The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the $42.2 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) grants establishes new rules for the grants that might have a wider implication for broadband elsewhere. One of the most interesting aspects of the NOFO was the definition of a new term – Reliable Broadband Service. The NOFO defines Reliable Broadband Service to means a broadband service that is shown to be providing broadband in the FCC maps using (i) fiber-optic technology; (ii) Cable Modem/ Hybrid fiber-coaxial technology; (iii) digital subscriber line (DSL) technology; or (iv) terrestrial fixed wireless technology utilizing entirely licensed spectrum or using a hybrid of licensed and unlicensed spectrum. The key purpose of this new term is to define the technologies that can’t be overbuilt if the speeds on those technologies meet the BEAD speed requirements. The more interesting aspect of this definition is that the BEAD grants can be used to overbuild any other technology such as satellite broadband or fixed wireless networks using unlicensed spectrum. It doesn’t matter what the speeds are for these networks since NTIA has declared these technologies to be unreliable.

[Doug Dawson is president of CCG Consulting.]

A group of organizations referred to as the Joint Advocates [including the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society] submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission regarding the implementation of the anti-digital discrimination section in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In their comments, the Joint Advocates requested that the FCC conduct a study to assess preferential treatment for high-income broadband users over the needs of low-income users. The group makes the following arguments in its filing:

• The FCC should analyze digital discrimination based on the infrastructure deployed as well as the type services being offered
• Historical context of past discrimination is necessary to understand the importance of an anti-discrimination rule for broadband infrastructure
• The economic outcomes of current discrimination are significant and addressing discriminatory infrastructure deployment will improve the US economy
• Projected broadband demand growth must be part of the discrimination analysis to avoid justifying ‘separate but equal’ infrastructure
• The nature of internet service provider digital discrimination takes many forms
• A new FCC study conducted this year will build on existing evidence of digital discrimination

Public Knowledge submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission on May 16, in response to the FCC's Notice of Inquiry regarding digital discrimination rules in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. "Digital discrimination is not just unjust towards individuals, but can hold back entire communities and prevent the nation from living up to its potential," states Public Knowledge in its filing. "Thankfully, the Commission now has not merely the legal authority, but an affirmative obligation, to end digital discrimination. In order to do so successfully, it must compare all facets of broadband service between low-income and marginalized communities with service in wealthier or whiter communities– including the quality of service, price, and other terms and conditions. It then must adopt broad and flexible rules and definitions that target discrimination of all types. When the Commission is evaluating if digital discrimination has occurred, it should look for “discriminatory impact” and not just “discriminatory intent.” It should also recognize that Congress’ instruction to “consider issues of technological and economic feasibility” requires providers to offer comparable service, and is not a safe harbor from which to perpetuate digital discrimination. Finally, Congress’s command that the Commission take proactive steps to identify the causes of digital discrimination and affirmatively eliminate them requires the Commission to take proactive action to set policies that will end digital discrimination and promote equal access."

Customer satisfaction with wireless service overall retreats 1.4 percent to a score of 73 (out of 100), according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Wireless Phone Service and Cell Phone Study 2021-2022. Mobile network operators (MNOs) and full-service mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are steady at 73 apiece. Satisfaction with value MVNOs also is unchanged yet still outperforms the other wireless categories. After a slight dip last year, customer satisfaction with cell phones is stable. T-Mobile moves back into first place in the MNO category. Last year’s leaders, AT&T and Verizon, tie for second. US Cellular finishes last despiteseeing improvements in customer satisfaction. Although Verizon slips, it remains first place among MNOs in network quality. AT&T is second, followed by T-Mobile and then US Cellular. According to ACSI data, customers who spend $26 to $50 per month are the most satisfied with their wireless companies. These customers are tied for the most loyal with customers who spend more than $500 per month. The most dissatisfied customers spend between $201 and $500 per month, while the least loyal customers spend $151 to $200 per month.