Starlink’s Interesting Approach to Cellular

There was an announcement on SpaceX’s first-ever earnings call that got the attention of the wireless industry. SpaceX said on the call that StarLink would enter the terrestrial cellular business by building a large number of cell sites provisioned with satellite backhaul. The company would leverage the power of its next-generation V3 satellites along with an increasingly larger fleet of satellites to provide the backhaul to feed cell sites.

It’s impossible to know if the company is serious about this. Elon Musk has always made exaggerated claims of what he will be doing in the future, and many of his claims never came to fruition. On the same call, Elon also said that the company plans to build factories on the moon.

There are a number of obstacles that stand in the way of SpaceX pulling this off. First is the basic question of why anybody would wade into the U.S. cellular market that has become increasingly competitive. Starlink could probably only gain significant numbers of customers by lowering prices, and that brings into question how profitable this might be.

Cellular networks in cities have already boosted cellular data speeds to 300 Mbps or faster, so Starlink wouldn’t have any technological advantage. Perhaps the real goal of the company is not the U.S. market, but populous countries like Nigeria, which have inferior cellular networks and a population that relies on cellular much more than on landline broadband.

At least for now, Starlink doesn’t have enough spectrum to pull this off. They are acquiring 65 MHz of spectrum from EchoStar, which is not nearly enough to compete for terrestrial cellular service. However, after the recent IPO, the company is awash with cash and could buy more spectrum. In the OBBB, Congress mandated the FCC to find 800 MHz of midrange spectrum for auction, so there will be plenty of spectrum coming into play over the next decade.

Another big question for me is the overall bandwidth needed to feed a cellular network. Most cell sites today are fed with 5-10 Gigabit backbone connections. The new Starlink constellations will have a greatly increased amount of capacity, but the backhaul to hundreds of thousands of cell sites would have to eat into the overall capacity of the satellite constellation. SpaceX must be counting on being able to grow far past the current 15,000 satellites currently approved by the FCC, and in fact, they have requested to grow the constellation to 100,000 satellites. The increasing usage to support cellular would also mean the need for a lot more earth stations to feed the network.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle would be getting started. The three big carriers all have roaming agreements with each other, but they might decide not to make it easy for a new competitor to enter the market. Very few people would buy a cellular service that wouldn’t work when they travel to other parts of the country. There was speculation after SpaceX made this announcement that the real purpose was to pressure the big cellular companies into giving the company an MVNO deal (resold cellular) so it could combine terrestrial resold cellular with satellite cellular. That’s an interesting dilemma for the big cellular companies, because if SpaceX had an MVNO, it could then selectively build cell sites over time.

SpaceX will likely never stop surprising the market with big ideas that are outside of the box. While this one is certainly doable, it wouldn’t be easy unless one of the big cellular companies blinks and lets SpaceX into the cellular business through the backdoor of an MVNO. But you can never say that SpaceX wouldn’t do this even without that easy onramp.

Digital Equity Ecosystems

Today’s blog is about a new book, Digital Equity Ecosystems, written by Colin Rhinesmith. Colin is an Associate Professor of Information Sciences and the Director of the Digital Equity Action Research Lab at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

He uses the term ecosystem as a way to encompass the wide variety of organizations and people that are necessary to bring a digital equity solution for a community. This is an interesting read for anybody who is interested in creating a sustainable community coalition to address digital equity issues in a local community or region. The common definition for bringing digital equity to a community means tackling three key issues – getting people connected to broadband, making sure people have the computers and devices needed to use broadband, and training people how to use the technology and safely navigate the Internet.

A lot of communities have created a local coalition of people and organizations interested in tackling digital equity issues. Some of this work was prompted by the pandemic, but the process went into high gear when the federal government said it would be funding digital equity efforts. A lot  of local coalitions were formed to attract federal funding but quickly realized that a big benefit of a coalition is  introducing local practitioners to each other so they aren’t working at odds with each other.

The book looks in depth at five large digital equity coalitions formed in Baltimore, Chicago, Essex County, Massachusetts, LA County, and San Antonio. Colin looks at the history of the formation and operation of each coalition to see what they had in common, and to see what worked and didn’t work. Rhinehart condenses his findings into the factors needed to create and sustain a permanent and effective coalition. The book recognizes that digital equity work requires a permanent long-term effort since there will always be community members that need help with digital equity issues.

One of the most useful sections of the book discusses the many stresses that make it challenging to sustain a coalition. Rhinesmith’s research shows that successful coalitions need to have complete transparency and be willing to openly discuss and tackle the many concerns of members that can lead to what he calls advocacy fatigue, where members drop out of the coalition when the effort needed to support the coalition competes with external time constraints.

The book draws many specific conclusions. As somebody who has participated in several local coalitions, the book’s conclusions ring true. Here are just a few of the many conclusions reached by Rhinesmith:

  • Coalitions have a better chance at sustainability if they are created organically by community members or non-profits than if the effort is led by a local government.
  • A successful coalition needs some permanent funding to support a few core people who keep the coalition operating. A coalition needs a full-time core effort to be effective since it’s difficult to keep a coalition of all volunteers going for the long haul.
  • To keep coalition members engaged, a coalition needs to regularly meet goals and accomplish specific tasks so that members can see the value of sticking with the effort.

This is a scholarly work, meaning that it comes with added features you might not get from other books on the topic. For example, the fourteen pages of references to organizations and articles on digital equity topics are alone worth the price of the book.

I heartily recommend the book for anybody who is engaged in digital equity work. Even small communities where a coalition might consist of a handful of local organizations and people will find some useful ideas in the book about how to keep the effort going.

Updating the FCC Definition of Broadband

There has been a lot of talk about how AI is putting stress on broadband networks, and many analysts are claiming that we need faster broadband speeds to accommodate growing AI traffic. I was particularly struck by a comment from NTCA – the Rural Broadband Association in a filing at the FCC earlier this year in the FCC docket looking at USF reform. NTCA wrote, “The burgeoning growth of [artificial intelligence] demands modern networks with upload speeds much closer to symmetrical to support the applications and devices that it supports.” The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) told the FCC in 2025 that the 20 Mbps upstream standard is far too low and should be increased to 100 Mbps.

The FCC definition of broadband of 100/25 Mbps was adopted in March 2024. However, Commissioner Rosenworcel had been pushing for the increase to 100/20 Mbps for several years before that. It had been clear to everybody but the Ajit Pai FCC that the 25/3 Mbps definition of broadband was obsolete when the FCC’s mapping in 2022 showed that 90% of homes already had access to 100 Mbps download speed.

All of this leads me to ask if the 100/20 Mbps definition is already obsolete. Recent data from OpenVault says 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 100/20 Mbps should be the standard.

Unfortunately, the definition of broadband has political and financial overtones. A higher definition of broadband would declare that certain technologies are not really acceptable broadband. If we buy the arguments from NTCA and NRECA, then satellite broadband and FWA cellular would no longer be considered broadband. A huge percentage of cable company networks still have upload speeds far below 100 Mbps, even though there are numerous technology fixes for them to upgrade to faster, and even symmetrical speeds.

In a perfect world, the definition of broadband would be increased regularly to reflect that reality of the marketplace. But that’s not going to happen with this FCC, and in fact, in 2025, Commission Carr asked if the 100/20 Mbps definition is too high.

What is the right definition of broadband?. The easiest starting point for looking at download speeds is to look at the historical evolution of the definition of broadband from 4/1 Mbps, to 25/3 Mbps, to 100/20 Mbps. I’ve shown the following chart before that just trends forward that historic growth trend. If the definition of download speed continues on the same growth curve as from 1996 to 2022 (when the definition should have been 100 Mbps), the following definition of broadband is projected.This suggests the minimum definition of download broadband for 2027 would be 250 Mbps. That doesn’t seem at all out of line considering the OpenVault numbers that say that 70% of U.S. homes already subscribe to speeds faster than 200 Mbps.

Setting a definition for upload speeds is harder. The traditional definition of upload was low because there wasn’t really any use for it in most homes. But that has all changed in the last decade, particularly after the pandemic. People need upload bandwidth for a lot of uses. Most of us now work in the cloud all day. Video calls are the norm – I haven’t been on a voice conference call in ages. People game online and create content. We connect to portals for education that need significant and steady upload bandwidth.

The recent OpenVault report for the end of the second quarter of 2026 says that the average U.S. home uploaded 58 gigabytes of data per month, with upload usage growing at a rate of 20% per year. I always have to remind myself that the average means there are a lot of homes that upload a lot more than 58 gigabytes per month. That usage is two-and-a-half times the upload usage at the end of the pandemic and is way higher than usage a decade ago. I don’t know if the definition of upload should be 100 Mbps, as NRECA suggests, but I know it should be significantly higher than 20 Mbps, particularly if the AI folks are right.

In that same filing in the USF docket, NTCA also reminded the FCC that it is required to meet Section 254 of the Communications Act, which requires rural areas to have “reasonable comparability” to broadband service in urban areas. There are few urban and suburban areas where people can’t buy gigabit and faster download speeds, with an increasing percentage of homes that can buy gigabit upload. To be realistic, any definition of broadband that is set is strictly relevant only to rural areas, because urban speeds already far exceed any speed definition the FCC could ever consider.

Adoption of WiFi 7

Ookla recently published a research article that documents the implementation of WiFi 7 in the U.S. and around the world. WiFi 7 routers were introduced to the market in early 2024, and Ookla reports that deployment of WiFi 7 routers has already grown to 7.2% in the country. That’s a pretty big uptake in a year and a half, considering that broadband customers generally hang on to WiFi routers unless changing service providers.

It’s not surprising that WiFi is being adopted. WiFi 7 brings a big improvement over WiFi 6 and earlier generations of WiFi. WiFi 7 can theoretically reach much faster speeds, and in practice delivers faster speeds and performance inside the customer premise. Some of the specific benefits include wider data channels inside the home, particularly for customers who have devices that can use 6 GHz spectrum, which is 1,200 MHz of bandwidth between 5.925 GHz and 7.125 GHz. WiFi 7 has better data throughput to devices by the use of 4K-QAM, has better performance from preamble puncturing that can bypass interference, and has faster speeds for specific applications due to multi-link operations that let the router combine multiple frequency bands when needed. WiFi 7 has also doubled the number of simultaneous devices that can be connected from eight to sixteen.

As might be expected, the growing WiFi 7 adoption is mostly coming from ISPs. Charter is currently the biggest user of WiFi 7 in the world. In the U.S., the new technology is being deployed by other large ISPs like Comcast, Frontier, and CenturyLink. It’s likely that the upgrades to WiFi 7 will continue. For years, ISPs have been frustrated by a large percentage of customer complaints about broadband that are actually due to poor customer-provided WiFi modems.

Interestingly, the U.S. is leading the world in WiFi 7 adoption. Part of the reason for this is that China is not stressing the use of WiFi 7 inside the country since the nation has decided to use 6 GHz spectrum for cellular traffic instead of for public WiFi.

The impact of the WiFi 7 routers is dramatic. Ookla cites speed test statistics for Comcast that show that upload speeds have more than doubled for some customers strictly due to the installation of a new WiFi 7 modem.

WiFi technology isn’t sitting still. The first prototypes of WiFi 8 modems should be produced later this year, with commercial production is about two years. WiFi 8 adds even more features that will help the customer experience. The most interesting new feature is Dynamic Sub-band Operations (DSO) that will allow the WiFi router to assign tiny bandwidth channels instead of a full channel when connecting to devices that don’t need much bandwidth. WiFi 8 also has the ability to coordinate with neighboring WiFi routers to cut down on interference. There will be a new technology called Distributed Resource Units and ELR that will improve the upload path to cut down on upload stutters from devices like security cameras and smartphones.

There is even more improvement coming with WiFi 9. The official specifications should be released in early 2027, with commercial adoption likely coming in the early to mid-2030s.

Satellite News August 2026

Starlink’s Capacity Growing. An analysis by MoffettNathanson estimated a huge increase in potential capacity based upon a migration to the new V3 rockets. The analysis said that the current capacity with the V2 satellites is between 8 and 16 customers per square mile, which limits the overall penetration to 2% – 3% of U.S. households, even when the current 15,000-satellite constellation is completed. The new V3 satellites should bring a lot of additional capacity, including the opportunity to sell broadband in denser population areas. MoffettNathanson estimates the overall capacity, assuming that two-thirds of satellites are upgraded to V3 by 2030, is between 24% – 35% of households, or the capacity to serve 35 million to 50 million potential subscribers. This increase is fully dependent on the company being able to regularly launch the new Starship rocket, which will only be able to carry 60 V3 satellites per launch. SpaceX successfully launched a Starship rocket on July 27 that carried twenty V3 rockets into space. This was a test, and the satellites were allowed to quickly deorbit.

Satellites Monitoring Wildfires. Satellites have been used to view the progress of wildfires, but to a limited degree of effectiveness. Existing satellites don’t notice fires until they have spread to several acres, and they typically only transmit a picture of a wildfire every twelve hours. The nonprofit Earth Fire Alliance has launched three satellites that are the beginning of a fifty-satellite constellation to detect and track wildfires in real time. The full constellation won’t be in place until 2030. The satellites are sensitive and will be able to see a fire as small as a 5-meter square. When fully deployed, the satellites will be able to give an update on a fire every twenty minutes.

A Big Drop in Satellite BEAD Locations. There is a significant drop in the number of eligible locations for the BEAD grant awards made to Starlink and Amazon Leo. The NTIA analysis compared the location of BEAD awards to the new FCC mapping fabric. The new mapping identified 50,578 BEAD locations that are no longer considered as mapping points, meaning they are probably buildings like barns and sheds. The analysis showed 262,053 locations that are now considered to be served by broadband of at least 100/20 Mbps. Finally, there are 61,512 locations that would be excluded if NTIA accepts broadband provided by unlicensed spectrum to qualify as served. Altogether, these reductions could reduce the amount awarded to Starlink and Amazon LEO by at least $354 million. Note that these same kinds of reductions are also being made to fiber and other technology awards as NTIA continues to nibble away at the total BEAD dollars being awarded.

 Texas Broadband Office Facing a BEAD Audit. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dustin Burrows called for an audit of the Texas Broadband Development Office (BDO). The audit is coming from industry allegations that BDO too heavily favored satellite broadband over fiber and other technologies. The BDO recently put the entire BEAD grant program in the state on hold, seemingly due to this issue. Even if the accusations are proven to be true, it seems highly unlikely that NTIA would allow for higher dollar awards if the State wanted to re-award canceled satellite locations to a more expensive technology.

SpaceX Rocket Hit the Moon. The discarded upper portion of a rocket launched in January 2025 by SpaceX crashed into the moon on August 5 at a speed of 5,400 per hour, creating a 60-foot-wide crater. The original launch was to deliver a moon lander.

Data Centers in Space. Early this year, SpaceX announced plans to put one million satellites in space to create a huge AI data center. Since then, additional applications for AI satellites have been filed with the FCC, including 88,000 satellites by StarCloud, 51,600 satellites by Blue Origin, and 20,000 by Cowboy Space. These are just the U.S. companies, and there are discussions around the world of creating orbiting data centers.

SpaceConnect Association Launched. In an inevitable move, the companies in the space business created a trade association that will propose and lobby worldwide for regulations that will “enable innovation, investment, and expanded connectivity through next-generation satellite networks”. The inaugural Board consists of Chair, Ashleigh de la Torre, Vice President of Public Policy at Amazon; Secretary, Michael Schwartz, Senior Vice President, Corporate and Business at Telesat; and Treasurer, Barbee Ponder IV, General Counsel and Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Globalstar

Are Digital Equity Grants Back

There seems to be an increasing chance that the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program is back in play. In a status report filed by the Department of Commerce in the lawsuit where NDIA filed to reinstate the grant program, the government said it is targeting a December 2026 opening date for applications for the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program. Like everything associated with BEAD and the Digital Equity Grant programs, nothing is final until this is put in place. We’ve seen NTIA slow-roll the grant process at every turn.

As a reminder, the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program will be administered and the grants awarded directly by NTIA. The budget for this grant program is $1.25 billion, which was set by legislation to be $250 million per year for the years 2022 through 2026. 5% of the total funding is reserved for Native Entities, and 1% is set aside for territories. The original IIJA legislation had also included $1.44 billion to go to the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program. The stated goal of this grant program is to promote the achievement of digital equity, support digital inclusion activities, and build capacity for efforts by States relating to the adoption of broadband.

NTIA had launched the Competitive Grant Program in 2024, with $750 million in grants. There were roughly 700 applicants to the program, and near the end of 2024 NTIA announced a number of award winners. This included a $7.7 million grant to Land of Sky Regional Council for my region of western North Carolina. The administration canceled both programs in May 2024. They said the grants were illegal since they included race as one of the categories to consider when using the grant funding.

The National Digital Inclusion Alliance sued the administration over the cancellation, and there were negotiations between the two sides and the Court that led to this reinstatement of the Competitive Grant Program. The reconstituted grants will remove all reference to race as part of the use of the grants.

Assuming that NTIA meets the December date to open the grant window, it seems almost certain that every application to the grants will have to be refiled. But hopefully, the full $1.25 billion of funding would be open for applicants.

NTIA said it is currently preparing a new Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the coming rounds of grants. This is the document that defines the application process for the grants. If the experience of the big changes made to the BEAD grant program is any indication, there could be big changes. NTIA completely rewrote the BEAD grant program with the Benefit of the Bargain rules, and it won’t shock anybody if the rules for the Competitive Grant Program change as well.

There has been no word out of NTIA about releasing the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant funding to States. It would seem logical that as long as the same changes are made to remove reference to race, these grants could be released. But there has been nothing logical about the entire pile of funding that came from the IIJA.

There is still a big question about whether the funding for both programs is included in the 2027 federal budget? As is typical with Congress, budget bills are being punted down the road, and there is no telling when there will be an actual budget for Commerce. The Administration recommended killing this funding for 2027, and we’ll have to wait and see what comes out of the budget process. It’s conceivable that the grants will be killed through the backdoor of the budget process, which would undo anything Commerce is agreeing to now.

At least half of this mess is due to the slowness of NTIA since 2020. The funding for these grants was supposed to start flowing in 2022, and the first grant applications were submitted in September 2024. Half of this money should have already been awarded and in use before the programs were canceled in 2025. I’ve never heard any good story why NTIA took so long to launch a fairly straightforward grant program.

Retiring AT&T Copper in California

Regulatory fights between state and federal regulators sometimes get messy, and it’s been a while since we’ve seen anything as messy as AT&T’s attempt to retire and walk away from copper facilities in California.

AT&T asked the California Public Service Commission (CPUC) for the ability to start retiring copper telephone networks in March 2023. It wasn’t an unusual request since AT&T is in the process of retiring copper in every other state where it owns last-mile copper networks. The CPUC finally ruled on that petition in June 2024 and unanimously rejected AT&T’s request. The state said that AT&T couldn’t retire copper unless the company had a functional equivalent product available for every customer who loses a copper connection.

That’s something AT&T can’t promise. The only two possible replacements for copper are fiber or FWA broadband delivered using cellular spectrum. AT&T has an alternative for customers in most urban and suburban markets. The company has built a lot of fiber and announced in May 2026 that it was planning to invest $19 billion more on fiber construction in the state. Most urban customers should also be able to use FWA cellular broadband if they lose copper, with the caveat that too many customers on FWA in a neighborhood could overwhelm the cellular network.

AT&T’s big problem comes in rural areas, where there are large areas where AT&T doesn’t have enough cellular coverage to reach homes with cellular broadband. It’s not unusual in most rural counties for a cellular carrier to serve only half of the area in a county, or less. There have been reports all around the country about customers who have been stranded after losing copper with no affordable voice option. AT&T has argued at the FCC that they can walk away from copper as long as customers can buy voice from somebody else. It feels extreme to have to replace an AT&T telephone line, that range from $25 to $63 per month with Starlink satellite broadband priced at $130 per month.

In May of this year, AT&T tried again. The company sued California and asked the federal courts to allow it to ignore the CPUC ruling. At the same time, AT&T asked the FCC to allow the company to walk away from carrier of last resort obligations (COLR) in California. The COLR request is a slightly different question than asking to be able to tear down copper. COLR are rules that require AT&T to still connect copper to new customers, even if that means building new copper facilities.

AT&T also filed a separate petition with the FCC asking for permission to discontinue 60% of its wire centers in California, or about 360 wire centers. AT&T argued that these wire centers were not compliant with the FCC’s rules requiring AT&T to support Phone-Advanced, which is a digital home phone service that runs on AT&T’s cellular network and broadband internet instead of traditional copper landline wires. Phone-Advanced lets customers keep their home number and connect up to six devices—including standard phones, fax machines, and medical monitors.

This is where it starts to become a messy jurisdictional battle. As was expected, the CPUC and California Attorney General Rob Bonta quickly challenged and asked the courts to dismiss AT&T’s federal lawsuit, while also asking the FCC to override rulings from the CPUC. In June, the FCC approved AT&T’s petition to close 360 wire centers and to cut copper to roughly 184,000 residential and 15,000 business locations across the state, but it seems like that should be ineffective while the State is saying the opposite and the issues are in court.

It’s getting hard to understand who has the final say about retiring copper in California, and it’s starting to feel probable that there might be conflicting rulings between the CPUC and the FCC. This doesn’t seem like something that is going to easily resolve, which could mean that copper will stay alive in California longer than anywhere else.

Change for Railroad Rights-of-way?

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals made a recent ruling that could end up eliminating one of the biggest rights-of-way issues that slow down fiber construction projects. In the case of CSX Transportation v. Zayo Group, LLC, the court ruled that the easement that CSX owns for its railroad tracks only applies to the surface of the Earth and that the railroad right-of-way does not extend either above or below the tracks.

The court said specifically that the installation of underground fiber lines or overhead fiber lines that are tall enough not to interfere with trains does not constitute “continuous trespass”. This ruling means that Zayo is free to place the fiber without the railroad company’s permission and that Zayo doesn’t have to pay any one-time or ongoing fees for the rights-of-way.

The court said that the right-of-way still belongs to the actual landowner. That’s an important distinction, because most railroad lines were granted an easement to build the railroad lines, and were not given outright ownership of the land. The land under the tracks is still owned by a local government or a private landowner. Since most fiber crossings for railroads happen where the railroad tracks cross a public road, then the state, county, or city that maintains that road still owns the actual rights-of-way and can grant it to a fiber overbuilder just like they grant rights-of-way along all public roads.

CSX had argued that the property rights related to railroad tracks do not fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Indiana, but the court disagreed. The lawsuit was originally filed when CSX alleged that Zayo had illegally trespassed in ten different situations where the company had crossed railroad tracks with fiber without paying the railroad. The court ruled that CSX didn’t have legal standing to make assertions of criminal trespass. The court further said that CSX failed to demonstrate that its railroad easements were exclusive to only railroad use, and that even if it could be construed that the railroad had that right on the surface, it couldn’t make that same claim for the ground below the easement or the air above the easement. The court said that the Zayo fibers did not disturb the railroad’s business in any way.

It’s likely that this ruling will be appealed. But if this ruling stands, it will be a big deal for companies that build networks. We’ve heard a lot of talk over the last year about the FCC wanting to override local jurisdiction for providing rights-of-way along public roads. While there are some horror stories of local government rights-of-way along roads taking too long, most permits are handled pretty routinely and are not the giant mess being claimed by the FCC. The real rights-of-way problems come when trying to build networks to cross railroad tracks, bridges, interstate highway underpasses, or parklands. Each of these situations can add both time and cost to a fiber construction project.

Railroad crossings can be a particular problem, because a large fiber project in a rural county might need to pass railroad tracks at multiple locations. It’s often not easy to determine who owns a given stretch of track, and in many cases the tracks are owned by companies that bought the easements from a defunct railroad or abandoned line. There can be big fees to cross at a single location, and I’ve seen fees as high as $20,000 to cross a single set of tracks. The even bigger problem is the delays. It’s not unusual for the paperwork for a rail crossing to stretch to well over a year.

A few years ago, the Virginia legislature tried to solve this problem by putting a shot clock on the approval for a railroad crossing and by limiting the fees. Unfortunately, that law was eventually knocked down by a court. Perhaps this ruling, made at the Appeals Court level, will have some staying power.

The Need for Public WiFi

One of the most interesting positive things that came out of the COVID pandemic was that communities and organizations across the country deployed public WiFi hotspots. This was done at the time to support students and workers who were expected to find a way to work remotely. And this worked well in a lot of places, and I’ve talked to communities who said the public flocked to the free WiFi during the pandemic.

There was another benefit of the free hot spots – they created places where people who couldn’t afford broadband suddenly had a place to access the Internet. This number of people varies by community, but the nationwide numbers suggest that around 14% of homes don’t have a home broadband solution, and as many as 80% of those folks say they would buy a home broadband solution if they could afford it.

As I wrote about in a recent blog, the number of homes without broadband is unfortunately growing due to affordability issues related to the other increasing costs of daily life like rent, food, health care, and transportation. An increasing number of homes are finding it harder to maintain their broadband connection. Several ISPs have told me about a growing number of broadband customers that regularly disconnect and then reconnect broadband during the year depending on their ability to pay the bill.

I recently realized that a huge percentage of the pandemic-inspired hot spots are gone. In some cases, the WiFi radios installed in 2000 are wearing out, and there is no funding to replace them. Other communities have turned off public WiFi because nobody is paying for the underlying broadband connection. In other cases, there is nobody who wants the responsibility of maintaining and operating the WiFi network.

There are also social issues involved in the hot spot issue. I’ve talked to a few communities that disconnected public WiFi because they didn’t like that it continued to attract people to congregate near hotspots after the end of the pandemic. They didn’t want people congregating in business or tourist districts and sometimes worried about public safety when people were using free WiFi after dark.

A decade ago, there was also a national trend for restaurants and stores to offer free WiFi. That trend has reversed, and there are far fewer places today that offer free WiFi to the public. Many businesses just stopped offering the service. A lot more put the WiFi behind passwords so that it was only easily available to customers. Many have redirected the WiFi signal to serve indoors and not to the nearby sidewalks and parking lots.

I think that one of the reasons for the decreasing interest in deploying public WiFi is a perception that everybody has a cellphone and doesn’t need public WiFi. I worked with the local social agencies in a large suburb of a major city last year, and I learned that a surprising number of people with cellphones don’t have a monthly cellular plan and only use their cellphone where they can find a public WiFi connection. But even people with expensive cellular plans have a skimpy data cap that means they must find WiFi to make it through the month.

There is one hopeful trend. I’ve seen a dozen communities that have deployed WiFi in public parks in recent years. The only downside of these deployments is that the WiFi would probably benefit the public more if it were near where people live. There are also some state programs that are supporting public WiFi, like a recent one in New Mexico. But unfortunately, for every new public hot spot being created, my guess is that a dozen are fading away. That number might be an exaggeration, but the trend is in that direction.

There was a lot of hope that BEAD nondeployment funds could be used to fund public WiFi. My guess is that, even if those funds are ever released, the funds will only be allowed to be use for specific uses that probably won’t include public WiFi. This is an issue that local and state governments can address. Of all of the broadband fixes available in the world, this is one of the lowest-cost ways to bring better broadband to communities. Unless we get a working permanent replacement for something like the ACP plan that subsidized home broadband, there are going to be a lot of homes where public WiFi is a necessity.

Who Should Regulate Space?

Earlier this year, two ranking members of the House Science Committee sent a letter to the FCC that reminded the agency that it didn’t have any clear authority from Congress to regulate space safety, space traffic management, or other non-communication space issues. This letter was sent when it became clear that the FCC was considering sweeping changes to the regulation of satellite constellations.

Those same two members, Republican Brian Babin and Democrat Zoe Lofgren, sent another letter in July, asking the FCC to delay a vote on new satellite regulations. The FCC Commissioners went ahead and approved the new satellite rules in its July meeting.

The FCC has been addressing space issues for years. I’ve read the applications that SpaceX filed when it originally asked the FCC for the authority to launch its current satellite constellation. Those filings are full of specifications and descriptions of how Starlink can direct satellites to avoid collisions, and how the company will deorbit satellites when they are no longer needed. The new FCC regulations cover these same issues.

The letter from Congress raises an interesting question. If the FCC doesn’t regulate these issues, then what federal agency does? The answer to that question is unclear, and it looks like various agencies have some role in regulating satellites:

  • The Department of Commerce has developed the Traffic Coordination System for Space (TraCSS) that issues satellite collision warnings.
  • The Department of Defense and Space Command also tracks space objects.
  • The FAA coordinates with airplanes to avoid areas near rocket launches.
  • The FCC is clearly in charge of the spectrum issues used to communicate between satellites and Earth.

Congress hasn’t specifically given any agency the authority to regulate orbital debris mitigation and deorbiting rules. This is a relatively new issue due to the large number of satellites in orbit, and the much larger number of planned satellites coming over the next decade. When the FCC took on this role with early communication satellites, it didn’t have any Congressional mandate to do so, because Congress hadn’t given that specific authority to anybody. But nobody was very concerned about this issue a decade ago, when there were 4,200 objects in orbit, including only 1,400 operational satellites.

It appears that the FCC has taken on this role in the regulatory vacuum. The House Science Committee had sent letters to the FCC making the same points to Chairman Ajit Pai in 2020 and Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel in 2022. That means that Congress has had years to debate the issue and decide who should regulate space safety. There have been discussions in Congress about assigning this role to the Department of Commerce, but no votes have been taken to do so.

Clearly somebody needs to regulate space safety. Scientists and space experts have been warning about the disaster that would ensue if there are major collisions of satellites that result in a cloud of debris. The satellite industry is growing to be a significant piece of the economy, and a major collision event could quickly cripple communications satellites for years.

I have to wonder if the FCC is the right place in the government to be tackling these issues today. Does the agency have enough space experts on staff to fully evaluate if satellite companies are taking the right precautions? Does any federal agency? There will be a lot of finger-pointing if a collision disaster happens, but it seems like the only place to point the finger would be Congress.