Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Headlines Daily Digest
Lived Broadband Policy: Experiencing the Affordable Connectivity Program
Don't Miss:
The big problem with this aging $8 billion fund
California Surges Forward Building the Nation’s Largest Open-Access Middle-Mile Broadband Network
Broadband Funding



Competition

State/Local


Spectrum/Wireless




AI






Devices

Content

Stories From Abroad


Public policy analysis overwhelmingly hews toward the quantitative. In the context of broadband policy research, quantitative data gleaned from surveys and other sources can illuminate how connectivity initiatives like the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) perform based on standardized metrics like enrollment counts, fund distribution, and the speed of broadband connections. However, these standardized metrics tell us little about how these initiatives affect the daily life of the very people enrolled in and often dependent on government subsidies for basic internet service. In contrast, qualitative research methods—such as interviews, focus groups, and ethnography—can offer granular insights into the human impact of broadband policy. We examined how low-income Philadelphians got online during the rollout of the ACP, which offered subsidies to eligible low-income subscribers for low-cost internet service. We explored how low-income residents encountered and navigated the tapestry of public, private, and nonprofit institutions that together comprise Philadelphia’s digital equity landscape. Our research revealed three central findings. First, participants tended to learn about ACP through word of mouth rather than from official outreach initiatives. Second, participants felt that Comcast’s Internet Essentials plan was a second-class internet service that was insufficient for their everyday connectivity needs. Finally, uncertainty about the future of ACP and its eventual expiration caused significant stress among participants.
[Dr. Pawel Popiel and Dr. David Elliot Berman are Marjorie & Charles Benton Opportunity Fund fellows.]

After some rough Q2 beats, Charter has found itself in legal hot water over its broadband subscriber losses. A class action lawsuit, filed August 14 on behalf of Charter shareholders, alleged the company understated the impact of the Affordable Connectivity Program’s demise. Charter has said it had over 5 million subscribers on ACP, which offered a $30/month broadband subsidy for low-income households before it ran out of funding in June 2024. Given Charter had way more ACP subscribers than its peers (such as Comcast, Cox and Verizon), the company’s investors have been concerned about the toll the ACP’s end took on its broadband business. The complaint, filed in a New York district court, comes after Charter posted worse-than-expected broadband losses of 117,000. The plaintiff claimed Charter execs “made materially false and misleading statements that conditioned investors to believe the Company could manage and reverse the causes of Internet customer declines.”

It’s welcome news that Big Tech is investing billions in AI infrastructure, but who’s really paying for the broadband networks that help make those AI investments profitable? That burden is increasingly falling on America’s aging Universal Service Fund, which since 1998 has supported broadband deployment in rural communities, low-income households, schools, libraries and hospitals. The fund is financed mostly by telephone subscriptions—many of them paid by seniors on fixed incomes. The more AI-generated traffic Big Tech sends down the pipe, the more costs are passed along to these landline users who don’t generate that traffic and don’t profit from it. There’s a structural mismatch here. The companies driving the majority of broadband traffic—eight platforms that account for about 65 percent of fiber and cable traffic and 68 percent of mobile network traffic—pay little to nothing to support the fund. The fund was created before the commercialization of the Internet. That world has changed, but the funding model hasn’t. Big Tech benefits every time someone connects to the internet; it’s time to update the rules so that those who benefit most from universal connectivity help sustain it.
[Roslyn Layton is an American broadband economist at Strand Consult.]

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division welcomed President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke Executive Order 14036, a Biden-era directive with sweeping implications for technology and broadband policy. Issued by former President Joe Biden on July 9, 2021, Executive Order 14036 contained provisions urging the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission to apply stricter antitrust review to mergers in broadband, cable, and Big Tech, warning that consolidation often hurts consumers. The revoked EO 14036 also directed the Federal Communications Commission to restore net neutrality rules, adopt broadband “nutrition labels” and prevent internet service providers from making exclusive deals with landlords to lock out competitors. These policies no longer have the White House’s formal policy backing, which could reduce FCC pressure to advance them.

On August 12, California State and Tribal leaders gathered on Hoopa Valley Tribe ancestral lands to celebrate the construction of nearly 23 miles of high-capacity middle-mile broadband infrastructure along California State Route 96. These 23 miles are part of the larger 8,000+ mile network that will serve as the backbone for homes, schools, and other locations that are currently unserved to have reliable access to the internet. The Hoopa Valley Public Utilities District and the State entered into the first-ever Tribal-State middle-mile broadband joint-build agreement. The model agreement has led to ten additional joint-build agreements with Tribal nations across California—with more on the way. Once complete, the route will deliver last-mile service to roughly 1,900 homes and 3,000 residents while adding critical resiliency to California’s open-access middle-mile broadband network.

As states and cities across the US seek to close their digital divides, getting a closer look at where and why the problem is particularly persistent is key to finding the right solutions. In New York City, the greatest digital divide exists in the borough of the Bronx. The third-most densely populated county in the US, the Bronx is home to roughly 1.4 million people, as of the most recent census data. It also has the lowest rate of broadband adoption in the city of New York, with 22.4 percent of households lacking broadband, compared to 18 percent in Queens and 12.5 percent in Manhattan. A new report from the Center for an Urban Future—Understanding and Overcoming the Bronx Digital Divide—finds that the Bronx faces the digital divide at every level – from affordability to device access – putting the borough at "a very serious disadvantage" compared to the rest of the city.

Integrated Sensing and Communications (ISAC) represents a fundamental shift in how we think about spectrum use. Traditionally, sensing and communications have been two separate functions. You had radar systems designed to detect and track objects, and you had communications systems designed to transmit data. They lived in different spectral lanes, were managed by different agencies, and developed along different paths. ISAC breaks that mold. In an ISAC world, sensing and communications co-exist in a single, harmonized system. The same infrastructure that supports your cell phone call or data stream might also detect a drone, track a vehicle, or monitor environmental conditions in real time. ISAC is not just a technical evolution; it is a strategic leap. It gives us a chance to fuse our economic and national security goals into a common platform. But this opportunity is only valuable if we seize it.

The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the Federal Communications Commission after it decided that the agency lawfully levied fines against T-Mobile and Sprint when they failed to take measures protecting customer location information from being sold to third parties. The case stems from an FCC decision in 2024 where T-Mobile and Sprint were fined a combined $92 million for failing to protect customer location-based services information. AT&T and Verizon, which also faced fines, separately pursued their own appeals and were not a party to the court decision handed down last week. U.S. District Court Judge Florence Pan said T-Mobile and Sprint had a duty to protect customer location information from misuse by third parties, but that the carriers failed to promptly take action even after they became aware of serious abuses.
Benton (www.benton.org) provides the only free, reliable, and non-partisan daily digest that curates and distributes news related to universal broadband, while connecting communications, democracy, and public interest issues. Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are factually accurate, their sometimes informal tone may not always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang (headlines AT benton DOT org), Grace Tepper (grace AT benton DOT org), and Zoe Walker (zwalker AT benton DOT org) — we welcome your comments.
© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2025. Redistribution of this email publication — both internally and externally — is encouraged if it includes this message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
1041 Ridge Rd, Unit 214
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-220-4531
headlines AT benton DOT org

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society All Rights Reserved © 2024


