The Federal Communications Commission collects annual data on broadband prices through its Urban Rate Survey, covering a wide range of speed tiers and providers across urban markets. In the right analytical hands, the data offer an opportunity to track broadband prices over time. Yet, price is only one measure of market performance. Experience indicates that the quality of broadband service—typically measured by download speeds—consistently improves over time. Over the years, many Americans have experienced a dramatic upgrade in speeds (hundreds of megabits per second in some cases) without any compensating price adjustment, thereby substantially reducing quality-adjusted prices. Market performance, therefore, involves some mix of price and quality changes over time. A meaningful assessment of broadband prices or “affordability,” therefore, requires examining both dimensions together. A service that costs the same today as it did six years ago but delivers ten times the speed is not evidence of market stagnation but of market improvement. Conversely, a rising average price which reflects consumers purchasing faster services rather than paying more for the same service is not evidence of a worsening affordability problem.

The Federal Communications Commission issued a Public Notice with the longest title I can remember: Wireline Competition Bureau Reminds Reverse-preemption States of Obligation to Effectively Regulate Pole Attachments and Seeks Comment on Need for Changes to the Commission’s Certification Rules to Ensure Effective State Pole Attachment Regulation. States were given the right to regulate pole attachments in Section 224 of the 1934 Communications Act. In one of the oddities of regulatory language, States that have elected to regulate pole attachments are said to have “reverse-preempted” the federal pole attachment rules. The Public Notice is seeking comments on whether States are properly regulating the rates, terms, and conditions of pole attachments. In strongly worded language, the FCC reminds States of the “obligation to effectively and clearly regulate pole attachments in their jurisdictions.” In what feels like a veiled threat, the FCC asks if it should require reverse-preemption States to refile new certifications for FCC review. 

The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and the North Carolina Department of Information Technology announced three new programs to improve the digital infrastructure of rural health care through new digital solutions and tools. This partnership advances statewide implementation of NC’s Rural Health Transformation Program digital health and technology initiative, funded by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. NCDHHS and NCDIT are launching the Rural Health Innovation Fund, expanding provider agreements with NC HealthConnex and improving digital health literacy. Together, these agreements represent a coordinated statewide effort to modernize rural health care delivery, strengthen digital health capacity, and expand access to emerging technologies. The Digital Health Literacy program expands access to digital health literacy for rural residents through online, phone-based, and in-person supports. It builds on the NC 211 Digital Navigation Program, which provides multilingual assistance, one-on-one training, and digital skills resources for North Carolina communities. 

Another struggling rural carrier is shutting down. Carolina West Wireless struck an agreement to transition its wireless network to Verizon and will end its wireless services effective September 30, 2026. Terms were not disclosed. Based in Wilkesboro, North Carolina, Carolina West Wireless was formed 35 years ago and is owned by a partnership of Skyline Telephone and Surry Communications. The company provides wireless service across 11 western North Carolina counties. “This decision was made with the future of our customers and communities at the forefront,” said Carolina West Wireless CEO Slayton Stewart in a statement. “The wireless industry increasingly requires greater scale and investment to deliver the next generation of connectivity. We believe our customers and communities will benefit from continued innovation, expanded resources and the strong network performance they rely on every day.”

Vermont Community Broadband Board is encouraging eligible Vermonters to take advantage of the Affordable Long Drop Program, which helps pay the cost of connecting homes to fiber broadband service. Funding for the program is currently scheduled to end in September 2026, creating a limited-time opportunity for Vermonters that have delayed connecting because of installation costs. The Affordable Long Drop Program assists eligible providers to cover the cost of long or nonstandard broadband connections, including underground installations. These costs can sometimes reach thousands of dollars and may prevent households from connecting to available fiber broadband service. A long drop is the connection that runs from broadband infrastructure along the road to a home or business. While providers typically cover the cost of standard installations, customers may be responsible for additional costs when a connection is unusually long or requires specialized construction. The Affordable Long Drop Program helps reduce or eliminate those costs for eligible Vermonters.

Congress has failed to address the work force disruption that artificial intelligence could generate. The White House, excited about the upside for stocks and investment, has downplayed the potential for widespread job losses. Now, amid growing public anger over A.I. and a debate over how to regulate it, a group of employers, state governors and foundations has raised $500 million to try to answer some of those questions themselves. The funders include A.I. labs preparing to go public, like OpenAI and Anthropic, as well as established corporate giants such as Bank of America and Amazon. Their new nonprofit, called Raise Us, is led by Gina Raimondo, a former commerce secretary and Rhode Island governor who since leaving office has called for companies and the government to do more to orient American workers in a new A.I. era. The organization will work primarily with governors, starting with those in Utah, Arkansas, Maryland and Connecticut. The theory: States generally control their community college systems, which can translate work force policy through course offerings and industry partnerships. The bulk of the budget will fund pilot programs overseen by about 15 staff members and consultants.

This qualitative report is based on interviews with people of color who believe they have been impacted by AI decision-making systems in their pursuit of jobs, lending, and housing. Key takeaways include:

1. AI is scaling existing patterns of racial discrimination. Systems trained on historically biased data reproduce those biases across millions of decisions simultaneously.
2. The harm is not domain-specific. Housing, employment, and lending are connected by shared AI-powered infrastructure. Exclusion in one domain actively damages access in the others.
3. Communities of color are disproportionately exposed to AI’s impacts on wealth. 91% of Black Americans see AI as a job threat; 24% of Black workers are in roles with 75%+ automation potential; Black mortgage applicants are 80% more likely to be denied.
4. AI hardens the structural barriers faced by first-generation wealth-builders. When AI has been given the authority to make life-altering decisions, it cannot take context into account in the same way that a human decision-maker could.
5. People cannot fight what they cannot see. The transparency deficit means most participants had no idea AI was involved in decisions that shaped their financial lives — and no path to appeal.
6. Generational wealth feels unattainable to many. The compounding weight of algorithmic barriers makes generational wealth feel structurally out of reach, not just personally difficult.
7. AI could help close the racial wealth gap, with safeguards. With guardrails and equitable development and deployment, AI could be a beneficial tool to support economic mobility and increase generational wealth.

The Five Eyes intelligence alliance issued a rare joint warning this week that frontier AI capable of crippling governments and businesses is close. The fast rise of Chinese and Japanese models helps explain the urgency and fear. Three new disruptions show just how fast it's happening:

1. It's becoming harder to put up a wall around America's advancements. Japan's Sakana AI launched Fugu Ultra, an orchestrator that it claims offers "frontier capability without the risk of export controls" by switching between publicly available models. The Tokyo-based company says it can reach Mythos-level performance by using U.S. labs' work as interchangeable infrastructure.
2. China is eating away at that lead by stealing America's best work. In February 2026, Anthropic accused DeepSeek, Minimax and Moonshot of illicitly training their own models via "distillation," using thousands of accounts to have millions of exchanges with Claude—a cheap shortcut to years of pricey research.
3. American labs are wondering whether the frontier is worth the risk. Two weeks ago, the Commerce Department export-controlled Anthropic's Fable 5 and Mythos 5, leading the company to shut off access for everyone. The best domestic AI companies may be wary to show off their highest-capability models, fearing further government intervention.

February 8, 2026, marked 30 years since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major overhaul of U.S. communications law since 1934. Designed to deregulate the industry and open markets to competition, the legislation aimed to break up entrenched monopolies and lower costs for consumers. For MetTel, the anniversary is more than just symbolic. The company’s origins are directly tied to the law’s creation. “We are a byproduct of the Telecom Act,” said Andoni Economou, COO of MetTel. One of the company’s co-founders saw the legislation coming and “kind of said, let’s participate in this. It sounds like a very big event in a very big industry.” At the time, the market structure was straightforward but highly concentrated. “It was all just local monopolies and two or three long distance providers,” he said. The Telecom Act sought to change that by allowing long-distance carriers to enter local markets—and vice versa—while creating new pathways for competitive entrants.