generated very little follow-up activity. The Fabric is the dataset of all locations where broadband could potentially be deployed, which underlies the National Broadband Map. The FCC also aligns the definition of "broadband connection" across subscription data (from its Form 477, the form broadband providers use to report subscription and availability data to the FCC twice a year) and the Broadband Data Collection. The Broadband DATA Act defines "broadband internet access service" as "a mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all internet endpoints." That legal definition describes the nature of the service, not any minimum speed, and the Order's alignment of Form 477 with that definition is intended to reduce confusion for providers filing under both systems.

What the FNPRM Proposes

The proposals in the Further Notice are more consequential, particularly for data quality. Several deserve close attention.

The FNPRM asks whether removed locations should be automatically restored—with no data submission required at all—or restored after a provider simply selects from a list of reasons. Industry commenters, including CTIA (the wireless industry's trade association) and USTelecom (national trade association representing broadband service providers), have argued that the coverage restoration process is too burdensome and should be eliminated or dramatically simplified. The FNPRM asks whether allowing restoration without evidence would "undermine the purpose of these processes or would otherwise disincentivize providers from responding to challenges." Some might say that the question answers itself, but the FCC is nonetheless seeking comment on it. As NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association noted in prior comments cited in the FNPRM: if the only consequence for overstated coverage claims is removal from the map followed by easy restoration, providers have reduced incentives to report accurately in the first place.

The FNPRM also proposes to eliminate the requirement that providers submit data for locations where they offer fixed broadband at speeds below 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload—the standard the FCC used as its broadband benchmark until 2024. The rationale is that the FCC raised its minimum standard for "advanced telecommunications capability" to 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload in 2024, making sub-25/3 Mbps data less useful for policymaking. But eliminating this data would make some locations appear unserved even if they have slower service—raising the risk that federal funds go to areas that technically have some service, however inadequate. The FNPRM acknowledges this tension and asks whether the Broadband DATA Act's requirements even allow for this elimination.

Similarly, the FNPRM proposes to eliminate requirements that providers report 3G mobile broadband availability and mobile voice availability data. The 3G question has a practical dimension: major carriers completed their 3G network shutdowns in 2022. Of the 52 distinct mobile providers that filed in the Broadband Data Collection, only 10 filed 3G data as of June 2025. However, the National Broadband Map still shows approximately 74,000 square kilometers—nearly 90 percent of it in Alaska—where 3G is the most advanced service available. The Alaska Connect Fund, a Universal Service Fund (USF) program that begins distributing support in 2027, relies on Broadband Data Collection data. The FNPRM asks whether a carve-out for Alaska is needed. 

The FNPRM also proposes to relax the maximum antenna height assumption that fixed wireless providers must use when modeling coverage—currently capped at seven meters (about 23 feet)—and asks whether a higher limit could be used. The concern here is straightforward: allowing providers to assume higher antenna heights in their coverage models would tend to expand the modeled service area, potentially showing coverage where customers cannot actually receive service.

On challenge process timelines, the FNPRM proposes condensing the current two-step, 120-day fixed challenge resolution process to a single 60-day window. Under the existing process, fixed broadband challenges come in two forms: individual consumer challenges, filed by a single person against a single location, and bulk challenges, typically filed by state broadband offices, advocacy organizations, or other institutional filers against multiple locations—sometimes covering an entire provider's reported service area. The 120-day window gives providers time to first respond and then attempt to resolve the dispute directly with the challenger before FCC staff adjudicate. The FNPRM asks whether shorter timelines should apply to both types, or whether the greater complexity of bulk challenges warrants different treatment.

Faster resolution has real benefits—challenge outcomes currently can't be finalized for months, creating uncertainty for funding programs. But the question of whether shortened timelines are workable deserves scrutiny across all the parties involved, not just providers. For FCC staff, a compressed window means adjudicating a potentially high volume of challenges faster—without any indication in the FNPRM that staffing levels would increase to match. For state broadband offices and tribal governments, many of which are small operations with limited staff, a 60-day window to gather evidence, engage with providers, and respond to disputes may be significantly more constraining than it is for a large carrier with dedicated regulatory staff. For individual consumers filing challenges against a single location, the timeline question is less about capacity than about whether the process is accessible at all—the FNPRM does not address whether shortened timelines would be accompanied by any simplification of the process itself. Shortening the clock without accounting for the asymmetry in resources between large providers and the challengers who brought 8 million disputes to the FCC's attention would risk making a nominally faster process a functionally less accessible one.

Broadband Data and BEAD

All of this matters acutely for BEAD, which is providing approximately $42.45 billion to states and territories to expand broadband access. NTIA allocated BEAD funding across states based on the number of unserved locations shown on the National Broadband Map—meaning the map directly determined how much funding each state received. States then used the National Broadband Map to establish initial lists of eligible locations for funding. 

As of late April 2026, 54 of 56 states and territories have received NTIA approval of their Final BEAD Proposals, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has approved 52 of those, making grant funds available. For those jurisdictions, the eligible location lists are largely locked in—determined during state challenge processes that used the National Broadband Map as it existed at that time. But National Broadband Map accuracy still matters for other ongoing programs like the FCC's High Cost program and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's ReConnect program that rely on the map continuously, and critically for what happens next with BEAD itself. NTIA estimates BEAD came in approximately $21 billion under its original budget as a result of the “Benefit of the Bargain” round of program reforms, and the agency is actively considering how to deploy those savings—including potentially connecting remaining unserved locations identified in the most current National Broadband Map. Inaccurate map data could affect which locations are identified as needing service in that next phase.

If the National Broadband Map overstates coverage—whether because provider data was inaccurate to begin with, because restoration processes return inaccurate data to the map, or because reporting requirements are relaxed in ways that reduce data quality—locations that should be eligible for BEAD funding may appear served and therefore ineligible. State broadband offices that GAO surveyed raised this concern explicitly: 17 of the 51 offices that responded cited difficulties with the National Broadband Map challenge process or the accuracy of map data. One state noted that a provider had admitted to overstating coverage across its entire service area in the state, yet there was difficulty getting the FCC to accept evidence beyond specific addresses for challenges. 

The 2025 GAO report found that FCC and other agencies have not established agreed-upon timelines for submitting funded project data to the FCC's Broadband Funding Map (an interactive, online tool that displays federal government-funded broadband infrastructure projects across the U.S.), and have not formally documented a de-duplication process to prevent multiple federal programs from funding the same location. Without reliable, current data on where broadband has already been funded and where it is genuinely unavailable, the risk of misallocation grows.

Further Issues to Keep an Eye On

The Further Notice raises a few issues that stakeholders might want to track.

Tribal lands deserve particular attention

The 2021 GAO report specifically identified tribal areas as places where the old census-block method most severely overstated broadband coverage, and tribal governmental entities are explicitly authorized under the Broadband DATA Act to challenge data on the National Broadband Map. But neither the Public Notice announcing the coverage restoration process nor the draft FNPRM addresses whether the new processes raise particular concerns for tribal communities. Tribal governments that successfully challenged inaccurate coverage claims could now find those claims restored if providers submit infrastructure data, and the compressed challenge timelines proposed in the FNPRM could make it harder for under-resourced tribal offices to respond. The 2025 GAO report separately found that sustainability of broadband networks over time remains a challenge in tribal communities, with one stakeholder telling GAO that the issue requires enhanced federal coordination with tribes. Given that history, tribal broadband advocates have good reason to scrutinize both the restoration process and the FNPRM proposals carefully.

Providers' Concerns

Providers raise a related concern that the FNPRM takes seriously: that some locations were removed from the map not because the provider's original data was wrong, but because service conditions changed after the filing date. The Broadband Data Collection captures availability as of a specific date—June 30 or December 31—and a provider's ability to serve a particular location can change in the months between that snapshot and when a challenge is resolved. The FCC added a "concede — service change" option to the system in 2023 to address exactly this scenario, allowing a provider to concede a challenge while on record stating that its original filing was accurate. Wireless providers in particular argue that their networks are dynamic—coverage at a given location can depend on current subscriber load, spectrum availability, and infrastructure capacity—and that a concession reflecting a post-filing service change is not an admission of a reporting error. Under the current rules, those concessions persist just like any other removal, requiring full infrastructure data to restore. The FNPRM asks whether locations removed under a "service change" concession should face a lower evidentiary burden—or none at all—to get back on the map. That is a question with legitimate answers on both sides: providers have a reasonable argument that genuinely dynamic networks shouldn't be permanently penalized for temporary service gaps, while challengers and public interest advocates have an equally reasonable concern that allowing easy restoration of "service change" concessions could swallow the rule, since providers can always characterize a removal as a service change rather than a reporting error.

Is infrastructure data enough?

A related question worth asking: what does infrastructure data actually prove? Infrastructure data documents that a provider has network equipment capable of reaching an area—a tower in a certain location, fiber running along a certain route, a fixed wireless transmitter aimed in a certain direction. That data does not prove that a specific address can receive service at the speeds the provider claims, that the network has sufficient capacity to serve additional subscribers, that a customer who requests service will actually be able to get it within the standard installation timeframe, or that the service is affordable. The FNPRM treats infrastructure data as the primary evidentiary standard for restoration—and the existing challenge, verification, and audit processes already rely on it heavily—but the 2025 GAO report noted that stakeholders raised significant concerns about whether provider-reported data reliably reflects what customers actually experience. Submitting the same infrastructure data that underlies a disputed availability claim may not resolve the underlying dispute so much as restate it. Stakeholders should ask the FCC to clarify which standard staff will apply when evaluating infrastructure data submitted in a restoration request, and what additional evidence—speed tests, subscriber records, network engineering analyses, prices—would be required when infrastructure data alone is ambiguous.

A cycle of bad data?

A further question is whether the restoration process creates a cycle that undermines the purpose of the challenge system. Under the current framework, a provider whose coverage is removed must submit infrastructure data to restore it—but once restored, that same coverage could in theory be challenged again, removed again, and restored again. The FNPRM does not address whether repeat restoration requests for the same locations would face a higher evidentiary burden, whether there is any limit on how many times a provider can seek restoration for a previously-challenged location, or whether a pattern of removal and restoration would trigger enhanced scrutiny or enforcement. If the answer to all three is no, then a provider with a weak claim of coverage has little reason to invest in accurate reporting—the worst outcome is temporary removal followed by restoration. As NTCA noted in prior comments cited in the FNPRM, if the only consequence for overstated coverage claims is removal from the map followed by easy restoration, providers have reduced incentives to report accurately in the first place. Stakeholders should ask the FCC to address, in its final rules, whether repeat restoration requests for previously-challenged locations will be treated differently than first-time requests, and what role enforcement—rather than just map correction—should play when a pattern of inaccurate reporting is identified.

The impact on federal broadband deployment funding

For rural stakeholders—including rural broadband providers, rural electric cooperatives, and the communities they serve—the data quality questions raised by these proceedings extend well beyond BEAD. Both the FCC's High Cost Program, which distributes approximately $4.5 billion annually to support voice and broadband networks in rural and high-cost areas, and USDA's ReConnect program, which provides grants and loans to expand broadband in rural areas that lack sufficient access, rely on the National Broadband Map to determine where support is needed and where it is not. The stakes are concrete: under ReConnect, at least 90 percent of households in a proposed project area must be without sufficient broadband access to qualify for a grant or loan. If the National Broadband Map overstates coverage in a rural area—showing households as served when they are not—that area may fall below the 90 percent threshold and become ineligible for ReConnect funding, regardless of the actual conditions on the ground. Unlike BEAD, which is a one-time deployment program with largely fixed eligible location lists, the High Cost Program and ReConnect make ongoing eligibility determinations—meaning that map changes resulting from the coverage restoration process or from relaxed reporting requirements could affect which rural areas qualify for support on a continuing basis. A location that appears served on the map may be ineligible for funding even if the service shown is unreliable, unaffordable, or provided by a competitor with no obligation to serve all customers in the area. Rural providers and advocates could ask the FCC to assess, as part of the FNPRM proceeding, how proposed changes to the Broadband Data Collection would interact with High Cost Program and ReConnect eligibility determinations—and whether any changes would disproportionately affect the rural communities these programs were designed to reach.

Looking for success

Several things will indicate whether the FCC's streamlining efforts improve or undermine data quality.

First, the coverage restoration process itself. How many locations are ultimately restored, and what share of them had been removed through upheld challenges versus provider concessions? The FCC should publish this information transparently.

Second, participation in the FNPRM comment process. State broadband offices, digital equity advocates, and tribal governments—the same stakeholders who filed millions of challenges against inaccurate data—will have 30 days after publication in the Federal Register to comment. Their experience with the challenge process is the best available evidence of whether the current system is working and whether relaxing it would be harmful.

Third, accountability for past commitments. Will the FCC follow through on the six recommendations it agreed to accept from GAO? Specifically, will the FCC formally document its validation, verification, audit, and referral procedures, and will it assess whether those procedures are actually working? The FCC told GAO it would develop documented processes to record results and identify deficiencies. That commitment needs to be monitored.

The FCC is navigating a genuine tension: the Broadband Data Collection imposes real burdens on broadband providers—including small rural carriers—and streamlining legitimate administrative requirements makes sense. But the entire premise of the BEAD Program, the High Cost program, and every other federal broadband deployment initiative rests on knowing where service is genuinely unavailable. A map that is easier to populate but harder to trust is not an improvement.

Known Unknowns

Several basic facts about the coverage restoration process and the Broadband Data Collection challenge system are not publicly available, and stakeholders could ask the FCC to provide them, either in response to the FNPRM or through routine public reporting.

On coverage restoration: the Public Notice launching the process on May 7 does not say how many locations have been removed from the National Broadband Map through challenges, verifications, and audits, how many providers have coverage subject to removal, or how those removals are distributed geographically. Without that information, it is impossible to assess the potential scale of map changes that could result from the restoration process. Stakeholders should ask the FCC to publicly report, at a minimum, how many restoration requests are filed, by which types of providers, for how many locations, and in which states and territories.

On challenges: the 2025 GAO report notes that filers submitted approximately 8 million challenges between November 2022 and November 2023, and that about half of the nearly 4 million accepted by the FCC were ultimately conceded by providers. But the public record does not show who filed those challenges—whether they came primarily from state broadband offices, tribal governments, advocacy organizations, commercial entities, or individual consumers—or how success rates varied across those filer types. That breakdown matters. If the bulk of successful challenges came from organized institutional filers with dedicated staff and legal resources, then proposals to shorten challenge timelines or raise evidentiary burdens will fall hardest on exactly those actors. If individual consumer challenges are rarely successful, that raises a different set of questions about whether the process is accessible to the people it is nominally designed to serve. Stakeholders could ask the FCC to publicly report challenge-filing and outcome data broken down by filer type, geography, provider, and challenge category code.

Next Steps From Here

There are many steps to go before final FCC action. To begin, the issues raised in the draft FNPRM remain subject to change until the full FCC adopts the item at its May 20, 2026 open meeting. The Order and FNPRM must be published in the Federal Register, which could be a month or more after the May 20 vote. Comments will then be due 30 days after Federal Register publication; reply comments will be due 60 days after. The FCC will take additional time to review the comments and determine any changes to its rules. Those changes will then be voted on at a subsequent open FCC meeting. The proceeding is assigned to WC Docket No. 11-10, WC Docket No. 19-195, and GN Docket No. 25-133. 

"The proposed item aims to streamline processes and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs while also improving the accuracy of the data collected," FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in describing the item. "Continuing to streamline and improve the data collection and map will enable federal agencies, state, local, and Tribal governments, and other interested stakeholders to carefully and timely target resources where support is needed most."

This article is meant to serve as a quick summary of the proposed proceeding. For details on the Order and FNPRM and a fact sheet, see FCC Takes Further Steps to Streamline Broadband Data Collection.

Notes

1. Once a restoration request is submitted, the provider's broadband availability data are restored on the map from that data vintage forward if the request is successful — but any prior vintages continue to reflect the outcome of the earlier challenge, verification, or audit. The Public Notice does not describe who reviews restoration requests, what standard FCC staff apply in evaluating the infrastructure data submitted, how long the review takes, or how providers are notified of the outcome. Those procedural details are not specified in the documents released April 29, 2026. Stakeholders seeking to understand the full adjudication process should monitor the BDC Help Center at help.bdc.fcc.gov, where the FCC has said it will publish updated guidance alongside the May 7 launch.

Reading List

• FCC Is Taking Steps to Accurately Map Locations That Lack Access (GAO)
• Broadband Programs: Agencies Need to Further Improve Their Data Quality and Coordination Efforts (GAO)
• Broadband Data Task Force and Office of Economics and Analytics Publish Specifications for Data Required to Restore Coverage and Announce Launch of Coverage Restoration Process
• FCC Takes Further Steps to Streamline Broadband Data Collection
• Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act (Broadband DATA Act, Public Law 116-130)

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2026. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg

Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
1041 Ridge Rd, Unit 214
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-220-4531
headlines AT benton DOT org

Share this edition:

Broadband Delivers Opportunities and Strengthens Communities