At least 36 states and territories have submitted to the federal government final proposals outlining how they plan to use the billions of dollars in funding provided by the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program. While the federal agency overseeing the program said the new proposals will deliver a projected “savings of at least $13 billion for American taxpayers,” experts say this assertion may be misleading. In its statement, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration said the program changes will “turbocharge” the speed of deployment and increase the amount of “savings” for taxpayers, with some states now proposing to use less than half of the funds they were originally allocated through BEAD on direct broadband deployment. However, this $13 billion figure, which is derived from the difference between the amount of funds originally allocated to the 36 states and territories in 2023 and the unspent funds remaining after the bottom line of those new proposals filed last week, is not set to go back into the pockets of the federal government—not yet, at least. Drew Garner, director of policy engagement at the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, said it’s misleading for the NTIA to claim these funds as “savings,” because under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 that created the $45 billion broadband program, the funds are meant to remain with the states even if they aren’t spent directly on building out new fiber networks or installing wireless towers. 

This week, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society released "Achieving Affordability: State Strategies for Getting Everyone Online," an examination of how states are working to make high-speed internet more affordable for their residents. With the release, Benton Research Director Dr. Caroline Stratton hosted a discussion on how broadband affordability, availability, and adoption relate to each other and present current and future opportunities to improve universal access. The conversation included a handful of affordability experts––including the report's author, Jordan Arnold.

On August 29, 2025, Virginia became the first state in the nation to submit its revised final proposal for the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program. On September 9, a group of 15 bipartisan, bicameral Virginia state legislators sent NTIA Assistant Secretary Arielle Roth a letter expressing support for their state's final proposal. They commend the Virginia Office of Broadband for producing a strong plan while adhering to NTIA's revised BEAD guidance and urge Assistant Secretary Roth to approve the proposal as originally submitted. They write, "We respectfully urge the Department to approve Virginia’s Final Proposal in a timely manner, so that implementation can proceed without delay. In addition, we look forward to guidance regarding allowable uses of non-deployment funds. We stand ready to support the Virginia BEAD program and ensure its success."

Two companies, ViaPath and Aventiv Technologies, form a duopoly that controls 80 percent of the $1.5 billion prison communications market. These two companies contract with nearly every correctional agency at the state, county, and federal levels, and the size of their kickbacks—money agencies earn from our communications—depends on how willing public officials are to allow price gouging. According to the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, one-third of families with an incarcerated relative go into debt trying to stay in touch. That’s why reform advocates have been pressuring these companies for years to lower their rates. In 2023, Worth Rises and other advocacy organizations successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act, requiring the Federal Communications Commission to regulate prison phone rates. In July 2024, the FCC voted to implement new rules in line with the bipartisan bill, including caps on phone call pricing and a ban on most kickbacks to corrections agencies. Yet on June 30, the FCC announced a two-year postponement of those rules, allowing excessive pricing to continue until at least April 2027.

[John J. Lennon is a contributing editor at Esquire, currently serving his 24th year behind bars at Sing Sing Correctional Facility.]

Flanked by Silicon Valley’s most powerful executives in the White House, First Lady Melania Trump hailed artificial intelligence as potentially “the greatest engine of progress in the history of the United States of America.” Less than a mile from the first lady, in a hotel ballroom packed with MAGA faithful, Sen Josh Hawley (R-MO) had a different message. AI “threatens the common man’s liberty” and could even undermine the Republic itself, he said.  “The problem with the AI revolution as it’s currently going is that it only entrenches the power of the people who are already the most powerful people in the world,” he said. “The goal is to replace... the farmer, the assembly line man, the construction worker.” Sen Hawley is a frequent critic of Big Tech. But his comments are endorsed by a growing chorus on America’s right—even as President Donald Trump’s administration scraps regulatory barriers and accelerates AI’s adoption across the land. It presages an unexpected clash at the heart of the MAGA world.