To be clear: according to our data collection, which has been rightfully criticized, approximately nine million Americans still lack access to even 10/1 Mbps service, and our finding here does not deny that point. However, our statutory mandate is not only to determine whether all Americans currently have access to advanced telecommunications capabilities, but also whether progress in deploying such services is proceeding at a reasonable and timely pace, and an affirmative response to the latter inquiry is completely consistent with the facts on the ground. I remain steadfast in my commitment to bringing access to those Americans currently without any broadband option at all and look forward to further actions by this Commission on this front, including, above all, the implementation of the Remote Areas Fund (RAF) auction in some form or fashion. At the same time, there is no doubt that rapid and robust progress in deployment, particularly in the wireless space, is evident according to the albeit imperfect data we have.

I remain dismayed by the report’s reliance on purported “insufficient evidence” as a basis for maintaining—for yet another year in a row—an outdated siloed approach to evaluating fixed and mobile broadband, rather than examining both markets as one. Data shows that fixed and mobile service are undoubtedly substitutable for many Americans and that fixed and mobile providers are in fierce competition with one another for customers.

It is simply not credible for the Federal Communications Commission to clap its hands and pronounce our broadband job done—and yet that is exactly what it does in this report today. By determining that under the law broadband deployment is reasonable and timely for all Americans, we not only fall short of our statutory responsibility, we show a cruel disregard for those who the digital age has left behind.... This report deserves a failing grade. It concludes that broadband deployment is reasonable and timely throughout the United States. This will come as news to millions and millions of Americans who lack access to high-speed service at home. It will come as news to communities across the country that are struggling to secure the broadband they need for economic revitalization and growth. It will come as news to rural households and tribal areas that fear without change they will forever be consigned to the wrong side of the digital divide. It will come as news to urban areas where redlining has led to broadband deserts. It also will come as news to millions of students who fall into the homework gap because they lack the internet access needed for nightly schoolwork. Moreover, it will come as news to governors, mayors, and legislators across the country working overtime to extend high-speed service to those outside its reach. It will come as news to members of Congress who in hearing after hearing have chided this agency for its inability to deliver the promise of broadband to communities they represent. Is it infrastructure week yet? Because there is no conversation in Washington regarding infrastructure that does not give prominent place to the work we have yet to do to reach everyone, everywhere with high-speed service. Instead of this report, we should be issuing a candid appraisal of the work we have to do to bring broadband everywhere. This requires three things:

1. We need to stop relying on data we know is wrong
2. We need high standards -- it is time for the FCC to adopt a 100 Megabits per second standard and set Gigabit speeds in our sight
3. We need to be honest about the state of what we have found. Moreover, we need to be thoughtful about how impediments to adoption, like affordability, are an important part of the digital equity equation and our national broadband challenge.

In 2012, the Federal Communications Commission released its eighth Broadband Deployment Report (the "706 report") and found that approximately 19 million Americans at the end of 2011 lacked access to high-speed internet access. The FCC concluded that "broadband is not yet being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion." On May 29, 2019, the FCC distributed a press release summarizing findings from its revised 2019 Broadband Deployment Report and stated that at the end of 2017, 21.3 million Americans lacked access to broadband networks. However, the FCC now concludes that this gap in broadband deployment meant that broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. How can 19 million people without broadband be a problem in 2012 but some 21 million without broadband not be a problem in 2019? Politics is an obvious answer. The 706 report can prompt calls for policy intervention and the 2012 FCC was more disposed to action to address issues in the broadband market than today's FCC is. But FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s press release points to two other aspects of the 706 report that deserve attention:

1. The shaky metrics it rests on, and;
2. Its constricted view of the digital divide.

[John B. Horrigan is Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute.]

Since 2004, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings on net neutrality have been caught in a vicious cycle. They have been passed, fought in court, and returned to the FCC with minor (and sometimes major) revisions. In the last few years there have also been numerous attempts to pass legislation, cementing net neutrality once and for all, but nothing has succeeded in Congress. Recognizing the importance of finding a sustainable solution, the Internet Society proposed a collaborative process to help experts find common ground on this complex policy issue. Starting in June 2018, the Internet Society convened an ideologically diverse group of experts to create a baseline set of principles for an open Internet. The group was able to create a consensus-driven set of bipartisan principles for an open Internet in the United States.

I. Government has a role to play in protecting the open Internet and ensuring that Internet users are able to access the content they want, when they want.

II. To address the uncertainty in the United States regarding open Internet rules, there should be a legislative framework for net neutrality that clearly and explicitly protects the interests of Internet users while fostering an environment that encourages investment and innovation.

III. The Internet should follow the Powell Principles: users should have the freedom to access and convey content, freedom to use applications, freedom to attach personal devices, and freedom to obtain service plan information.

IV. Above all, the purpose of any regulation should be to promote user choice over their broadband Internet access service consistent with applicable law.

V. Nothing in the rules should restrict BIAS providers from protecting the needs of public safety, national security interests, law enforcement, and copyright infringement.

VI. Any legislation should preserve the FCC’s authority to address universal service, public safety, accessibility for individuals with disabilities, pole attachments and access to rights of way, and state and local barriers to broadband deployment with respect to BIAS.

[see more]

Apparently, top Justice Department officials want T-Mobile US and Sprint to lay the groundwork for a new wireless carrier -- with its own network -- as a condition to clearing their $26.5 billion merger. But the idea of spinning off a full-fledged national competitor would be a high bar for T-Mobile and Sprint to meet. T-Mobile and Sprint, the two smallest national wireless carriers, have to weigh whether the remedies offered to gain approval are too onerous. The challenge: make enough concessions to assure antitrust enforcers that competition will thrive as the industry shrinks from four rivals to three -- without eliminating the benefits of merging the two companies.

Setting up a fourth competitor is possible, but could be unpalatable to the companies, said Blair Levin, an analyst with New Street Research and a former FCC chief of staff. “It can be done, but the question is whether there’s a solution that would satisfy the companies and the Justice Department and the states,” he said. “That’s hard.”