The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives announced bills that will be considered under suspension of the rules in that chamber. Under suspension, floor debate is limited, all floor amendments are prohibited, points of order against the bill are waived, and final passage requires a two-thirds majority vote. The bills include:

HR 3544, Computers for Veterans and Students Act: Sponsored by Rep Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), HR 3544 would require the General Services Administration (GSA) to quarterly transfer surplus computers and related technology to nonprofit refurbishers for eventual distribution to (1) schools, veterans, seniors, and other specified populations in need; and (2) state and local agencies for donation to nonprofit and public entities.

HR 7535, Quantum Computing Cybersecurity Preparedness Act: HR 7535, proposed by Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA), would 1) require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in consultation with the Chief Information Officers Council to prioritize the migration to post-quantum cryptography and do an assessment of critical systems one year after the NIST standards are issued, 2) instruct the director of OMB to send a report to Congress that includes a strategy on how to address this risk, the funding that might be necessary, and an analysis on the current efforts one year after the bill becomes law, and 3) direct OMB to provide a yearly report to Congress on the progress of the Federal Government in transitioning to post-quantum cryptography standards one year after the NIST standards are issued.

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau waives the Tribal-specific interim and final performance deadlines of the FCC’s rules for all 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window licensees to afford them flexibility as they complete their deployments. All Tribal Window licensees will instead be subject to the generally applicable performance deadlines for all other 2.5 GHz licenses initially granted after October 25, 2019. As such, Tribal Window licensees must make an interim showing within four years of initial license grant and a final showing within eight years of initial license grant, although they need not wait until the relevant deadlines approach to make their filings.

Each day in the US, Americans access billions of webpages, stream millions of videos, and participate in thousands of hours of virtual meetings over broadband networks. All of this relies on the physical infrastructure of the internet—cables, wires, servers, routers, network switches, pipes, poles, wireless towers, and more. And building, connecting, and maintaining that infrastructure involves a complex set of activities, such as securing permits and easements, attaching wires and other equipment to poles, and siting wireless facilities. For local and state policymakers, ensuring that communities have the infrastructure they need to support all those webpages, videos, and meetings means understanding those requirements and navigating a range of legal and logistical challenges.

[Anna Read is senior officer and Kathryn de Wit is project director at The Pew Charitable Trusts' Broadband Access Initiative.]

The internet is, as its name suggests, a complex “network of networks.” And sending an email or accessing a webpage requires data to transit multiple networks, owned and operated by different internet service providers (ISPs). Policymakers working to improve the availability and affordability of high-speed internet service, or broadband, need to understand how data travels across the millions of miles of pipes, cables, wires, and other equipment owned by various ISPs between users across the country and around the world. The Pew Charitable Trusts addresses the components of a broadband network, who owns these networks and how they interact, how we access content, and what all of this means for consumers.

[Anna Read is senior officer and Kathryn de Wit is project director at The Pew Charitable Trusts' Broadband Access Initiative.]

I’ve already written about the complexity of applying for the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program grants. Unfortunately, the paperwork doesn’t stop there. There are reporting requirements both for States and for grant recipients that begin when grant funds have been awarded that ask for a lot more information than any other grant I can recall. The requirements for States matter because States will likely request much of the same information from each grant recipient. And any internet service provider (ISP) who takes the BEAD grants needs to recognize that there is going to be a major ongoing reporting effort – and it will happen at the same time that you’re still busy building the network. These reporting requirements are going to require ISPs to keep track of and compile a lot more data about the customers on a grant network than what ISPs have ever done in the past. As someone who has seen the books and records of hundreds of ISP, I can tell you that a lot of ISPs are not ready to keep records in the needed detail for this reporting. If you take the grant money, you better get ready.

[Doug Dawson is president of CCG Consulting.]