A New Strategy for the FCC

The FCC issued a Strategic Plan for 2026 to 2030 that describes a significant change in the focus of the agency. The FCC has periodically issued strategic plans since it was directed to do so by the Government Performance and Results Act in 1997. The strategic plan doesn’t change any FCC rules. It’s more of an outline of how the agency views its function and defines its priorities going forward. The plan has one formal use, which is to define the yardstick by which the GAO will measure whether the FCC is doing what it said it would do.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/strategic-plan-2026-2030

The new plan clearly represents Chairman Carr’s priorities, which he has been espousing since he took the Chairman position. Chairman Carr characterizes his policy initiatives as a Build America Agenda that includes:

  • Focusing on spectrum as a way to create jobs, increase competition, and drive down prices.
  • Focusing on the space economy to make sure that America is the world leader in this new industry.
  • Reducing red tape and making it easier for carriers to deploy infrastructure investments.
  • Focusing on national security to make sure that our networks are resilient and secure.
  • Protecting free speech.
  • Being a good steward of taxpayer money.

This is a huge departure from the Strategic Plan issued by former FCC Chairperson Jessica Rosenworcel. That past plan focused on bringing high-speed Internet to everybody, with a focus on affordability, digital equity and adoption, and consumer protection. The new plan almost entirely ignores the goals of the last FCC. One of the few areas of agreement between the two plans is the effort to eliminate robocalls and spam.

We’ve already seen all of the priorities of this plan in action.

  • The FCC is laser-focused on expanding mid-band spectrum to support 5G/6G. This was partly driven by direction from Congress in the One Big Beautiful Bill that directed the FCC to find 800 MHz of new spectrum for auction, but it was already a priority of Chairman Carr on day one. The FCC recently completed an auction for AWS-3 spectrum and is working towards an auction for Upper C-Band spectrum.
  • It’s clear that the FCC is focused on space. The FCC recently freed up new spectrum for satellite broadband and is considering even more spectrum. The FCC recently relaxed regulations related to approving new satellite constellations and ventures.
  • Much of the FCC’s actions this year have been aimed at making it easier for carriers to deploy infrastructure. The FCC’s tactics have mostly been aimed at overriding local and state authority and regulation of issues like wireless site placement, pole attachments, and permitting. The FCC also eliminated regulations and cleared barriers to removing copper networks. One of the first actions of this FCC was the Delete, Delete, Delete effort to eliminate outdated regulations.
  • In the area of national security, the FCC has tightened up rules about carriers using modems and other foreign-made devices and is discussing lowering the dependence on foreign technology in a wide range of the industry.
  • The free speech issue has puzzled me from day one, since Chairman Carr seems to be focused on punishing TV networks and others who don’t agree with the Administration. This seems like the opposite of free speech, but so far it’s mostly been rhetoric with little actual FCC action.
  • In the areas of being a good steward of taxpayer money, the FCC has focused on perceived fraud in Universal Service programs and is in the middle of a major investigation of all parts of the USF.

The plan is worth reading because it describes how Chairman Carr thinks about every aspect of what the FCC is doing. The plan puts the actions of the agency into perspective and defines the overall regulatory philosophy. This is an FCC that clearly values the big companies it regulates over the public and consumers. It’s not the first FCC to do so, and the document spells it out for anybody who reads it.

SpaceX Wants to Handle the World’s Broadband

In a recent request filed with the FCC, Starlink asked to increase the size of its broadband satellite fleet to 100,000. This coincided with the FCC’s announcement that it wants to ease the process for approving new satellites, so I have to think the idea will sail through. There was one extraordinary statement in this filing that is the topic of today’s blog. SpaceX said it has the goal of handling the majority of the world’s Internet traffic. Elon Musk has always been one for huge hyperbole, so statements like this are not surprising. I want to examine a few reasons why that goal is ridiculous.

No carrier handles a large percentage of the world’s internet traffic today. According to statistics shown on Cloudflare Radar, the company with the biggest percentage of worldwide traffic today is Amazon, with 3.5% of all traffic. The companies that carry more than 2% of worldwide traffic include Cloudflare (2.2%), Comcast (2.5%), Amazon (2.4%), Microsoft (2.2%), Reliance/Jio (2.1%), and AT&T (2.1%). SpaceX is on the worldwide list at number 18 today, already carrying 0.7% of the world’s Internet traffic. SpaceX would have to grow by five times to catch Amazon. But that would still be a long way from carrying a majority of the world’s traffic, and it’s hard to imagine any carrier growing to carry even 10% of the world’s traffic.

Starlink has built an impressive ISP business by gaining 12 million broadband customers. Worldwide, there are over 6 billion Internet users, about 74% of the world’s population. If you assume an average of 2.5 people per household, Starlink today represents 0.5% of all residential Internet users. But residential broadband, as large as it is, is still only a fraction of the world’s Internet traffic. Again, according to Cloudflare, bots are currently making 56.8% of all web connections.

Starlink largely has a near-monopoly for satellite broadband today, but that’s going to change over the next five years. There are major plans by others to compete with Starlink, including Amazon, China’s Guowang, Shanghai’s Quinfan, Blue Origin’s TeraWave, and Eutelsat’s OneWeb. Competition will dilute Starlink’s share of the satellite market.

Love him or hate him, Elon Musk has aligned himself with politics, which is unusual for somebody operating a giant retail business. There are already many countries that ban Starlink, and this list could grow. Even in countries where Starlink is available, there are a lot of people who would never buy service from an Elon Musk-backed company.

I think the biggest reason is that there is a lot more risk associated with trusting your broadband to satellites. A massive 1,000-year solar flare could knock a lot of satellites out of commission. There is a real threat of a spreading cloud of space debris killing a lot of satellites, as predicted by the Kessler syndrome. There is a chance that satellites could be knocked out deliberately during a war or by a rogue nation.

Fiber networks face no similar worldwide threats. Large users of broadband are never going to trust their traffic to satellite. Don’t expect to see data centers, universities, governments, or large corporations favor satellite connections over fiber.

I have to admit that I like Elon Musk’s brashness, but his claims are always overboard. I think he has a better chance of establishing his colony on Mars than of capturing the majority of the world’s Internet traffic.

Cable Companies Continue to Upgrade

Jeff Baumgarner of Light Reading wrote an article detailing increased spending by cable companies as they continue to upgrade networks. The article notes a 40% increase in spending for the deployment of distributed access architecture (DAA).

Distributed Access Architecture is a network architecture that decentralizes cable networks by moving some of the brains and related functions to neighborhood nodes. Historically, cable company networks packed all of the network electronics at a centralized headend. There are significant benefits of moving broadband equipment into neighborhoods. The DAA upgrade is often accompanied by reducing the dnumber of customers on each neighborhood node, which alone increases the bandwidth distributed to the remaining customers. The upgrade to DAA generally means more overall bandwidth when cable companies upgrade to 10-gigabit bandwidth to feed each DAA node. In many cases, the transport reaching nodes still uses analog technology, and upgrading to a digital DAA improves bandwidth efficiency. Customers benefit from improved latency due to being closer to the core.

Part of the reason for the 2026 spending is that cable companies put network expansion plans on hold in 2025, waiting for the release of new Broadcom chips that enable the network to be expanded to 1.8 GHz of bandwidth. This higher bandwidth is enabling cable companies to significantly increase customer upload speeds by upgrading to symmetrical bandwidth with DOCSIS 4.0 or by using upgrades referred to as mid-splits to increase upload speeds on DOCSIS 3.1.

A lot of upgrades to DAA are restructuring cable networks for the future by using remote physical layer architecture (R-PHY) to move the modulation and demodulation functions to the neighborhood node. Remote MAC-PHY relocates both the PHY layer and the processing MAC layer to the node. This new configuration means the only thing left at headends are servers, switches, and routers, and opens the possibility of doing away with much of the headend and migrating the switching function to a regional data center.

Baumgartner notes other upgrades being made by cable companies. He notes that cable companies are integrating PON fiber technology into the network to serve new growth and rural markets. He quotes Jeff Heynen or Dell’Oro saying that sales of PON nodes to cable companies are up 71% year-over-year.

Baumgartner also provides some updates on DOCSIS 4.0 deployments. He says that Comcast is still leading the charge on DOCSIS 4.0 upgrades and has already upgraded millions of premises. He says Charter has plans to upgrade 35% of its footprint to DOCSIS 4.0 over the next few years and that it plans to accelerate the upgrades when it completes the merger with Cox. He also notes that Mediacom Communications is deploying D4.0 in some markets.

The one downside for vendors is that cable company spending on customer CPE is down 5% this year, probably reflecting the continuing loss of customers by every big cable company.

The reason for these upgrades is clear – customers still have more trust in fiber than in cable company HFC technology. PC Magazine recently conducted a nationwide survey that ranked customer satisfaction with ISPs. NextLight, a municipal network in Longmont, Colorado, got the highest rating of 9.7, followed close behind by GFiber at 9.4. The other big fiber ISPs ranged between 7.8 for Frontier to 8.3 for AT&T. The big cable companies ranged from 6.4 for Comcast to 6.8 for Optimum.

Nondeployment Funds Still in Limbo

Arielle Roth, the NTIA Administrator, recently testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Before the hearing, Roth provided a written statement covering a range of the activities currently being pursued at NTIA. This includes:

  • The effort the NTIA is undertaking to help the FCC find 800 MHz of spectrum for public auction. This directive was mandated by the One Big Beautiful Bill. For those who might not be aware of the details of spectrum management, the FCC regulates spectrum used by the public, and NTIA oversees spectrum used by the government.
  • How NTIA is working with the standards bodies that are developing the specifications for 6G. This includes a forum hosted in March that focused on the supply chain issues for U.S. companies building advanced robotics, which I assume must somehow involve 6G.
  • Bragging about progress with universal broadband availability, stressing the role that satellite broadband plays in making broadband available everywhere. She is still touting how the BEAD Benefit of the Bargain rules lower costs to taxpayers. She said the average cost per BEAD location is $4,765. Illinois and California BEAD applications are still pending at NTIA, with the agency having the Illinois proposal for eight months.
  • How NTIA is enhancing public safety through approval of FirstNet and how NTIA got AT&T to agree to take $2 billion less in funding.
  • Finally, Roth talked about an initiative to reduce screen times for school students. It’s a topic I’m still trying to get my head around since I can’t see how NTIA, which is essentially the government’s IT department, has any role in this kind of issue.

There was one big item that was conspicuously missing from her written comments. NTIA is still deciding what to do with the $21 billion of BEAD nondeployment funds that are left after making grants for BEAD broadband infrastructure. This is by far the biggest dollar item sitting at the NTIA, and it’s curious that there was no mention of it in the written comments, since many members of Congress are highly interested in how and when this money will be used.

During her testimony, Roth said that BEAD nondeployment funds are still up in the air. To provide a little history on BEAD nondeployment funds:

  • The original BEAD legislation, passed back in 2020, said that permissible uses of nondeployment funds included digital skills training, telehealth and remote learning access, cybersecurity education, digital navigator programs, or direct subsidies to low-income homes.
  • Originally, twelve states were sure they would have money left over after infrastructure deployment, twelve were sure they would not, and the rest kept the door open to possibly having some nondeployment funding.
  • NTIA completely rewrote the BEAD grant rules in its June 2025 BEAD Restructuring Notice. Those rules greatly reduced the amount of money that would be spent on infrastructure (greatly increasing the nondeployment funds). That Notice made it clear that NTIA intended to redefine the ways that nondeployment funds could be used. After that Notice, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick began referring to BEAD nondeployment funds as a “saving” for the taxpayer, implying that the funds would be eliminated or greatly curtailed.
  • During the rest of 2025, as the country awaited the new rules related to nondeployment, a number of Senators, Representatives, and Governors from both parties pleaded with NTIA to release the funds.
  • In December 2025, Executive Order 14365 directed Commerce to withhold nondeployment funds from any states with “onerous” AI regulations and also gave NTIA until March to announce its plans for releasing the nondeployment funds.
  • In February 2026, Commerce Secretary Lutnick announced that Commerce had no plans to withhold nondeployment funds, and NTIA held two “listening sessions” to hear ideas on how to use the nondeployment funds.
  • In March, NTIA slipped the date for making a decision on nondeployment until June 2026. Throughout 2026, both Secretary Lutnick and Administrator Roth have occasionally referred to nondeployment as a savings for taxpayers.
  • During testimony in the House hearing, Roth said that she now expects the plans for BEAD nondeployment to be announced sometime this summer (which could be any time before September 21). Roth said that NTIA wants to get the guidance right and not rush through the process.

It’s anybody’s guess if nondeployment funds will ever be released. It’s now been 13 months since the NTIA changed the rules for nondeployment funds, and they are obviously in no hurry to see these funds ever get spent.

Broadband Shorts July 2026

These are all interesting topics that didn’t fit an entire blog.

GAO Dings NTIA. The General Accounting Office wrote a memo to Arielle Roth, the Administrator of NTIA, that dinged the agency for not reacting to priority recommendations made by the agency. The memo said that NTIA had implemented 77% of the recommendations made by GAO five years ago, but that there are still twenty-two open recommendations that have not been implemented, including ten priority recommendations. The letter says that implementing the remaining priority recommendations would significantly improve NTIA operations.

The priority recommendations say that NTIA should be collaborating better with the FCC for designing studies to evaluate domestic and international spectrum management. The memo says that NTIA needs to step up cybersecurity measures for wireless infrastructure. GAO says NTIA should be communicating and coordinating better with other federal agencies related to broadband funding.

Right to Not Repair. In a 606-page filing at the FCC, AT&T is asking for emergency authorization to stop repairing copper networks that suffer storm damage or damage caused by vandalism. The report lists hundreds of locations that suffered damage across multiple states, covering just the period between April 30 and June 20 of this year, where the company says it will not restore voice services after outages. The company says it wants to instead deploy its resources to build the next-generation networks that will replace copper.

This certainly creates a shortcut way to retire copper – knock copper routes out of service and then seek FCC permission to not fix them. AT&T’s rationale for not restoring service is that it has alternative technology available to customers. But the concept of having a substitute for copper works in cities and towns, but much of rural America doesn’t have AT&T cell towers capable of reaching disconnected copper customers with cellular or FWA service. Anybody who has spent any time with the FCC cellular maps can see the huge holes in rural coverage, and that assumes the cellular coverage maps are accurate, which is often not the case.

Fiber Shortage. Connexon Connect recently told the FCC that it is falling behind on some of its RDOF buildout obligations due to a severely constrained domestic fiber supply. The company said that it has had fiber delivery commitments canceled by vendors that are instead directing fiber to hyperscale data centers. The company said its problems are made worse by the requirements of having to use American-made fiber due to the Build America, Buy America rules required by the BEAD program. The company specifically identified CommScope for canceling commitments for BEAD contracts. CommScope blames Corning on canceling orders to provide glass to CommScope, which it thinks is related to Corning accepting large orders from data centers.

Legislative Mandate for American-made Fiber. A group of bipartisan House members introduced a bill being called the FIREWALL Act that would mandate that fiber used to satisfy all federal grants must be manufactured in the U.S. In the announcement of the bill, Representative Gus Bilirakis of Florida said that the U.S. government shouldn’t be subsidizing technology sourced from countries that pose a threat to our national security. That’s an odd statement since it’s hard to imagine a threat that comes from fiberglass. An odder statement was that he wants to avoid a future rip-and-replace effort related to fiber. Unlike Chinese electronics and software, there is no functional difference in fiberglass strands, regardless of where they are made. I had to laugh when I pictured crews ripping up thousands of miles of fiber.

EchoStar Bankruptcy. EchoStar filed a prepackaged bankruptcy plan for the satellite business and the cellular business.  The company was facing a $2 billion dollar loan payment in July, and didn’t have the cash due to delays in getting paid for spectrum sales to AT&T. The company is counting on over $20 billion in net closing proceeds from the sale of spectrum to AT&T. The company also sold spectrum to SpaceX, which should bring $8.5 billion in cash, $11 billion in SpaceX stock, and $2.2 billion to assist with debt. The company is heavily leveraged and has over $6 billion in current debt and $18 billion in long-term debt.

While the company recently exited the facility-based cellular business, it still owns Boost Mobile, the HughesNet satellite business, the Dish satellite TV business, and online provider Sling TV. None of these businesses are thriving. The company is also facing a slew of lawsuits from vendors and fiber providers who were left stranded when the company suddenly ceased business. It will be interesting to see what the company does with any excess cash after the spectrum sales close.

The Amazon Leo Mystery

Amazon Leo recently launched 29 new satellites, bringing the size of its constellation to 396. To the surprise of everybody who follows the industry, the company announced that it has enough satellites to begin initial service later this year.

This has everybody wondering what initial service means. The company hasn’t announced its pricing yet, which has been a closely held secret. The big mystery is how the company could launch service with such a small number of satellites.

When Starlink began beta service, it had over 600 satellites in orbit. Starlink beta customers reported slow speeds and spotty coverage, and said they routinely lost broadband service when there was no satellite in range of their home. Starlink didn’t start getting good reviews on its coverage until it had over 2,000 satellites in orbit.

A recent article in PC Magazine speculated that Amazon might launch by serving a narrow geographic band that would extend from Phoenix, across the U.S., and that enters into Canada in Michigan. The company might be able to use its small number of satellites to offer service in this narrow band as a way to work out any bugs. Amazon is not using the term beta test, but that’s what a limited launch of this nature would realistically be.

It’s hard to see Amazon Leo being a serious competitor to Starlink for the foreseeable future. By the end of this year, Starlink will have nearly all of it’s original constellation of 12,000 satellites in orbit, and Starlink currently has FCC approval to launch 15,000 total satellites. SpaceX recently asked the FCC for permission to grow the constellation to 100,000 satellites. By contrast, earlier this year, Amazon Leo asked the FCC for a two-year delay for meeting the requirement to have over 1,600 satellites in orbit this summer. When its first constellation is complete, Amazon Leo will have just over 3,200 Gen1 satellites in orbit, with an additional 4,500 that was approved by the FCC earlier this year.

Amazon Leo is starting with one edge, in that its first satellites have a lot more capacity than the current Starlink satellites already in orbit. But Starlink says it will begin launching the more powerful V3 satellites sometime in the second half of this year. The V3 satellites are said to have ten times the capacity of current V2 satellites. The V3 launch has been delayed, with the original plan to start the improved satellites in the first quarter of this year. The delay has mostly been due to the need to use the larger Starship rocket rather than the current Falcon 9 rocket to launch the heavier V3 satellites. It’s going to take a number of years for Starlink to replace the older V2 satellites, with an announced capacity of 60 V3 satellites per launch using the Starship rocket.

Perhaps the early announcement from Amazon Leo of pending service is meant to mollify the FCC and NTIA, which are both anxious to see satellite competition. Amazon Leo won preliminary awards to serve over 300,000 locations awarded in the BEAD grant program, and states and the federal government have to be worried about the company being able to fulfill that obligation.

The whole industry is waiting to see Amazon’s pricing and bundling strategy. There has been a lot of speculation that Amazon would bundle Prime memberships, AWS cloud services, or other bundles of non-traditional market goods and services. Such bundles would be unique, and something that Starlink and other ISPs could not match. Picture buying satellite broadband and getting free shipping and access to a huge video library as part of the bundle.

The biggest question is if Amazon Leo will offer prices below Amazon’s standard $130 per month (recently increased from $120). Doing so would put a lot of pressure on Starlink to lower its prices. Unfortunately, there is also the possibility that the two companies will have similar pricing and will form a duopoly of expensive satellite broadband.

Digital Equity Grants Inch Forward

You may read headlines that lead you to believe that the courts have restored the Digital Equity Act as a result of a lawsuit by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA). The ruling from Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a lot more complicated than that.

If you’re brave enough to venture into the court order, you’re going to quickly figure out that, unless you are a constitutional lawyer, you aren’t going to understand a lot of the background and discussion inside the order. If you want a plain English summary of the order, I direct you to the excellent summary from the Benton Institute – and even that is challenging to read in places for those not used to reading court orders. Rather than rehash everything in the order, which was done well by Benton, I’m going to cut to the conclusions of the case and talk about what this might mean for those still hoping to get digital inclusion grants.

What did the Court order? The Administration killed the $2.75 billion grant programs that were part of the Digital Equity Act. This suit specifically challenged the termination of the Digital Equity Competitive Grant program, where NTIA made direct grant awards for digital inclusion activities. This suit did not address the Digital Equity Capacity Grant program, where State Broadband Offices were slated to make digital inclusion grant awards.

The Court did not yet order the NTIA to continue with the Competitive Grant program. The order basically eliminated the government’s stated reason for canceling the grant program. The government argued that making grants based on race was unconstitutional. The court agreed with that argument, which is a big win for the Administration, since this is the first Court to so plainly agree with that assertion. But the Court further ruled that if grant requirements based on race are removed, the rest of the lawsuit can continue. The government said in a footnote of their pleading that they would be willing to immediately reinstate the Competitive Grant program if the race issue were removed. The two sides are now required to file a joint status report by August 1 that proposes a schedule for continuing the case.

So what’s next? One possibility is that the government will want to continue to dispute some of the other claims by NDIA, and if that happens, the court case would continue.

The possibility that digital inclusion advocates hope for is that the government will be good on its word and will agree to end the suit now that the race criteria are gone. If that happens, it’s likely that the Court would order NTIA to restart the Competitive Grant program.

Nobody knows what that would mean. NTIA could decide to get moving again with the grant program. However, NTIA might still be reluctant to award these grants if that’s the message they get from the Administration, and they could slow-roll the process, just like they are doing with the BEAD nondeployment funds. NTIA could decide to take a fresh look at the grant rules now that race has been removed and start the process over. Even if NTIA moves forward, I find it unlikely that NTIA would automatically honor the grants that were already awarded and would make everybody apply again. I wouldn’t make any bets that NDIA is going to get a grant award from this program.

The other half of this program is the Capacity Grant program, which was going to give money to states to make digital inclusion grant awards. There doesn’t seem to be any direct ties between this case and that grant program, so it likely stays in limbo, even if the Competitive Grant program restarts.

There is also a big concern that the Administration has recommended no funding for this program in next year’s budget, so the entire program could quietly die through lack of funding, even if NDIA prevails in this lawsuit.

There is a ray of hope here, and digital inclusion folks should continue to hope and should continue lobbying Congress to keep the funding alive and to press NTIA to make the awards. But I can’t foresee anything happening quickly, even if the Court clears this off its docket in August.

Comcast to Spin Off Entertainment

Comcast recently announced plans to spin off its entertainment businesses. The newly created NBCUniversal will include the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks, Bravo, Peacock, the European media business Sky, along with theme parks and other businesses. The Peacock subsidiary has been actively buying rights to sporting events. Comcast had begun the spinoff of entertainment subsidiaries early this year when it spun off cable networks, including MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network, E!, Syfy, Oxygen, the Golf Channels, and digital brands like Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes into the Versant Media Group. A Comcast shareholder will get a share of each new business. Comcast says it will retain a 19.9% share in NBCUniversal for at least a year.

The post-split Comcast will retain the core broadband, cellular, and cable TV business lines. The company will also retain Comcast Spectator, which owns the Xfinity Arena in Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Flyers, and the FreeWheel tech ad business. The public announcement said that the company no longer sees any synergies or financial benefits from operating two distinct lines of business. Wall Street instantly applauded the move with an upward bump in the Comcast stock price.

This should allow Comcast to concentrate on the increasingly competitive communications business. The company has been steadily losing broadband customers every quarter since 2023. It’s seeing competition from fiber overbuilding, FWA cellular, and even satellite. The cable TV business has continued its long, downhill slide. Comcast has seen significant growth in the cellular business and is approaching 10 million cellular customers.

The news instantly set off speculation about how both of the new businesses are attractive M&A targets now that they are separate. I saw speculation that Netflix, Amazon, and Disney/Paramount/Fox ought to be interested in NBCUniversal. I saw instant speculation that SpaceX, Charter, or one of the big cellular companies would be interested in a standalone Comcast.

I could never understand the presumed benefits of combining ISPs and media companies. When Comcast purchased the entertainment businesses, the reason given at the time was to take advantage of the content. But I never understood this since an ISP already delivers all kinds of content.

The other attempts in the industry to combine an ISP with content were big failures. The biggest failure of all was AT&T’s $85 billion purchase of Time Warner in 2018. Within a few years, in 2022, AT&T spun off Warner Media to Discovery for $43 billion. This bad deal was bad for AT&T in many ways. CEO Randall Stephenson, a champion of the merger, stepped down in 2020. AT&T’s stock took a huge hit during the time that it owned Time Warner, and AT&T had to slash its dividend in half.

Verizon also took a shot at buying content. The company purchased AOL in 2015 for $4.4 billion, a price that startled the market. The company then purchased Yahoo in 2017 for $4.48 billion. Verizon repackaged the two companies into a new subsidiary called Oath, which was later renamed Verizon Media. Verizon eventually sold Verizon Media to Apollo Global Management for $5 billion. Before that sale, Verizon had separately sold HuffPost, Tumblr, and MapQuest.

The Comcast sale means there are no ISPs left with big content businesses. Combining the disparate businesses never made sense since Verizon’s purchase of AOL, and hopefully, the Comcast spin-off ends this failed experiment.

The Blueprint for Equitable Digital Participation

Today’s blog is about a report titled The Blueprint for Equitable Digital Participation that was sponsored by Public Knowledge, UnidosUS, and NDIA. It’s a lengthy report that takes a deep dive into issues related to digital inclusion and digital equity and looks at the problems experienced by homes that don’t have or can’t afford broadband.

The report is based on seven focus groups conducted in Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, and Ohio. The focus groups included households with annual incomes no greater than $70,000, with many far below that. The focus groups were followed by a more detailed nationwide survey based on questions developed during the focus groups.

The report documents the same kind of findings that have come from many other sources. It’s worth reading the report just for the 60 footnotes that lead to a lot of other research in this area. The report documents the primary reasons why homes don’t have adequate broadband.

  • The issue for many unconnected homes is the ability to afford a monthly broadband subscription.
  • The focus groups included folks who settle for low-cost broadband alternatives that are too slow to meet household needs.
  • There were people in the focus groups who lived in places with no good broadband infrastructure.
  • There were focus group participants who have a hard time affording computers and devices to use the Internet.
  • A lot of folks admitted to not having the skills needed to use computers and navigate the Internet.

The report reached some key findings and recommendations.

  • The research found that many people without broadband have a sophisticated understanding of what they need to use broadband, but face systematic barriers to having a monthly broadband subscription.
  • Being on the wrong side of the digital divide compounds other challenges facing struggling households. Lack of broadband contributes to problems with housing stability, healthcare, employment, and education.
  • Programs to tackle the digital divide have to meet people where they live instead of being done at a statewide or county level.
  • The report concludes that the size of the monthly subsidy needed to get broadband into homes has to be around $40 per month. This could come from the Universal Service Fund or some other mechanism. The report concludes that this is enough to get broadband into most homes.
  • Federal broadband projects in the future should concentrate on network resiliency and ISP operational support, and not just on building infrastructure.
  • There needs to be federal or state support for broadband adoption programs for digital skills training, digital access, and culturally responsive digital training and digital navigation.

The conclusion of the report is worth thinking about: The digital divide is fundamentally about power and resource distribution. Closing it requires not just building infrastructure but ensuring people can actually benefit from networks through comprehensive adoption support, community ownership models, and policy frameworks that prioritize human dignity over corporate profits. The communities most affected by digital exclusion possess the wisdom to drive solutions—they just need the resources and power to implement them.

 

The Spectrum Auction Winners

After a four-year hiatus, the FCC recently held a spectrum auction of 200 licenses for AWS-3 spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands. The last FCC auction was in 2022 for 2.5 GHz spectrum. The FCC lost the ability to hold spectrum auctions when its Congressional authority lapsed and was not renewed. This spectrum was touted by the FCC as being 5G-grade. The license areas included in the auction covered over 100 million people across 48 states and two US territories, and included major markets like New York, Chicago, Boston, Tampa, and Charlotte. The FCC announced before the auction that much of the proceeds will be used to continue to fund the rip-and-replace of Chinese electronics from Huawei and ZTE.

The winning bidders collectively bid more than $3.57 billion. The winners are as follows, from largest to smallest:

  • Verizon Wireless: $3,162,445,000 for 82 licenses in 82 markets
  • T-Mobile: $277,787,000 for 102 licenses in 102 markets
  • AT&T: $120,774,000 for 10 licenses in 10 markets
  • SpaceX: $8,490,200 for two licenses in two markets
  • Blue Ridge Wireless II LLC: $2,090,000 for one license in one market
  • Conundrum Wireless, LLC: $1,228,000 for two licenses in one market
  • Citizens Band License Company, LLC: $75,000 for one license in one market

Not surprisingly, 99.7% of the spectrum was claimed by the three big cellular carriers, with Verizon snagging 88.5% of the awards. Folks might be surprised to see SpaceX as the fourth-largest winner. The company is looking for spectrum to enhance its direct-to-cell mobile services. Analysts speculated that this auction was a trial run for the company to learn about the auction process since the company has already agreed to buy $2.6 billion in spectrum in the AWS-3, AWS-4, and H-blocks from EchoStar.

Verizon was using the auction to fill holes in its spectrum portfolio and spent almost $2 billion of its winning bids in New York, Chicago, and Boston. AT&T’s biggest focus was for Charlotte. T-Mobile dropped out of all of the expensive markets, but still won the most licenses spread across small metropolitan areas.

ike many actions by the federal government these days, there is also an interesting backstory to this auction. The spectrum that was included in this auction originally came from EchoStar (originally Dish Networks). Two companies, SNR Wireless and Northstar Wireless, originally purchased the spectrum in the 2014 AWS-3 auction for $3.3 billion. When the FCC learned that Dish was the secret backer of the two companies, the FCC voided the awards. The FCC ruled that when this spectrum was eventually reauctioned, that Dish would owe the FCC any shortfall if the new auction raises anything less than $2.9 billion.

Roger Entner of Recon Analytics says that EchoStar bid up the current auction to save itself from having to pay for any shortfall in the auction. EchoStar entered the recent auction with almost as many bid credits as Verizon. Entner claims that EchoStar was in the auction for no other purpose than bidding up the price, and in doing so, increased the proceeds of the auction from $2 billion to the final $3.57 billion. He says that EchoStar stayed in the auction until the auction reached the threshold where the company was off the hook for paying for the shortfall. In the next two rounds, the company dropped out of every market except for two licenses it got stuck with in Guam. The company is no longer in the cellular business, and Entner expects it will sell this spectrum at a discount to a local cellular provider or just ride out the build-out shot clock until the FCC is forced to reclaim the spectrum.

It’s going to be interesting to see if the three big carriers take any action against EchoStar for driving up the prices. I don’t have the slightest idea if EchoStar did anything illegal, but its bidding actions were certainly shady.