Agriculture Sec Sonny Perdue unveiled a groundbreaking report, A Case for Rural Broadband: Insights on Rural Broadband Infrastructure and Next Generation Precision Agriculture Technologies. The report finds that deployment of both broadband e-Connectivity and Next Generation Precision Agriculture Technology on farms and ranches throughout the US could result in at least $47 billion in national economic benefits every year. The report also finds that if broadband infrastructure and digital technologies at scale were available at a level that meets estimated producer demand, the US economy could realize benefits equivalent to nearly 18 percent of total agriculture production. Of that 18 percent, more than one-third is dependent on broadband e-Connectivity, equivalent to at least $18 billion in annual economic benefits that only high-speed, reliable internet can provide.

Going forward, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) will be engaged in multiple facets of infrastructure and technology deployment, including financing rural capital investments and supporting producers who are exploring which Next Generation Precision Agriculture Technologies are best suited to improve their operations and serve their customers.

The House Communications Subcommittee held a hearing on more than six robocall bills, and there was bipartisan momentum for action. Ranking Member Bob Latta (R-OH), author of one of the bills, talked up the Republican take on robocalls, which is to empower more info sharing between companies and the Federal Communications Commission, provide access to blocking technology, and to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate robocalls. The legitimate uses, he said, include many valuable, pro-consumer applications including severe weather alerts, school closings, health reminders about prescription refills or doctors appointments, or alerts about suspicious bank activity. Chairman Mike Doyle (D-PA) conceded the pro-consumer calls, but said they only accounted for 20 percent of the 48 billion total. Full Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) praised the FCC for taking action on a reassigned number database along the lines of a legislative proposal of his. "I applaud this action, and I look forward to the FCC getting this database operational as quickly as possible." 

While there was a great need for more spectrum for advanced wireless systems, finding unencumbered frequencies has always been a long-standing battle. Thankfully, then came along the innovation of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) framework and requisite technology. [March's] announcement that you are working on 5G CBRS specifications, called CBRS Alliance Release 3, proved a lot of people wrong. It is expected that these specifications, which will include coexistence requirements to ensure interoperability between LTE and 5G networks in the 3.5 GHz and other bands, will be completed in the fourth quarter of 2019, enabling 5G in this band in 2020. This will likely be the first US mid-band 5G play. Left on the Federal Communications Commission’s plate to get CBRS fully operational is concluding the review and approval of the Spectrum Access Systems, or SAS, and Environmental Sensing Capability systems, commonly referred to as the ESC.

With all of the hype surrounding fifth-generation (5G) wireless, there’s one subject wireless carriers haven’t talked as much about: how much this amazing new connectivity is going to cost you. But in more recent weeks cell providers have started to make it clear that whatever incredible advancements 5G brings—higher prices are going to be part of the equation. For example, Verizon recently stated it would be imposing a $10 monthly fee (on top of your existing charges) simply to connect to its shiny new 5G network. But after reviewers hammered Verizon for comically overstating 5G availability in these spotty early launches, Verizon backed away from imposing the surcharge for what it stated would be an “undetermined” period. AT&T also made it clear it has its eye on charging higher rates for users who take advantage of the faster speeds 5G offers.

Matt Wood, General Counsel of consumer group Free Press, said that additional fees for 5G usage “aren't necessarily a bad thing” in that, at least for now, you’ll only have to pay more money if you’re actually using 5G. “It's far better for the actual users of new technologies to pay for the cost of the upgrade than it is for the rest of the customer base to wind up subsidizing a technology they aren't using yet,” Wood noted. “And it's far worse when every customer is forced to move to the higher speed and higher price, even if a lot of people would prefer to keep a more affordable service with slightly slower speeds.” Carriers haven’t been clear about what kind of restrictions they intend to impose on 5G networks in post-net neutrality era. A lot of that will depend on whether 23 state attorneys general win their ongoing lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission.