Tag Archives: FCC

More Favoritism for Satellite D2D?

T-Mobile recently filed a document with the FCC warning the agency that as much as 60% of its upload cellular traffic using 2.5 GHz spectrum for connections up to six miles from a tower will be disrupted if the FCC allows satellite cellular to share the same or nearby spectrum using unsynchronized traffic. T-Mobile says that satellite transmissions for cellular delivered as close as 15 miles from one of its cell sites could be majorly disruptive to cellular traffic.

T-Mobile is worried about FCC plans to allow 2.5-2.9 GHz for direct-to-device (D2D) satellite cellular, which sits next to T-Mobile’s workhorse 2.5 GHz spectrum it uses for cellular service. The reality is that cellular signals drift outside of the assigned spectrum bands, particularly the signals generated by cellphones, which are outside of the control of a cellular carrier.

T-Mobile is also worried about the volumes of satellite broadband that might come from an FCC approval for SpaceX to launch as many as 15,000 satellites to provide direct-to-device cell service. Even more troubling would be the announced SpaceX plan to acquire space on as many as 80,000 U.S. cell towers to bolster its satellite service with terrestrial towers. It would be devastating to T-Mobile if a carrier uses unsynchronized signals across the country and on the same towers where T-Mobile is located.

To understand T-Mobile’s complaint, it’s worth looking at the technology behind its claim. Modern cellular networks rely on synchronized cellular spectrum to function. That refers to a network management framework where the cell towers and user cellphones in a region are perfectly aligned by the use of an ultra-precise time clock. This timing precision is required to efficiently transmit data over shared or adjacent radio frequencies without causing severe network interference.

If cell towers don’t have perfect, nanosecond-level time synchronization, one tower might attempt to download data at the same time a neighboring tower is uploading data on the same frequency. These kinds of timing problems lead to what is called a destructive overlap, which results in dropped calls, lagging internet speeds, and packet loss inside the cellular network.

T-Mobile is highly concerned that satellite cellular providers are not being held to the same standards as the rest of the industry, and T-Mobile and CTIA, the cellular industry spokesman, have asked the FCC to require the same standards for satellite cellular traffic that are applied to terrestrial cellular providers. At a minimum, T-Mobile and CTIA are asking the FCC to open a docket to explore the technical issues.

When I look back at how the FCC has acted in the recent past, the agency seems to be in a big hurry to approve satellite cellular service without undertaking the detailed technical and market analysis that has always been used in the past. Whether this is being done through favoritism for the new satellite providers or is just the FCC’s way to support the new shiny ball – it is not treating the new satellite companies in the same way it treated the cellular industry or other users of spectrum in the past.

It wouldn’t be surprising if T-Mobile is exaggerating the extent to which its upload traffic from customers would be disrupted. We’ve seen carriers make exaggerated claims in the past to get the FCC’s attention. It would be a disaster if D2D providers are allowed to use unsynchronized signals and disrupted even 5-10% of terrestrial cellular traffic. Hopefully the FCC will take T-Mobile seriously and give the issue the kind of analysis that has always been routine in the wireless industry.

Have We Given Up on Expanding Rural Cell Coverage?

The number one concern I hear from most rural counties today is no longer broadband connectivity, but the availability of cellular connectivity. While there may be a few exceptions, I don’t know of any rural counties that have good cellular coverage. All that differs among counties is the degree to which they have poor coverage.

At one point, the FCC had a plan to subsidize more rural cell towers that it labeled as the 5G Fund for Rural America. In August 2024, the FCC adopted preliminary auction rules for distributing up to $9 billion to support new rural cell towers, while also issuing an NPRM that asked for industry feedback on several issues related to the new plan. This was going to be funded out of the Universal Service Fund, in what seems like a replacement use for the second round of RDOF that never happened.

Chairman Carr dissented from the 2024 FCC order, saying that he supported the idea of a reverse auction to build more rural cell towers, but he thought it was premature to announce the new plan until the FCC knew more about the disposition of the $42.5 billion in BEAD grants. He thought it was vital that any new rural towers have access to fiber.

Several big things have happened since August 2024. BEAD got delayed when the new administration completely changed the rules and made the states start over. The FCC has also decided to reexamine the Universal Service Fund from top to bottom, and if you read between the lines, the agency doesn’t seem to be a big fan of ongoing rural subsidies. Congress is also supposedly examining a major rework of the Universal Service Fund and said recently they should be able to propose specific legislation soon.

But the biggest change is that there is suddenly huge amounts of money being poured into creating a satellite-based cellular industry. The folks behind that effort are making claims that D2D (direct-to-device) technology will solve the rural cellular issue since everybody will have cell coverage. There are a lot of players suddenly in this space. Not surprisingly, SpaceX / Starlink already has hundreds of satellites in orbit and was recently approved to launch 15,000 satellites. AST SpaceMobile is partnering with AT&T and Verizon. Globalstar originally pioneered Apple’s SOS emergency test service and was recently acquired by Amazon, which recently applied for licenses for 5,105 satellites. Lynk Global has partnered with more than 45 cellular companies worldwide. EchoStar and Viasat have also announced plans to enter the market.

Today’s blog asks if the FCC is now assuming that the commercial sector will take care of the rural cellular issue so they can wash their hands of the issue. I find D2D to be intriguing, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions about D2D’s ability to substitute for local cellular service:

  • Are the D2D providers really aiming to compete where there is no coverage today? SpaceX just paid an astonishing $8 billion for 800 MHz spectrum from Grain Management that is intended for D2D service. But this spectrum is intended to be used at terrestrial towers to reach customers, with the backhaul for the service provided by satellite. This might create a new cellular competitor in urban and suburban markets (or this might be more intended to bring competition to parts of the world where cellular is the only broadband technology). But this application won’t reach any rural customer who is already within range of a cell tower.
  • Can’t Work Indoors. A cellphone transmits at under 0.5 watts of power – the maximum power level set by the FCC. Cell signals lose from 50% to 90% of the signal strength when passing through a wall. While that usually is enough power to reach a cell tower located within 2-3 miles of your house, it’s probably never going to be enough power to reach a satellite.
  • Receiver Limits. Starlink is now achieving data speeds up to 300 Mbps download for home broadband. However, speeds will be far less for an outdoor cellphone due to the tiny size of the antennas. Receivers for Starlink range from 11.75 X 15.7 inches for the Starlink Mini to 22.7 X 20.1 inches for the higher-performance receiver. The typical cellphone has a receiver of around 6.5 X 7 millimeters, meaning that even the Starlink Mini receiver has 2,600 times more surface area for receiving a signal from the satellite than a typical cellphone.

It’s already clear from early tests that this technology is wonderful for providing a connection to 911 for somebody who is outdoors. It seems to work for voice calls. But that’s a far cry from this being a technology that would make rural cell coverage equivalent to urban cell coverage. It’s hard to see this supporting websites and videos, and even so, only outdoors. I fear D2D will deliver ‘good-enough’ connections to allow regulators to decide they don’t need to deal with the issue of rural cellular coverage. But folks who live in rural areas will understand the differences and won’t have much better coverage than they have today.

Courts Invalidate USAC

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the FCC had exceeded its statutory authority  years ago when it established the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to administer the Universal Service Fund.

The case in front of the court involved Consumers’ Research, which challenged the latest FCC calculation of the contribution factor used to establish the fee that telcos pay into the fund. Consumers’ Research had also challenged the FCC’s authority to establish USAC to administer the fund.

To provide some context, Congress established the Universal Service Fund (USF) in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. At that time, after some debate, the FCC decided that establishing a neutral non-profit was the best way to protect the operation of the USF from the impact of politics. It’s hard to understand the Court’s ruling, because USAC never acts on its own and is fully under the control of the FCC. The company is funded out of the fees collected to operate the USF. The FCC has always been free to audit USAC or to change the rules on how it operates.

In day-to-day practice, USAC is truly an administrator. The FCC still establishes the rules for every use of funds. This includes a variety of programs like the E-Rate program for schools and libraries, various programs to support communications for rural health clinics and hospitals, various subsidies that support rural broadband like RDOF and CAF II, and the Lifeline subsidy program that provides a small discount for broadband or cellphones.

USAC doesn’t establish the rules for any of these programs but is tasked with making sure that fund recipients are following the rules established by the FCC, including the ability for USC to audit USF participants. USAC’s primary day-to-day responsibilities are to collect fees to fund the program and to disperse the funds to participants in the various programs.

What does this ruling mean? The FCC has to first decide how it wants to respond to the court ruling. It’s been reported in the press that the FCC says the ruling goes into effect in two months if the agency doesn’t  appeal the ruling. If the FCC appeals the ruling, the most routine outcome would be a court ordering business as usual until that appeal can be heard. It’s not certain that the FCC will appeal the case, and if it doesn’t, things get messy very quickly.

The FCC would have to somehow try to take over USAC functions. The agency is not staffed to do so, which would likely result in chaos. It probably wouldn’t be easy, or even possible, for the FCC to somehow absorb USAC staff.

The companies that pay into the USF would be in limbo because the collection process would be disrupted. I picture legal challenges and confusion and possibly lawsuits related to whether telcos owe fees to the FCC, the federal Treasury, or to nobody. Disbursements from the fund would quickly be disrupted. That would be a major problem for the many entities that draw payments from the $9 billion annual fund. It’s hard to picture what happens when schools can no longer pay their broadband bill or ISPs suddenly stop receiving RDOF or other subsidies. Millions of people would likely lose their monthly billing discounts from Lifeline. USAC also has extensive audit powers, and it’s not clear that the FCC could insert itself into existing audits.

The only alternative to the above chaos would be if Congress quickly stepped in to provide some way to keep the USAC functions going. That sounds like a huge challenge in a lame duck session during the holidays. Stay tuned, because this could turn into something extremely messy.

SpaceX Wants to End Rural Subsidies

SpaceX has now told the FCC multiple times that the agency should begin the process of phasing down and eliminating all rural high-cost subsidies from the Universal Service Fund. The company filed comments asking for the end of subsidies in FCC Docket 26-96, which is looking at reforming the High-cost fund for an all IP Future, and in Docket 10-90 that was looking at Universal Service Fund reform. In both filings, SpaceX says that its proliferation of low-orbit satellites means that rural subsidies are obsolete and are no longer needed. The company characterizes anybody who disagrees with it as a “subsidy-dependent incumbent”. SpaceX goes on to argue that the money currently spent on rural subsidies should be redirected to programs that lower the cost of broadband for low-income families.

It’s an interesting policy question that raises more questions about satellite broadband than it does about the rural companies that are receiving broadband subsidies. For example, the CAF II subsidy is being provided by a number of rural ISPs who use the subsidy to justify building and maintaining rural fiber, similar to what was done with the FCC RDOF.

I think the SpaceX request raises multiple policy questions. First, is satellite really providing broadband? Earlier this decade the FCC declared that Starlink was not providing broadband when the agency canceled the $885 million award Starlink had won in the RDOF reverse auction. At the beginning of this year, Ookla said that only 45% of Starlink customers were meeting the FCC’s definition of broadband at 100/20 Mbps. But Starlink’s speeds have been slowly improving, and will be boosted over the next five years as the company replaces the current V2 satellites with the new V3 satellites that provide 10 times more download capacity and 22 times more upload capacity.

As I have argued many times, the FCC’s 100/20 Mbps standard is no longer a reasonable definition of broadband. Recent data from OpenVault showed that 43% of U.S. households now subscribe to speeds faster than 500 Mbps download and 70% of homes subscribe to speeds of 200 Mbps or faster. It’s hard to look at these statistics and think that 100 Mbps is still an adequate definition of a good download speed. However, the real issue for satellite broadband is the upload speed. A large percentage of the homes cited by Ookla as having fast download also get far faster upload speeds than 20 Mbps. Fiber overbuilders are mostly providing symmetrical data speeds, meaning gigabit upload speeds. Cable companies across the country are upgrading the upload path and are delivering speeds of 50-100 Mbps at a minimum, and in some networks, gigabit upload speeds. The whole country learned during the pandemic that 20 Mbps upload is not adequate to support more than one user at a time – something the FCC has steadily ignored.

Another issue raised by the SpaceX request is whether Starlink provides a good substitute for voice service. Much of rural America lives in areas with little or no cellular service. The companies that receive high-cost subsidies all must pledge to offer voice service so that rural residents have access to 911. SpaceX argues that anybody with a satellite broadband connection can buy VoIP. That’s a true statement, but it raises two more policy questions of availability and affordability.

The companies receiving high-cost funding agree to service every home and business in their footprint. It’s pretty clear that Starlink can’t make that claim. While the company won’t disclose the number of homes it can serve in any given geography, there are examples, like last year’s Burning Man, where Starlink got overwhelmed by too many customers in a rural area.

I think the most important factor is affordability. Starlink’s price of $130 per month is a lot higher than other rural broadband options. Companies that receive high-cost support sell broadband for a lot less than $130, but more importantly, will sell voice-only to customers who don’t want broadband. It’s not reasonable that a rural household that can only afford voice and not broadband should have to spend $130 per month for satellite service.

In my mind, Starlink has to offer a different set of products if they want to declare that they can match the benefits that companies that receive high-cost funding bring to customers.

  • Starlink needs faster upload speeds, which it probably will eventually get as it phases in the V3 satellites.
  • Starlink would have to be able to serve everybody in a geographic area if it wants to see the subsidies end in a given area. I can envision a regulatory test similar to the one that cable companies have used to get regulators to declare a market to be competitive. High-cost subsidies should only stop in an area where every customer in the area could be served by a satellite instead.
  • Finally, Starlink would have to be a lot cheaper. If SpaceX wants to see the rural high-cost subsidies ended, it should offer lower broadband prices in those markets, including a really low-cost connection for voice only.

Satellite Shorts September 2026

AST SpaceMobile is making progress with offering satellite cellular service. The  company launched three massive satellites in August, bringing the fleet to 13 satellites. These are much larger than ASTs original satellites or ones being used by other carriers. They are essentially floating central offices. The FCC also gave the company the go-ahead in August to begin testing its satellite-to-smartphone service. AT&T and Verizon have both inked deals with the company to be their satellite partner for cellular.

More Countries Entering the Satellite Race. STC Group has partnered with Astranis to deploy a dedicated satellite to serve Saudi Arabia. The country wants to strengthen its communications capabilities independently of the other big satellite fleets. This has become a priority for Saudi Arabia, as a complement to its major investment in terrestrial fiber networks.

The Vietnamese aerospace company VinSpace has signed a contract with SpaceX to launch its first satellite into orbit. The country hopes to develop a space industry and deploy multiple satellites in the future.

Deorbit-as-a-Service. The U.S. Space Development Agency recently chose designs to consider from three companies that have business plans to launch satellites that will capture and deorbit dead satellites left in orbit. This is a nascent industry with challenges, because nobody has ever been able to snag a dead satellite. Some people in the industry describe most existing satellites as “ungrabbable”.

More Spectrum for Satellites. The FCC is scheduled to vote at the end of September on providing more than 1,000 MHz of spectrum in the 12 GHz and 42 GHz bands for high-speed satellite broadband. The spectrum could be used for home broadband, airplane and ship connectivity, and traffic-routing between satellites and earthstations. The FCC seems to be approving new spectrum for satellite uses at a much faster pace than it ever considered for other uses of spectrum.

Next-gen Starlink Satellites. In July, SpaceX launched twenty of the next-generation V3 satellites as a test of the satellites’ solar arrays and antennae. The satellites were allowed to deorbit soon after the test. The company currently has scheduled a launch on September 28 of the first operational V3 satellites. The launch has been delayed from the original goal of the first quarter of 2026. The satellites are much larger than the V2 satellites and require the Starship rocket to launch. Starlink says the new V3 provides 1 terabit of download and 160 gigabits of upload speeds, a huge improvement over the V2 satellites. The use of the Starship rocket will also increase launch capacity. In the past, the maximum number of V2 satellites per launch was 29, but with Starship, up to 60 V3 satellites can be launched at a time.

Europe Moves Forward with IRIS2. Europe is collectively launching hundreds of independent LEO and MEO satellites to create a European sovereign satellite network. All vendors for the project are European, with  Airbus, Aerospacelab, Thales Alenia Space, and OHB building the satellite constellation, and Eutelsat, SES, and Hispasat handling ground functions. IRIS2 is not intended as a competitor to Starlink for home broadband, but will be used to provide secure satellite connections for government, defense, and emergency purposes. This seems to be part of the larger movement for Europe to wean itself from American tech companies.

Connected Vehicles. Toyota and Iridium have done a demo, in conjunction with Deutsch Telekom IoT, to send voice messages to and from cars using the Iridium satellite network. This was the first test of the technology the company wants to use to provide connectivity for automotive, logistics, remote utilities, smart agriculture, emergency response and other IoT applications in areas that are out of the reach of cellular networks.

Danger of Space Collisions. Darren McKnight, a space debris expert at LeoLabs in California, said recently that we are already ripe for a major collision event in space. He says the biggest danger comes from the orbiting derelict rocket bodies that are still in orbit. These mostly sit at altitudes a little higher than LEO satellites, and a collision of rocket remains would rain debris down on all satellites below.

Fixing the Broadband Maps

There is a lot of talk about improving the FCC broadband maps. I published a blog a few weeks ago that described a bill passed by the Senate that would require a new review of the FCC broadband maps. The bill is labeled the Modernization, Accountability, and Planning (MAP) for Broadband Funding Act.

I’m all for changes that would create an accurate broadband map. But I’m fairly certain that the FCC is not going to consider making the changes that would actually improve the maps. The biggest problem with the current maps is that speeds claimed by ISPs are sometimes far different than what is being delivered. Fixing that would require the FCC to actually look at what’s in the maps and challenge ISPs that exaggerate speeds. I can’t imagine the agency adopting new rules that would saddle itself with that responsibility.

There is an existing tool that could be used  to compare claimed speeds to actual speeds. Ookla records millions of speed tests across the country for all ISPs. The FCC could buy the Ookla speed test records to compare against ISP claims. With AI and other new analytic tools, it wouldn’t be hard to compare Ookla speeds to FCC claimed speeds.

If speed tests were considered, ISPs would instantly yell that speed tests aren’t accurate enough to use to judge them. In many ways, they would be right. People often take speed tests when their broadband isn’t performing right. There are lots of homes where speeds are slower due to WiFi issues. A computer sitting close to the WiFi router will show faster speeds than a computer at the other end of a home. Many customers subscribe to lower speed tiers, which, by definition, don’t show the capability of the ISP.

But when large numbers of speed tests are used correctly, they are a valuable tool for understanding an ISP’s real performance. I’ve been lucky enough to work with counties that have purchased the full Ookla speed data set. Those tests provided them with enough data to do meaningful comparisons.

One of the things I learned in working with speed test datasets is that you must concentrate on the fastest speeds rather than average speeds. Doing so eliminates most of the concerns I discussed above. If an ISP claims data speeds of 100/20 Mbps to the FCC, but there are no speed tests over the course of a year that hit that speed, the ISP is exaggerating speeds. This kind of analysis can be used to ferret out exaggerated speed claims. This also worked in both directions – I’ve often seen faster speeds than the speeds claimed to the FCC, which means the ISP is underreporting speeds.

Speed tests can also be used to test broadband coverage claims. I was working with one county where a WISP was claiming coverage over more than half of the geography of the county. The Ookla speed test data for that ISP showed only a single speed test over the course of a year. It was clear that the WISP’s coverage claims were aspirational, not actual, and the County was able to use the Ookla results to challenge the broadband maps in the first BEAD map challenge. Without the Ookla tests, the County could not have made a map challenge, because the NTIA challenge rules wanted the County to find customers using the ISP in question and convince them to take speed tests. It’s obviously impossible to test an ISP that is not actually present.

Speed tests show all sorts of other interesting facts about ISP coverage. I’ve written several times in the past about how the speed for FWA cellular wireless quickly diminishes with distance from the tower. An FWA carrier might be delivering 300 Mbps to a customer within a short distance of a tower, but after a mile, speed drops to 100 Mbps. By two miles speed drops to 50-75 Mbps, and at three miles drop to the range of 25 Mbps. Most FWA speed claims in the FCC map will show 100 Mbps across the entire area around a tower, and much of that speed claim is overstated.

The FCC already spends a lot of money annually trying to get the mapping fabric right. But it’s pretty clear that the FCC doesn’t look at the speed data claimed by ISPs. The only time the FCC uses this data is when it published its annual report to Congress about the state of broadband. The FCC benefits by overstated maps since they tell a better story than what’s really available in rural America. If the FCC really wants to get serious about broadband mapping, why not buy the Ookla data twice per year to compare to claimed speeds?

Using Unlicensed Spectrum for D2D

The FCC recently adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that asks if it makes sense to give satellite providers access to unlicensed WiFi spectrum to support Direct-to-Device cellular service. The NPRM specifically looks at the use of 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz. The NPRM specifically rejected the idea of using 900 MHz for satellite service.

The FCC seems all-in on the idea of satellite cellular service and has taken a number of steps recently that favor this budding industry. However, Commissioner Anna Gomez, the only Democratic commissioner, voiced concern about how using this spectrum might affect the many devices that rely on WiFi spectrum today.

It seems like a valid concern. WiFi has turned out to be the most important and valuable spectrum we have. The whole broadband world seems to run off WiFi modems in homes and businesses. We have outdoor WiFi hotspots to provide outdoor broadband access. WISPs largely rely on WiFi spectrum to deliver fixed wireless broadband to rural homes.

It’s easy to understand why the FCC would consider this. The agency is facing huge demand for spectrum from multiple industries. Cellular carriers want more spectrum to get ready for the upcoming introduction of 6G. Cellular carriers also need to feed the rapidly growing FWA home broadband industry. Satellite companies have an insatiable demand for spectrum since they envision eventually launching hundreds of thousands of broadband satellites. And now, the satellite cellular companies want to blanket the Earth with competing networks to deliver outdoor cellular service, and the Direct-to-Device (D2D) carriers have already requested approval to launch tens of thousands of satellites to provide outdoor cellular service. There are more requests for spectrum than what is available, so the FCC seems willing to raid the public WiFi bands to support a new industry.

This is not the first time that the FCC has allowed others to share WiFi spectrum. A number of years ago, the FCC allowed cellular carriers to use WiFi spectrum in busy markets. I recall a report from university students in Chicago who had documented that cellular usage of WiFi had killed outdoor WiFi on their campus. I don’t know if cellular companies are still dipping into WiFi now that they have been able to get more spectrum, but this was a failed effort that favored the carriers over the normal users of WiFi.

What seems to be different today is that the FCC is unabashedly pro-satellite. They seem to be giving satellite companies everything they ask for. It’s not unusual for regulators to make it easy for new technologies – the FCC took a hands-off approach to the creation of the Internet. But there seems to be a lot of risk in allowing satellite companies to broadcast WiFi from space. This idea is clearly favoring satellite carriers over WISPs.

I talked to several wireless engineers about the proposed use of WiFi spectrum, and they all voiced concerns. The satellites would blanket the countryside with new WiFi spectrum. The engineers told me that it is impossible for this to be completely neutral for a WISP. Every outdoor receiver will perceive the new use of the spectrum as interference. They said there was no way to tell how bad this might be without trying it, and that sounds like a scary experiment if it turns out that the impact is severe. It’s easy for the FCC to allow a new use of spectrum, but it’s unlikely that it would be undone quickly if there is a problem.

This is out of character for the historically slow and cautious approach that the FCC has always taken with spectrum ideas. And that’s even more the case when we’re talking about WiFi spectrum, which has proven its value many times over.

FCC to Examine USAC

In its August meeting, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled Maximizing Efficiencies in Universal Service Administration Company (USAC) that looks at changing the rules governing USAC, the Universal Service Administration.

USAC is a non-profit corporation that was formed by the FCC after passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which created the Universal Service Fund. The FCC decided to create USAC to administer the fund in order to shield the day-to-day operations of the USF from politics and the changes that always come after a change in administration. USAC has a single purpose, which is to operate the Universal Service Fund under guidelines established by the FCC and approved by the FCC.

The Universal Service Fund has been somewhat controversial since its formation. However, most of the controversy comes from the direction that the FCC gives to USAC. For example, USF is funded by fees levied against interstate revenues for voice services. Over the years, as the amount of voice services has dropped, the percentage of the fee levied against voice has increased. But this can’t be blamed on USAC since the FCC determines who should pay into the fund. There are many critics who don’t like the programs funded by the USF. But again, these programs were established by the FCC and not by USAC.

Chairman Brendan Carr issued a separate statement that said, “It has been nearly three decades since the FCC designated USAC—the Universal Service Administrative Company . . . In all of that time, there has never been a comprehensive review of USAC’s functions or organization.”

That’s not entirely true. In May 2023, Senator Ted Cruz asked the General Accountability Office (GAO) to examine USAC to see if the company is properly administering the USF. The GAO audit gave high grades to USAC.

The NPRM is a comprehensive review of USAC. The NPRM considers the following:

  • It asks for public comments on ways the agency can be more efficient.
  • The NPRM asks if there should be changes in the USAC appeal process when USAC accepts or denies challenges from USF recipients.
  • It asks if USAC should have a shot clock for some processes to force a decision to be made within a set amount of time.
  • Probably the most important part of the NPRM, and the likely reason for this docket, is a lot of questions to the public and proposed changes in the way that USAC audits USF recipients, and how the company handles fraud. Over the years, USAC and the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau have uncovered instances of fraud in the E-Rate, Rural Health, High-Cost, and Lifeline programs.
  • The NPRM asks if there should be an operational cost cap. It cites the company’s operating budget for 2025 at more than $266 million.
  • USAC uses subcontractors, and the NPRM asks for public comment on whether the subcontractors are knowledgeable.
  • The NPRM asks if there are better ways for USAC to report its annual results to the FCC.
  • The NPRM asks if the number of USAC board members should be reduced from the current size of 20 members, and if meetings must be held in Washington, DC rather than virtually.

The USAC audit is part of the FCC’s overall examination of the Universal Service Fund. The agency is separately examining individual components of USF like E-Rate, the High Cost Fund, and Lifeline.

Senate Passes Bill for Broadband Mapping

Before the Senate paused for recess, it passed a bill introduced by Senator Deb Fisher of Nebraska that would require the FCC to undertake a major review of its broadband mapping system. The bill is labeled the Modernization, Accountability, and Planning (MAP) for Broadband Funding Act.

It’s not hard to understand why there are folks who lobbied Congress to ask the FCC to pay more attention to the maps. Anybody who has ever used the current BDC broadband mapping can describe problems and errors in the map. However, I can’t be the only one who thinks that making this request to the FCC now, as States are in the process of awarding BEAD grants to ISPs, is too little, too late. I’m highly skeptical that the maps can ever be made anywhere close to perfect.

There are two separate parts of the broadband mapping system that work together to create the maps – the fabric, which is created by Cost Quest, which is supposed to show the location of every location that might be a broadband customer. The second big component is broadband coverage data as reported by ISPs, which shows the locations they can serve and the broadband speeds they can provide.

I have a lot of sympathy for Cost Quest for ever getting an accurate fabric. If nothing else, this is a dynamic country with houses constantly being built, torn down, burned out, or abandoned. Cost Quest is forced to rely on local housing data that is often inaccurate – counties don’t really care if a property is abandoned or unused as long as somebody pays the taxes on the property. Cost Quest also seems to use satellite data to spot locations. But satellite data misses buildings (and entire roads) that are under heavy tree cover. And satellite can’t tell the difference between a house, a shed, or a burned-out abandoned building.

About the only thing that could improve the fabric is local feedback on inaccuracies. There is zero motivation for local governments to spend time and money on this if they think their areas already have good broadband or are going to be covered by broadband grants. Many local governments are fed up with the FCC map challenge after they spend big efforts trying to fix the maps during the BEAD map challenges, only to see huge numbers of their suggested changes rejected. I really can’t think of any constituency that is ever going to be motivated to try to fix the fabric in the future. It’s going to be laughable if the FCC makes map challenges easier now that nobody is likely to bother with the process.

The part of the map with the biggest problems is completely due to FCC rules. ISPs are supposed to define where they can provide service within ten days of a customer request. Many ISPs are conscientious about this while others either file ridiculously exaggerated coverage areas, or else don’t bother to update changes in their networks. But the biggest area of mapping problems comes from ISPs being able to declare marketing speed capabilities instead of something close to what they can actually deliver. Even somebody who has never looked at a broadband map can imagine ways that ISPs can abuse this rule. Some ISPs exaggerate speeds and consider the FCC maps to be a cheap source of advertisement. Others claim 100/20 Mbps or faster to stop federal and state grants being used to compete with them.

The most important change that is not in the legislation is giving the public access to the data underlying the broadband maps. It’s outrageous that there are expensive licenses required to see data that belongs to the American people. If the FCC mapping data was open and free, then I can imagine a lot of folks who would work to fix the map in their neighborhood out of altruism.

I am worried that any changes to the map are going to rebound and hurt ISPs that have already won BEAD awards. NTIA has shown an eagerness to remove locations from the map as a way to reduce the amount of BEAD grant funding, while not being equally open to adding locations to grants that were missed by the FCC maps. The only saving grace is that nothing will happen quickly. This may not be passed in the House, and if it is, the House could pass a different version that would require reconciliation. Even if enacted, this would instruct the FCC to take a fresh look at the maps, and that process could take several years. As I said at the start of the blog, this is too little too late. This would have been a wonderful bill in 2021, and now it just seems like a way for Congress to say it is doing something about broadband without actually doing anything.

The 2026 FCC Broadband Report

The FCC released its annual Section 706 report on August 14 that describes the U.S. broadband industry as of June 30, 2025. This report is created to fulfill a mandate that the FCC should update Congress once a year on the state of broadband. As seems to be the norm for these reports, they seem to take over a year to compile and publish.  The data supporting this report comes from the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) process where ISPs  and carriers report speed and location data to the FCC twice each year.

One of the findings of the report is that broadband coverage is growing. That’s not hard to believe. I’ve been following and reading reports of broadband projects all over the country, much of the rural builds supported by various state and federal grants and urban builds being funded by carriers and venture capital money. I’m a bit dubious of the statement that 96.9% of Americans have access to a terrestrial ISP that can deliver speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps. I’ve written many times about the exaggerations and inaccuracies in ISP reporting in the data collection process. I still think there are ISPs reporting exactly 100/20 Mbps speed capability to the FCC while delivering something slower.

Another major finding is that the digital divide is rapidly shrinking in rural America. The report says that the number of rural locations without access to 100/20 Mbps shrank by 23% from 2024 to 2025. It adds that 100/20 Mbps satellite broadband is available to almost everybody. I take exception to this claim. This is really another way of reporting on broadband coverage. Looking at the digital divide means looking at who is buying broadband, not who has the opportunity to buy. The big question that the FCC constantly ducks is affordability. There was a recent hearing in the Pennsylvania House where witnesses told the legislators that the OBBB and affordability could mean a loss of 233,000 broadband customers in Pennsylvania in 2027 due to affordability issues.

Another big claim is that there is widely available 5G. The report claims that 95% of Americans are covered with 5G that can deliver speeds of 35/3 Mbps. It says that the number of households without 5G access decreased by 30% over a two-year period. To be fair to the FCC, it is only reporting what the carriers report to it, but these claims are hard to accept. Anybody who has spent time studying the cellular coverage maps will quickly see a lot of exaggerated coverage outside of cities. Another issue with looking at June 30, 2025 data is that there were a lot of locations in the FCC database where the only fast provider was EchoStar, which shut down the cellular business earlier this year.

The other major claim is that Americans have more competitive options than ever before. The report says that 77% of households have access to at least three ISPs that can deliver speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps when including satellite in that measurement. The problem with this is that Starlink is not able or willing to serve many folks in urban areas, so while this claim is probably true based on reporting, it’s not true in the real world. A more realistic statistic is that 43.4% of households have access to three or more ISPs that can deliver 100/10 Mbps. That would mean broadband from a fiber ISP, a cable company, a FWA provider, or a WISP. While I’m positive the number is a bit inflated, a lot of people in cities have access to three ISPs out of that list.

There were other topics reported to Congress in the report. For example, the report says that cellular data speeds are increasing. The report talks about the phase-out of copper technology. The FCC touted successes in the marketplace due to its spectrum policies.

There was an interesting change in the report. The FCC dropped the long-term goal that the country should be striving to reach a future speed of at least 1 gig upload and 500 Mbps download. That goal was adopted by the FCC under Chairperson Jessica Rosenworcel. ISPs other than fiber providers hated that goal, although cable companies are on an upgrade path to largely meet that goal. But that goal was anathema to the satellite, cellular, and fixed wireless ISPs.