Rep Roger Williams (R-TX-25) introduced the Eliminate the Digital Divide Act to empower states to carry out their own broadband programs and ensure low-income individuals have access to low-cost broadband services. The bill would create a $10 billion State Broadband Program where governors receive funds based on the number of unserved individuals in their state and then partner with broadband service providers to build out networks. The bill also provides a platform for consumers to access information on the broadband options available to them and allow them the capability to enter their own financial information to see if they qualify for any state or federal subsidy programs.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is investing $596,000 to provide broadband service in unserved and underserved rural areas in the state of Washington. Whidbey Telecom will use a $596,000 ReConnect grant to deploy a fiber-to-the-premises network to connect underserved residents and businesses to high-speed broadband internet in Point Roberts, Washington.

The internet has grown into a utility, and internet access should be regulated as such. The position of the US government — not to mention phone and cable companies — is that the internet is a free-market service, full stop. It’s not a utility. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai says the internet industry merits only what he calls “light-touch” regulation, which is to say hardly any regulation at all. “The FCC’s light-touch approach is working,” Chairman Pai declared in 2019.

At first glance, that seems to be true. Over the last decade, the percentage of Americans with access to broadband internet climbed to 93.5% from 74.5%, according to a recent report from BroadbandNow. But rather than comparing current internet prices with how much we paid 10 years ago, we should be comparing our prices to what people in other developed countries pay. By that yardstick, Americans are getting a lousy deal, not just in terms of pricing but also in terms of service quality — that is, speed. The simple fact is that if the internet is a necessity, like power and water, we need clear rules to ensure the greatest possible access and the lowest possible price.

The Trump administration is getting pushback from industry groups, both sides of the aisle, and even internally about the Pentagon's moves toward a possible 5G network owned and operated by the government. President Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, is reportedly leading a pressure campaign for the White House's favored candidate, wireless company Rivada Networks, in its efforts to construct a 5G network, though Rivada says such a network should not be government-owned. Senior administration officials are reportedly alarmed at Meadow's efforts to get the Department of Defense to fast-track the process toward a request for proposal (RFP) on nationalized 5G. Sources said the wireless industry has been requesting a meeting with Meadows for weeks to discuss 5G and the controversy over the Pentagon RFP. There is suspicion in the industry that an RFP could be released within a matter of days or weeks.

Several partner organizations announced the launch of the American Connection Project (ACP) interactive Wi-Fi map. The map provides a free resource to help the public locate more than 2,300 free Wi-Fi locations across 49 US states. The map includes Wi-Fi locations from Land O’Lakes, Inc. and its ag retail owner network, along with several partner organizations including 4-H, CentraCare, Compeer, Kentucky Farm Bureau, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Polaris, Inc., the Public Library Association, Tractor Supply Company and Watch Communications, and support from Microsoft and Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise company.

The Department of Justice's case against Google hones in on the company's alliance with Apple as a prime example of what prosecutors say are Google’s illegal tactics to protect its monopoly and choke off competition in web search. The scrutiny of the pact, which was first inked 15 years ago and has rarely been discussed by either company, has highlighted the special relationship between Silicon Valley’s two most valuable companies — an unlikely union of rivals that regulators say is unfairly preventing smaller companies from flourishing. “We have this sort of strange term in Silicon Valley: co-opetition,” said Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel from 2009 to 2017. “You have brutal competition, but at the same time, you have necessary cooperation.”