There were some concerns that certain language in New York’s proposed state budget would lock out municipal broadband projects from being able to capitalize on the federal funding bonanza contained in the American Rescue Plan Act and forthcoming money in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. However, the bill that was ultimately signed into law by Gov Kathy Hochul (D-NY) was amended and includes some golden nuggets for municipal broadband. The recently enacted $220 billion budget bill includes $1 billion for the state’s ConnectALL initiative, which Hochul’s office calls “the largest ever investment in New York’s 21st-century infrastructure (that) will leverage public and private investments to connect New Yorkers in rural and urban areas statewide to broadband and establish the first municipal broadband program of its kind in the nation.”

With passage of a new state law (HB 4092), Business Oregon, the state's economic development agency, is seeking applications to fill 11 Oregon Broadband Advisory Council (OBAC) volunteer positions. These positions are executive appointments by the Governor. Applications are being accepted for the following positions: 

1. One member to represent the counties of this state.
2. One member to represent the cities of this state.
3. Two members to represent telecommunications service providers. At least one member must represent a service provider that provides telecommunications services in rural Oregon with preference for appointment given to a service provider that is headquartered in rural Oregon.
4. One member to represent Oregon tribes.
5. One member to represent education or public libraries.
6. One member to represent rural business or economic development districts.
7. One member to represent urban business or economic development districts.
8. One member to represent telehealth.
9. One member to represent the digital equity interests of historically disadvantaged communities.
10. One member to represent consumers and the public at large.

Individuals who are interested in applying are encouraged to review HB 4092. OBAC’s mission has been to encourage coordination and collaboration between organizations and economic sectors to leverage the development and utilization of broadband for education, workforce development and telehealth, and to promote broadband utilizations by citizens and communities.

T-Mobile leases much of its 2.5 GHz spectrum from educational institutions around the country. And the carrier has made great efforts to keep the terms of these Educational Broadband Service (EBS) leases private. For instance, it is engaged in a dispute with Christian College of Georgia and demands that the college not reveal the terms of its lease. But, a reporter for Religion News simply looked up the IRS Form 990 for Christian College of Georgia, which is a public record that must be filed by non-profit organizations. He reported that the college receives $55,000 per year for the lease of its 2.5 GHz spectrum. Previously, Fierce Wireless reviewed letters sent from T-Mobile to some schools indicating the carrier really does not want the pricing terms of its leases revealed. T-Mobile considers the pricing terms to be “trade secrets.” One letter sent from T-Mobile’s law firm Williams & Connelly states, “Disclosure of this confidential information would affect T-Mobile’s standing in extremely competitive spectrum negotiations.” The letters from T-Mobile’s law firm also said that access to T-Mobile’s 2.5 GHz leases are only known by fewer than .1 percent of T-Mobile employees. The topic of T-Mobile’s leases is particularly sensitive right now because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has scheduled Auction 108 of 2.5 GHz spectrum to begin July 29.

In the long-running net neutrality debate, a key assumption has been that broadband and broadband Internet access service are “jurisdictionally interstate.” But are they really? And what does that mean? In practice, the interstate assumption has meant that important decisions about broadband law and policy are made almost exclusively by the federal government. The “who decides” question took on new immediacy in 2017, when the Federal Communications Commission gutted federal net neutrality rules, and then attempted to preempt the states from adopting their own. Several states nevertheless enacted open network/non-discrimination laws; two of them (in California and Vermont) were promptly challenged on preemption grounds. This article examines the interstate assumption “from the ground up.” It starts with wires in the ground and radio links to local cell towers, i.e., “last-mile” infrastructure without which there is no broadband Internet access. It arrives at the conclusion that “jurisdictionally interstate” is more of a fictional construct than a factual description, one that expresses unexamined policy choices more than essential network attributes. It concludes by reflecting on alternate ways that federal, state, and local interests might more harmoniously be integrated in light of the network’s physical presence and the state laws which enable that presence.

Elon Musk doesn't seem to have much of a vision for how to actually run Twitter, if his takeover bid succeeds. He's not alone. A small group of tech moguls believe America is in the midst of what they call a "free speech" crisis, and they're investing time and money to change the terms of public discourse. But so far, they've made more headlines than progress. Just hours after announcing his bid, Musk took the stage at the TED conference in Vancouver, Canada, to explain his takeover rationale. In doing so, he gave Twitter's board of directors ample reason to reject his bid. Instead of delivering a distinct plan for Twitter's future, Musk gave meandering and sometimes contradictory answers about how he would address Twitter's content moderation challenges. He said Twitter should use human judgment to evaluate free speech — while also saying Twitter shouldn't regulate users' speech, except to follow the laws of the countries it operates in. He said he wants Twitter to hold on to as many current shareholders as possible once it goes private. Later he asserted: "I don't care about the economics" that would be paramount to many of those shareholders. Social media companies are increasingly willing to remove certain types of content, and ban those who post it, after years of casting themselves as neutral platforms. This change has triggered an opposite reaction by individuals who prefer the earlier approach.