Thank you to the Broadband Communities team for organizing a great event and inviting me here today to discuss an issue that I care so deeply about which is getting high-speed, affordable broadband to every person across this country. I really wish I could have made it here yesterday as well because I know Jon Sallet at the Benton Foundation gave a stellar presentation on his new work, “Broadband for America’s Future: A Vision for the 2020s.” The National Broadband Plan was released in 2010 so I’m glad to see we have an advocate in this space who is thinking about creative and forward-thinking policies that will address internet inequality. Jon and I share similar views. We recognize that broadband access is necessary if we truly want to empower our communities in this digital age. So, thank you to Jon and the Benton Foundation team for all of their hard work on this project. I really look forward to diving into it and engaging with you all more. 

We need to better understand how our High-Cost Program/Connect America Fund has historically performed so that we can better tailor the performance of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund for the next 10 years. Sometimes you have to look back to understand how best to move forward. That’s why I’m calling for the FCC to conduct a data driven 10-year look-back on how our program has effectively performed in bringing broadband to our remote areas. Where have we succeeded? Where did we miss? Under our programming, which communities have had their connectivity needs met in the way that we expected? Which haven’t, and why? Or are there areas where we in fact already provided High-Cost/CAF funding but they’re still behind in their connectivity needs, and if so, why? I want to be crystal clear, this study is not at all an attempt to undermine this program or change it in some fundamental way. I want to understand where we have been most successful so that we can improve this program.

Frontier Communications requests that the Federal Communications Commission waive Frontier’s obligations under the Connect America Fund (“CAF”) Phase II model-based support program to reach its 80% year-end 2019 milestone in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah because it has not been permitted to build on the Navajo Nation for the past year. Frontier requires the use of the Navajo Nation public rights of way. Frontier’s purchase agreements clearly grant access to the necessary rights of way in the Navajo Nation, and Frontier and its predecessor entities have paid property taxes on and provided voice telephony services using those same rights of way throughout the Navajo Nation since 1970. However, in November 2018, the US Depart of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) unexpectedly ordered Frontier to stop work on its fiber construction, asserting that Frontier lacks adequate rights of way to deploy the necessary fiber facilities primarily alongside longstanding existing copper facilities and proposing that Frontier and the Navajo Nation negotiate new rights-of-way agreements from scratch.

If you walk into a retail store in southern Ohio, you might see a "cash only" sign sitting in the window. Cash, unlike credit card machines, does not rely on internet access to work. In an area with limited options for high-speed internet access, some businesses struggle with credit card machines. Up until five years ago, M&M Feed Supply, in Guernsey County, was one of those businesses. It had dial-up internet, which allowed them to use the machine, but only in the store where it could be physically connected. This prevented the store from offering drive-through checkout, which the store owners, Darlene and Joe Miser, consider better customer service. Then, high-speed internet became not a luxury, but a necessity.  So, over the last five years, the Misers have spent over $30,000 just to get internet access for their store.

Top Republicans are privately worried about a new threat to President Trump’s campaign: the possibility of Facebook pulling a Twitter and banning political ads. Facebook says it won't, but future regulatory pressure could change that. If Facebook were to ban — or even limit — ads, it could upend Trump’s fundraising and re-election plan. His campaign has mastered the art of using Facebook’s precision-targeting of people to raise money, stir opposition to impeachment, move voters and even sell Trump shirts and hats. The Trump campaign often uses highly emotional appeals to get clicks and engagement, which provides valuable data on would-be voters and small-dollar donors. Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh said, "We’ve always known that President Trump was too successful online and that Democrats would one day seek to wipe him off the Internet." "That’s why we’ve invested so heavily in building up our data to allow us to communicate with millions of voters away from any third-party platforms like Facebook." "Democrats demanding internet platforms shut down political advertising will guarantee Trump’s victory in 2020. They’re idiots."