The Federal Communications Commission adopted rules that will open up additional spectrum for next-generation connectivity. The FCC will unlock more than 1,000 megahertz of spectrum in the 12 GHz and 42 GHz bands for a range of connectivity services, including even faster satellite broadband. In addition to these final rules, in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission explores freeing up 1,450 megahertz of spectrum in the Ku- and Ka- bands, along with 138.25 gigahertz in the D-band, for more intensive satellite communications. And lastly, in a second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission adds to the list of spectrum bands under consideration for “weird space stuff.” This follows the Commission’s first-of-its-kind proceeding to bring spectrum abundance for missions like in-orbit servicing, refueling, manufacturing, or operations on or around the Moon—that is, next-generation space missions that do not provide connectivity to the public. This Further Notice would build on the foundation by considering new spectrum bands to control spacecraft and transmit data for emergent space ops.

The Federal Communications Commission approved a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking comment on how the agency can best adapt its approach to the changing communications landscape and apply these objectives to the next generation of communications technologies and platforms. The FCC invites stakeholders to look beyond today's 911 system, consider how new technologies and services could reshape 911, and provide input on how the FCC can best adapt its approach to meet public safety needs and consumer expectations in the years ahead. Specifically, the FCC asks stakeholders to examine the core objectives of the 911 framework and how to apply these objectives to the next generation of communications technologies and platforms. The Notice aims to explore modernizing the Commission’s decades-old “911 scope” analysis used to determine whether new technologies and services should be subject to the FCC’s 911 framework. The Notice also seeks comment on possible approaches to harmonizing 911 requirements across traditionally separate service categories and inquires how the Commission’s legal authority to regulate 911 applies in the evolving modern communications ecosystem.

There are at least two federal agencies that have been awarding smaller grants that are broadband-related. The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) makes grants aimed at economic development in 255 counties and parishes in parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. A similar agency is the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), which plays a similar role across 423 counties in Appalachia across thirteen states. These agencies are required by law to make most of their awards in economically distressed counties. Both agencies place most of their attention on projects such as water and sewer systems, transportation issues like roads and bridges, business development that promotes economic development, and workforce training. But both agencies have made grants that are clearly related to broadband. The awards at these agencies for broadband-related issues are generally small, ranging from $25,000 to $200,000. At that size, these grants aren’t building big infrastructure projects. Instead, the grants are aimed at local needs that are too small to be funded by other programs. For example, the agencies funded outdoor WiFi during the pandemic when communities were struggling with a lack of broadband access. They fund feasibility studies, some of which have been used to attract funding from the bigger grant programs. The grants tackle projects like connecting libraries to fiber. There are also state grant programs that make small awards, such as the program in some states that fund part of the construction cost to reach residents with long drops. In the last few years, there has also been a number of grant programs from non-profits that have made technical assistance grants related to broadband for communities.

The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and the North Carolina Department of Information Technology launched the Rural Health Innovation Fund. This statewide investment fund will distribute about $20 million per year for up to five years to help rural providers modernize their infrastructure, making it easier to care for patients and run their practices. Rural providers often face obstacles including more limited funding, fewer staff, and reduced access to the necessary technical infrastructure to keep pace with changing digital health care tools. Testing new solutions can be costly and risky for smaller providers. The Rural Health Innovation Fund will help providers identify, test, and implement digital solutions that strengthen their practices and support better care. In its first year, the Rural Health Innovation Fund is open to primary care providers, federally qualified health centers, community health centers, and safety net providers that meet certain federal health center requirements. Applicants need to demonstrate how they serve rural residents even if their county is not designated as rural. Eligible applicants may apply for funding to test and scale new digital solutions to improve care, ease operational challenges, and help patients stay connected to their care provider. Projects can include telehealth expansion, AI-enabled clinical decision support, electronic health record upgrades, cybersecurity enhancements, and other activities that are scalable, sustainable, and improve quality of care for rural communities.

Many governments struggle to get a handle on a technology that has rapidly outpaced their ability to respond. A.I. is evolving so quickly that laws passed two years ago are having limited effect, proposed bills to regulate the technology are stalling without a vote and international summits to discuss what to do are being swiftly forgotten. A.I. has made the gap between policymaking and technology one of the widest ever, according to more than 20 interviews with lawmakers, technologists and policy experts. Many governments are torn between wanting to harness A.I. and fearing its risks. And they are further mired by national politics, limited technological know-how, geopolitical divisions and reluctance to fall behind in a race that could shape economic power and national security for decades to come. Many countries are waiting for the two leading A.I. nations—the United States and China—to take a cue from their A.I. policies. Yet in the United States, the Trump administration has been divided over A.I. safety, with President Trump saying regulation would hurt innovation and cede ground to China. China itself has imposed some rules on A.I., especially to censor chatbot content, but also raced ahead with development.

Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) introduced the AI Systems Transparency Act (ASTA) which would require AI companies to be more transparent with the public about what data their models are collecting from users, the safeguards they’ve put in place for children and adults, and the guardrails they’ve created to stop systems from going rogue or being used dangerously by bad actors. Under ASTA, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would have the power to enforce these transparency requirements, while ensuring that companies can continue to grow and innovate. ASTA would apply to closed and open-source models. Additionally, It would:

• Establish criteria for the size and scope of companies over which the FTC would gain jurisdiction
• Require disclosure of information about structure and policies typically included on “model cards”
• Require disclosure of preventative safeguards used for child safety, mental health, privacy, cybersecurity, disaster risk, and autonomous loss-of-control 
• Require disclosure of information relating to common violations of policies
• Require companies to update all disclosures with each new model or substantial updates to an existing model 
• Require both a consumer-facing disclosure and a disclosure that can be of use to independent researchers and evaluators 

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, launched an investigation into Amazon, Google, Meta and Oracle over their use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that prevent local government officials from disclosing essential information about how proposed data center projects could affect their communities and constituents. Restrictive NDAs surrounding proposed data center projects prevent Americans from understanding the costs associated with such projects, including how much water and energy would be required to sustain the data center and whether that could increase their utility bills. In letters to the four tech giants, Ranking Member Raskin demanded answers about agreements that conceal critical details of proposed developments, including taxpayer-funded incentives and special carveouts from tax, environmental and zoning laws.