On Feb 1, we had approximately 4.5 hours of oral argument on the network neutrality case. I want to just highlight one theme: the refusal of the Federal Communications Commission to be honest about the expected policy consequences of its actions. I highlight this for several reasons. First, people need to understand that while the agency can always change its mind, it has to follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which includes addressing the factual record, acknowledging the change in policy from the previous FCC, and explaining why it makes a different decision this time around. As I have noted for the last couple of years, there is a lot of confusion around this point. On the one hand, it doesn’t mean you have to show that the old agency decision was wrong. But on the other hand, it doesn’t mean you get to pretend like the old opinion and its old factual record don’t exist. Nor do you get to ignore the factual record established in this case. It was on these points that Judges Millett and Wilkins kept hammering the FCC, and where the FCC is likely in the biggest trouble in terms of the Order. Because FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has pretty much made it his signature style to ignore contrary arguments and make ridiculous claims about his orders, this problem has already chomped the FCC on the rear end pretty hard (ironically, in an opinion released the same day), and will likely continue to do so.

As policymakers work with industry and stakeholders to ensure that all Americans have access, they need reliable data to effectively target funding and programs to meet their goals. The primary source of information on connectivity is the Federal Communications Commission, which gathers data from carriers offering broadband service. Since 2011, that data—collected on Form 477—has been displayed on the Fixed Broadband Deployment map (previously called the National Broadband Map), which shows which entities are offering fixed broadband, where they are offering it, and at what speeds. But participants at a December The Pew Charitable Trusts event widely agreed that the Form 477 data is incomplete and sometimes inaccurate, which means that the map should not be treated as definitive about where broadband is available. Although it might indicate that access is available at a certain address, that might not be the case. Form 477 data captures the presence of broadband within a census block—and the size of a census block can vary from a single city block to hundreds of square miles. It does not account for factors such as whether a provider offers service only to a small portion of the census block or is able to access apartment buildings in the neighborhood. Many panelists noted the increasing demand by decisionmakers and the public for address-level data, but said such data is hard to obtain and verify because of concerns about competition, the burden on providers, and consumer privacy. No national address database exists that could be used for this effort, and the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration lack the resources under current programs to conduct in-depth data validation.  

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau announces the soft launch date for the National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier in Alaska, American Samoa, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, the Northern Mariana Islands, Rhode Island, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Bureau also announces the full launch of the National Verifier in Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Soft Launch – February 6: Alaska, American Samoa, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, the Northern Mariana Islands, Rhode Island, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Full Launch – March 5, 2019: Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. 

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai addressed the NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association membership, and discussed a 5G future that is very much about wires and not just wireless, and promising for rural markets. “I’ve consistently said that the 5G future isn’t necessarily a wireless one, it’s actually a wired one,” Chairman Pai said. “Part of our 5G fast plan, as I’ve called it at the FCC, that’s facilitating America’s superiority [for] 5G technology, involves modernizing our regulations to encourage much more fiber deployment.” “Contrary to what some people have suggested, I actually think 5G has a very promising future in rural America and part of the reason is, in terms of the possibilities of fixed wireless, given the fiber penetration that some of your members have,” he said. “I think the ability of rural telecom carriers to think broadly about the future of these networks and how to extend this great fiber penetration you’ve got, there’s a huge amount of promise there."

The emergence of fifth generation (5G) mobile networks is elevating the need for stakeholders to assess infrastructure and cost inclusivity in order to address this digital divide. Communities of color, who often find themselves on the wrong side of the divide, are poised to benefit from 5G technologies that enable internet of things (IoT) applications in health care, education, transportation, and energy. However, this outcome is contingent on stakeholder buy-in, advocacy, and programming of intentional diversity initiatives.

The Federal Communications Commission recently proposed a new rule that will allow unlicensed users to access the 6 GHz band — a frequency on the radio spectrum — for Wi-Fi connectivity, causing a disagreement between broadband companies that would benefit from the rule and utility companies that currently rely on the frequency to communicate. The FCC reserves portions of the 6 GHz band for communications between licensed electric, water and natural gas utilities companies. The FCC says the proposed change to open the band to unlicensed users will solve the country's airwave shortage problem and improve Wi-Fi capabilities for mobile devices and wireless routers. Utility leaders say the FCC focuses more on the needs of the telecommunications sector and does not understand the negative effects their decisions might have on critical infrastructure operations. Tech companies — including Apple, Google, Cisco, Facebook and HP — support the FCC plan, arguing that wireless broadband services will need it to meet growing demand.

[Sarah E. Hunt is the co-founder and CEO of Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy.]