One of the most annoying aspects of the current federal broadband grants is the ability of incumbent internet service providers (ISPs) to challenge the validity of grant requests. In the typical challenge, the incumbents claim that they are offering fast broadband and that an applicant should not be able to overbuild them. The challenges put a burden on anybody filing for a grant since they must somehow prove that incumbent broadband speeds are slower than 25/3 Mbps. There are easy and obvious fixes to this; one simple fix would be that grants that ask to build fiber over existing DSL should be free from challenges. Another easy fix would be to stop talking about 25/3 Mbps as a meaningful definition of broadband. If these grants only allowed challenges for claims of 100/20 Mbps, then all of the challenges from telcos would be neutered. Unfortunately, the upcoming Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) grant rules include a challenge process, so we’re going to get to see this process repeated. If there were a huge number of challenges in prior grant programs, it’s hard to imagine what we’re going to see with the $42.5 billion BEAD grant program.

[Doug Dawson is President of CCG Consulting.]

The urgency for wider access to high-speed Internet has been palpable in the past year. The federal government has ramped up its focus on the issue, devoting billions in funding through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the American Rescue Plan Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In turn, states are setting aside eye-popping amounts of money themselves. But is all that money enough to help everyone? While the unprecedented funding will lead to more widespread broadband infrastructure, cost remains a significant burden for everyday Americans, and government stipends for monthly Internet bills could decrease in value. “If the states spend it [federal money] responsibly, it should largely resolve the challenge of people not having a network at their home," said Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. "As far as the term ‘digital divide’ is concerned, we will still have tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford it." More than ever, state and local governments grasp the significance of community engagement and agency coordination when it comes to overcoming the problem of inadequate broadband access. Public and private organizations are putting their best minds together to figure out how money can be well spent. Fresh ideas like electric cooperative networks, multi-town partnerships and open-access fiber are starting to take off to help populations that have been overlooked.

For so many people living in rural or low-income city neighborhoods, access to high-speed fiber-fed broadband would be a game-changer. Jobs are going remote, school is taught at a distance, and broadband is opening the door to telemedicine, reducing the need for trips to the doctor, but many people across the country still have no access to these options. After the pandemic hit, local governments rushed to step in to broaden internet access in rural and less affluent city neighborhoods, but unfortunately, in 18 US states, legal restrictions still make establishing municipal broadband prohibitively difficult. Federal governments will have to update their broadband information with expert input before their grant money can start flowing, but for now, communities can access infrastructure money going directly to the state or the city. With it, they can bring in broadband experts and facilitate its rapid deployment by removing roadblocks. By taking opportunities to pursue creative partnerships, communities can make broadband happen without having to worry about building it out themselves. Here are some examples of communities that already have.

[Cheri Beranek is the CEO of Clearfield and a 2021 Minnesota Business Hall of Fame inductee.]

Several international airlines canceled some US-bound flights after American wireless operators and aviation officials were unable to fully resolve a months-long standoff over the launch of new 5G signals. AT&T and Verizon agreed to temporarily water down expansion plans for 5G wireless service to address air-safety regulators’ concerns about the network signals’ effect on aircraft instruments. Nonetheless, a handful of international airlines said they plan to suspend some US flights starting January 19, citing operational concerns stemming from the Federal Aviation Administration’s restrictions and Boeing’s guidance not to operate the 777 jet. Emirates Airline said it would suspend flights to nine US cities. Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways said Boeing had advised them not to operate the 777 to the US in light of 5G deployment. Air India also announced the cancellation of some US-bound flights operated by 777 jets. AT&T agreed to temporarily defer the turning on of a limited number of towers around some airport runways but would launch 5G services “everywhere else as planned.” Verizon also committed to limit its 5G network around airports, adding that the new high-speed service will still cover more than 90 million Americans when it goes live January 19.

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launched a joint public inquiry aimed at strengthening enforcement against illegal mergers. Recent evidence indicates that many industries across the economy are becoming more concentrated and less competitive, and that these problems are likely to persist or worsen due to an ongoing merger surge that has more than doubled merger filings from 2020 to 2021. To address mounting concerns, the agencies are soliciting public input on ways to modernize federal merger guidelines to better detect and prevent illegal, anti-competitive deals in today’s modern markets. Some of the specific areas of inquiry on which the agencies are seeking public input and information include:

• The purpose and scope of merger review guidelines;
• Presumptions that certain transactions are anti-competitive;
• The use of market definition in analyzing competitive effects;
• Threats to potential and nascent competition;
• The impact of monopsony power, including in labor markets; and
• The unique characteristics of digital markets.

Senate Commerce’s top Republican, Sen Roger Wicker (R-MS), is calling for a new hearing on Federal Communications Commission nominee Gigi Sohn [Senior Fellow and Public Advocate at the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society]. He wants to dig into ethics questions after obtaining and reviewing the terms of the confidential $32 million settlement that broadcasters struck with shuttered TV streaming service Locast in 2021 (Sohn was on the board of the Sports Fan Coalition nonprofit, which ran Locast). “The possibility of the nominee’s future financial liability to a number of companies regulated by the FCC, and the timing of this settlement in relation to her nomination, demands a full discussion by the committee to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the ability for this nominee to act without any cloud of ethical doubt,” Wicker said. The White House has dismissed such doubts as meritless. According to a lawyer for the Sports Fan Coalition, federal ethics officials already reviewed the document and it’s unclear how it would trigger additional recusal requirements. Greg Guice, who directs government affairs for advocacy group Public Knowledge (which Sohn co-founded), blasted Wicker’s statement as a delay tactic aimed at postponing the formation of a Democratic FCC majority. He argued that Wicker could have sought a copy of the settlement from litigants weeks earlier. Senate Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) hopes to hold a committee vote on Sohn’s nomination at the end of January.