In his recent State of the Union address, President Joe Biden said all construction materials used in federal infrastructure projects — and he specifically mentioned fiber optic cables — must be made in America. On its face, that sounds like a nice policy that even Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Unfortunately, sometimes there are no US suppliers for certain components of fiber optic cables. New Street Research policy analyst Blair Levin wrote, “The Buy America policy if strictly enforced, could cause significant delays in actual deployments.”  One thing the Office of Management and Budget will be looking at is the percentage of any component that must be made in America. Currently, the threshold is 55% of a component. But OMB could move that threshold up or down. Fiber Broadband Association CEO Gary Bolton said the fiber optic glass is not the problem in terms of Buy America. The fiber optic glass, which looks a bit like a fishing line, is surrounded by coatings and support structures. These coatings and support structures use elements such as helium and neon and products such as petroleum, steel, and resins that are often sourced from outside the US.

Requirements for forthcoming consumer broadband labels are nearly finalized, but a new batch of Federal Communications Commission filings shows there are still key points of disagreement between public interest groups and industry organizations representing internet service providers (ISP). Consumer advocates including Next Century Cities and Consumer Reports expressed opposing views from industry groups like NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) on some of those matters. Here are some of those remaining sticking points:

• Promotional Rates and Discounts: As per FCC rules published in November, the broadband labels would require ISPs to display the full, non-discounted broadband plan rate. But in a joint filing from Next Century Cities and Consumer Reports, the public interest organizations argued that "a link puts this content just out of reach for those that do not have the time or digital literacy skill to hunt for additional information." Instead, filings from NTCA and WISPA, as well as USTelecom and ACA Connects, argue that including discounted and promotional rates on the label would risk confusing consumers and overwhelming providers.
• Label Languages: Consumer advocates and industry representatives also disagree on making broadband labels available in multiple languages. Consumer advocates and industry representatives also disagree on making broadband labels available in multiple languages. Industry groups, on the other hand, are pushing the FCC to stick with its existing rules, comparing broadband nutrition labels to food and drug nutrition labels: "the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), upon whose nutrition labels the broadband labels are based, does not impose requirements for the publication of food nutrition or even pharmaceutical information in non-English languages, despite the fact that food and pharmaceutical consumption can implicate actual life and death consequences," said WISPA and NTCA.
• Performance and Reliability Data: Another area the FCC sought input on was whether it should require additional performance and reliability data on broadband labels. A study conducted last year by Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab showed consumers wanted broadband labels to display speed data for "poor" and "normal" performance times as well as service reliability data. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) urged the FCC in its latest filing "to include this metric on the label to give consumers and digital inclusion practitioners a complete picture of the service." But citing filings from other groups representing broadband providers, WISPA and NTCA argued against including reliability metrics, noting that reliability "is not a function of poor network quality, as one commenter suggests, but of an infinite number of external and unpredictable events that can occur at any time."