Commerce  Secretary Lutnick is widely expected to stray from the current approach of using market forces to incentivize states and territories to determine the right technology mix most appropriate for their jurisdiction. The fear is that he will adopt a one-size-fits-all federal mandate and direct states and territories to cut corners using a “short-term bang for the buck” approach, basically the same approach that has failed for decades to deliver fast, reliable, and affordable internet service in the hardest-to-reach parts of the country. That would be a tragic mistake. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided once-in-a-generation funding, and we are very unlikely this level of funding will come around again in our lifetimes. To the extent the new Administration seeks to cut unnecessary red tape, remove unnecessary rules and mandates, and improve efficiency, more power to them. In that effort they should have everyone’s unwavering support. But to the extent the forthcoming changes have the effect of selling out the American people to steer an excess of money toward Elon Musk’s satellite company, it will be a travesty mostly rural red states will regret for decades.

[Tim Stelzig is a former Senior Policy Advisor and Regional Director of NTIA's BEAD program.]

• Part 1: Explaining BEAD, Broadband Abundance?
• Part 2: Explaining BEAD, Trying to Bridge the Digital Divide
• Part 3: A New Approach to Connecting All Americans to the Internet

President Trump announced by tweet (or whatever it is they do on Truth Social) that he was somehow “ending” the Digital Equity Act, calling it “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” and “ILLEGAL.” The next day, letters were sent to states and awardees across the country terminating their grants. And so, just like that, nearly $3 billion in funding and years of work came to a halt. So, what are we going to do about it? When President Trump illegally and unconstitutionally attempted to end the Digital Equity Act, I became angry. Really, really angry. Is anybody else in this room angry? But what do we do with this anger? On the one hand, we could let it drive us to despair. The injustice is truly staggering. Our friends and colleagues are losing their jobs, our organizations are losing funding, and our words and ideas are being scrubbed from the public’s vocabulary. It’s easy to feel as if our life’s work is being erased. On the other hand, we could choose to fight. The law is on our side. The data is too. Four years ago, few states knew what digital inclusion was. Today, every state knows, and each has a detailed plan to address it. We made the case for digital equity and won. We can do it again. So, you can probably guess which choice I prefer—let’s fight. The only question is “How do we fight and win?”

[Gigi Sohn is the Benton Senior Fellow and Public Advocate.]

Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-WA) condemned House Republicans’ spectrum auction plan as they advance it to the House floor as part of their reconciliation bill. The senator’s latest warning that the plan could jeopardize U.S. national defense and aviation safety systems came following a Trump social media post yesterday insisting the Republican majority auction 600 MHz regardless of concerns. “National Security and Defense Republicans and Democrats were adamant last year that DoD spectrum couldn’t be given away because of the national security implications,” Sen. Cantwell said. “The House plan to sell 600 MHz of spectrum would punch a gaping hole in our defenses. The last time the Trump Administration rushed a spectrum auction, it fumbled badly, triggering 5G interference that grounded flights and jeopardized critical DoD systems. We can’t afford a replay of those failures.”? 

Thousands of West Virginians are still waiting for high-speed internet. But a new federal push that could steer more broadband funding to Elon Musk’s Starlink will make them wait even longer. The state was poised to receive $1.2 billion to connect every West Virginian to the internet, mainly through traditional fiber cables. Now, the money has been delayed as federal officials are making changes that would benefit satellite internet providers like Starlink, owned by Trump megadonor Musk. The program’s former director warned colleagues that the Trump administration was “stranding rural America with worse internet” to make “the world’s richest man richer.”  West Virginia broadband leaders and county officials warn that favoring satellite providers will leave residents with slower, less reliable service. They argue traditional fiber-based broadband is cheaper, longer-lasting and better suited to the state’s mountainous landscape. “Starlink is not a feasible nor sustainable substitute for high-capacity, fiber-based broadband in our county,” Pendleton County officials wrote in a letter to Gov. Patrick Morrisey in late April.

Broadband Internet connectivity is seen by many to be essential for modern life, not only because of the significant private benefits to its users, but also because of the alleged sizable social payoff—a “broadband bonus” above and beyond the purely private benefits of the service.  In pursuit of broadband’s social payoffs, some municipal governments have taken on the enormous financial risk of building and operating their own communications networks to provide telephone, video, and high-speed Internet connectivity to their constituents (and, in some cases, even to potential customers living beyond their municipal boundaries).  The purpose of this BULLETIN is neither to disparage nor promote municipal broadband as a policy option, but rather to consider the research on government-owned networks (“GONs”) and highlight seven economic lessons learned to aid decisionmakers to understand what municipal broadband is and how one might reasonably support or oppose it.  Portions of this discussion apply equally to broadband networks built by cooperative and investor-owned electric utilities where crosssubsidization from captive electric ratepayers to broadband networks is likely.  As detailed herein, these seven economic lessons can be distilled as follows: (1) building a greenfield broadband network will require subsidies of some sort; (2) asymmetric subsidies pose risk for private supply; (3) subsidized municipal entry is prone to be predatory; (4) GONs do not appear to lower prices; (5) more competition is not always better; (6) a municipal broadband network is unlikely to produce economic gains; and (7) state laws overseeing municipal broadband have a sound economic basis.  To illustrate these rules in practice, several cautionary case studies are provided.  Conclusions and policy recommendations are at the end. 

After years of effort and some frustrating delays, Amazon’s dream of delivering high-speed internet to some of the remotest places on Earth quite literally got off the ground in April. A United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket dropped Kuiper’s 27 satellites 450km above the Earth, from where they will climb to their final orbit at 630km. The successful deployment marked more than the birth of a new internet service provider. It was the opening shot in a battle over the future of global connectivity, one that pits Amazon founder Jeff Bezos against fellow billionaire Elon Musk, owner of the world’s largest satellite broadband network Starlink, a subsidiary of parent company SpaceX. But the two tech titans also face competition from global powers such as China and the EU in a race to control the space-based infrastructure that will influence economic, military and digital power. It is a rivalry that has the potential to determine future digital divides — some countries under western systems, others under tightly controlled Chinese networks.

Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR) revealed which wireless carriers protect the privacy of their customers by notifying them about government surveillance requests for their information, in a letter he sent to his colleagues. He urged senators to choose a phone company that will notify them about government surveillance requests.