The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has listed expanding affordable, high-quality broadband to every American as an objective in its 20222026 Strategic Plan. However, the combination of standing up new broadband programs and increasing access to broadband is an ongoing, nationwide challenge. The evaluation objective was to identify potential challenges for deploying broadband to underserved and unserved communities. We interviewed NTIA and state and territory broadband office representatives, surveyed broadband offices, and sent questionnaires to industry stakeholder associations. We asked broadband officials and industry stakeholders to identify challenges they face with deploying broadband to underserved and unserved locations. In response, broadband officials and industry stakeholders identified challenges with the following:

1. Statutory Requirements Could Negatively Impact Deployment Efforts: Broadband stakeholders identified statutory timelines to deploy broadband and lengthy permit processes as concerns that could negatively impact the broadband programs’ ability to deploy broadband services.
2. BEAD NOFO Provisions Could Negatively Impact Deployment Efforts: Broadband stakeholders identified the aggressive timeline for subgrantee selections and technology requirements and exclusions as concerns that could negatively impact broadband deployment.
3. Simultaneous, Nationwide Deployment Could Exacerbate Supply Chain and Labor Market: Broadband stakeholders expressed concerns about possible deployment delays due to supply chain disruptions, workforce shortages, and inadequate broadband office staffing.
4. Broadband Officials Expressed Concerns with NTIA’s Communication Process: Some broadband officials said NTIA’s communication of crucial information pertaining to technical guidance and tools was untimely or inconsistent.

As state application windows continue to close for the $42.45 billion Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment program, a divide has emerged in provider participation. While some states have seen an influx of applications from internet service providers, others have drawn only a handful. Arkansas received bids to cover 96 percent of its BEAD-eligible locations, but Massachusetts, so far, has received just five applications proposing to reach about 50 percent of locations. Meanwhile, New Hampshire, Maine, and Colorado have drawn bids to cover 55 percent, 79 percent, and over 90 percent of eligible locations, respectively.

Elon Musk appears to be laying the groundwork to privatize some space and satellite operations now under the authority of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or steer lucrative contracts toward his SpaceX and Starlink companies, former NOAA employees say. They’re sounding the alarm as at least four other federal agencies have reportedly begun pushing new contracts toward Musk’s Starlink satellite internet company. Musk, the world’s richest man, has been tasked by President Donald Trump with drastically slashing the federal government workforce and costs. The situation raises conflict of interest questions for one of President Trump’s closest allies who backed him with millions of dollars of funding in the 2024 election. Musk boasts that his so-called “department of government efficiency” “slashes spending”, but critics say he’s using his position to steer government funding toward his companies.

Community-owned broadband networks are thriving across the country. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Community Network Map shows a record 795 public networks delivering fast, affordable and reliable internet—hardly the “magical thinking” Annette Meeks described in her recent commentary in the Minnesota Star Tribune on the Connect Willmar Initiative. (“Municipal broadband: A zombie in our midst,” Feb. 24.) The real “zombie in our midst” is the dark money-fueled misinformation campaigns that keep rising from the dead, recycling the same debunked talking points that big broadband incumbents have peddled for decades. These attacks follow a familiar pattern, aiming to slow the momentum of communities adopting publicly owned networks. Take the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, the nonprofit organization that Meeks leads. Like other industry-backed groups, it trots out outdated claims that public broadband is a failure—ignoring the reality that most municipal networks are thriving. Ironically, the Freedom Foundation claims to champion “individual freedom,” yet Meeks’ argument seeks to deny Minnesotans the freedom to choose the broadband network that best serves their needs. And since the Freedom Foundation is so focused on values, perhaps it should add transparency to its list: Who funds the foundation’s opposition to public broadband? Why do its arguments conveniently mirror those Big Cable has used for decades? No funders are listed on its website.

[Gigi Sohn is the executive director of the American Association for Public Broadband.]

Early childhood educators make thousands of decisions each day. Among them are decisions around technology use with their young learners, which are too often shaped by policies and pedagogies that lag behind the latest research and the abundance of available options. In January and February, New America’s Learning Sciences Exchange program and Early and Elementary Education policy program partnered to host a two-part webinar series, helping educators, policymakers, and parents navigate the latest guidance. During the first webinar, Jenny Radesky, author of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statements on digital media use in early childhood and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, highlighted the AAP’s recently released 5Cs of Media Use. That framework, rooted in the science of child development, focused on the importance of considering each child’s interests and learning needs, ensuring that the content they’re engaging with is high-quality and designed for the age and developmental stage of the child, and evaluating technology use around the context of a child’s whole day. 

Apple has suffered a blow in its efforts to salvage its lucrative search placement deal with Google. A new ruling from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirms that Apple cannot participate in Google's upcoming antitrust hearing, which could leave a multibillion-dollar hole in Apple's balance sheet. The judges in the case say Apple simply waited too long to get involved. Google pays Apple $20 billion a year to secure placement as the default search provider in the Safari desktop and mobile browser. The antitrust penalties pending against Google would make that deal impermissible. 

Federal Communications Commissioner Anna Gomez spoke at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Legislative Summit, where she addressed efforts by the FCC and other government entities to intimidate private companies because of internal labor practices meant to promote fairness in hiring: “Private businesses all over the country are under attack. Creeping government intervention is making companies think twice about the way they describe internal diversity programs. They’re afraid the government may retaliate against them simply because of actions that are responsive to how consumers use their services or choose to buy their products. Sadly, the hard-fought lessons of the civil rights movement are being erased—or worse, distorted—to claim that fairness for all requires discrimination against some. That could not be further from the truth.” In recent weeks, the FCC has weaponized its regulatory authority to enforce government mandates that seek to eliminate voluntary efforts by private companies to increase fair and equal employment opportunities. In an unprecedented move, agency leadership has also signaled it will impose heavy regulatory burdens on companies that request approvals for mergers and other business transactions before the FCC, jeopardizing economic growth in the name of ideological purity. 

Despite the emergence of new frameworks, guidance, and recommendations to support the overall responsible use of artificial intelligence by public agencies, there is a dearth of guidance on how to decide whether AI should be used in the first place, including how to compare it to other solutions and how to document and communicate that decision-making process to the public. This brief seeks to address this gap by proposing a four-step framework that public administrators can use to help them determine whether to proceed with an AI system for a particular use case:

1. Identify priority problems for the public agency and its constituents
2. Brainstorm potential solutions to priority problems
3. Evaluate whether AI could be a viable solution before comparing alternatives
4. Document and communicate agency decision-making on AI uses to the public