Category Archives: Regulation – What is it Good For?

The Push for Permitting Reform

There is currently a bill being considered in Congress that would mandate a new set of permitting requirements for wireless and wired infrastructure. The bill is H.R. 2289 – the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025.

The bill first started with the goal of making it easier to get permits for BEAD and other federally grant-funded projects, but the bill has grown to encompass all local and state permitting for telecommunications infrastructure.

The heart of the changes that would come from the passage of the bill are as follows:

  • The legislation would create a shot clock from 60 to 150 days during which a state or local government must approve or deny a request for a permit to construct a wireless or wireline project. If the locality doesn’t respond in that time frame, the request is automatically assumed to be “deemed granted”.
  • The legislation would create similar shot clock rules for any carrier seeking a cable franchise.
  • The bill would eliminate the need for environmental impact studies or historic preservation reviews for any project not considered to be a major federal action under NEPA rules.
  • The law would make it easier to get permits on tribal lands.
  • The law would restrict permitting fees to recover only actual costs, instead of the traditional standard of reasonable costs.

Interestingly, the bill doesn’t address the biggest permitting issue in the rural areas where BEAD grants will be built, which is getting permits on federal lands. I’ve worked with a few ISPs where the process of crossing federal lands took almost two years. However, the law applies to state highways and state parklands, so it will be easier to build across a state park, but not a federal one.

The legislation doesn’t address the other issues with getting permits in rural areas. While I am sure there are exceptions, most of the folks I know who are building rural fiber projects tell me that most County governments invite them in with open arms. The rural permitting problems that cause the most delays and headaches continue to be crossing railroads and bridges, which are not addressed by the legislation.

As you might imagine, this legislation is being vigorously opposed by local governments, who say the new permitting preempts local authority over public right-of-way, zoning, and permitting. They argue that the restriction of using actual costs means they can’t charge enough to pay for the longer-term monitoring and management of granted rights-of-way.

The biggest local objection to the law is that this would severely limit the ability of local officials to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of cell towers. It would finally give cellular companies the ability to place towers in residential areas or near historic sites.

The legislation clearly reads like a wish list for the giant carriers and gives them the freedom to build what they want, where they want. The authors of the bill took a bill intended to make it easier to build grant-funded rural networks and applied it to the whole country. That feels like solving a relatively small rural problem related to speeding up grant construction as a pretext to apply a sledgehammer solution for all construction. The majority of broadband construction happens in cities and suburbs, not in rural America. Some of those places have complicated situations that should not be lumped together with rules aimed at speeding up rural grants.

I’m sure there will be ISPs and carriers that read this who can tell horror stories of why this is needed. But I also know folks who have built a huge number of rural projects where permitting from local governments was not difficult or expensive.

It will be interesting to see if this passes in Congress. There were several broadband-related bills that passed the House last week, and this bill didn’t make it yet. Every member of the House who votes for this is telling the local governments in their district that Congress knows more about permitting than the local folks who have been doing this forever.

Relaxed Environmental Study Rules?

One of the most frustrating aspects of grant-funded projects for the public is that it takes years from the announcement that their neighborhood is covered by a grant until they see the new infrastructure. One of the reasons for these delays has been environmental studies that are mandatory when projects are funded by federal funds.

Environmental studies were first mandated for federal projects by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. This law required environmental studies for what was classified as a major federal action, which means any construction using federal funds, any construction built on federal land, or construction that requires a federal approval or permit. The type of proposed construction would trigger either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). NEPA defined different kinds of activities that would require different types of assessment, with the two most common being impacts on the environment or on historic preservation.

On April 9, the Council on Environmental Quality issued a memorandum to all federal departments that suggests new guidelines for how to implement the NEPA laws. The issues covered in the memo haven’t been mandated by Congress, and don’t carry the force of law. However, it’s likely that most federal agencies will follow the new guidance.

The new guidance establishes what it calls categorical exclusions from the NEPA rules that would soften or eliminate the need for an environmental study if a project is not likely to “significantly affect the quality of the human environment”. It lists three types of categorical exclusions that can be considered:

  • The first categorical exclusion would apply if construction is to occur in an area that was already covered by a previously completed environmental review that did not trigger a full environmental study. Agencies would need to examine the previous environmental review to see if this warrants an exclusion today.
  • A federal agency can also look at other similar exclusions for environmental studies that have been granted in the past by the agency. If a new project is similar in nature to past cases where an environmental study wasn’t required, the agency can determine that a new review isn’t needed.
  • Finally, the agency can rely on the experience and expertise of its staff or outside experts who are familiar with the proposed project to determine if a review is needed.

What does all of this mean in practical application for broadband projects? This might eliminate the need to conduct environmental studies for construction done in the public rights-of-way of roads. The vast majority of fiber construction occurs by burying fiber on the shoulder of roads, which have been excavated in the past during road construction, or hanging fiber on poles that are in the public rights-of-way. It’s always seemed absurd to industry folks that there are any environmental issues from construction close by existing roads, since those areas have probably seen construction multiple times in the past.

The new guidelines would not change the requirements for a project that proposes to build fiber across wetlands or other areas that have never seen past construction. It probably doesn’t make it easier to build close to historic sites. But the new guidelines could eliminate the time and paperwork involved in conducting the environmental review for a majority of federal grant-funded projects. And that is not small thing. Construction can’t begin with grant dollars until environmental reviews are complete. The reviews can take from a few weeks to many months, and if a full environmental study is indicated, a project can be delayed by a year or two.

The FCC Opens the 900 MHz Band

The FCC voted in its recent open meeting to expand the use of 900 MHz spectrum. The order opens up the full 10 MHz available in the 900 MHz spectrum bands 896–901 and 935–940 MHz, for licensed broadband services. 900 MHz is an attractive band for users since the signals carry a long way and are good at penetrating buildings.

The licensed portion of the spectrum is not of interest to WISPs due to the small size of the channels, which won’t deliver the kinds of speeds expected by home broadband users. But the spectrum can easily support smartphone applications and is of interest to those wishing to deploy private 5G network.

This FCC change does impact the other bands of 900 MHz spectrum. For example, there are numerous uses allowed for the spectrum between 902 and 928 MHz, including ham radio, FM radio repeaters, alarm and security camera systems, video surveillance for law enforcement missions, and transmission of infrared scanner imagery during overflights of disaster areas. Some of these uses are restricted in Texas and New Mexico since this spectrum is also used to monitor the border.

The primary users of the expanded-use bands will be electric, gas, and water utilities that have been using the spectrum for automated meter reading and other network monitoring devices. The purpose of the FCC’s change is to provide more bandwidth and expanded capacity to utilities. The FCC order predicts that the changes to the spectrum usage will promote better smart metering, grid modernization, and network security and resilience. Under the former rules, transmissions in the band were restricted to 5 MHz licenses, which limited the ability for utilities to launch private 5G and LTE networks.

The new order provides different options for a current license holder to:

  • Continue to use the legacy configuration of 20 wideband channels and 200 narrowband channels.
  • Operate two paired 3 MHz channels and two segments of the remaining 4 MHz of spectrum to operate 159 narrowband channels.
  • Operate two paired 5 MHz channels to deploy more broadband use cases.

This change largely benefits Anterix. The company purchased a nationwide license for 6 MHz of the spectrum from Sprint in 2014. Anterix has been selling and leasing that spectrum to utilities to create private wireless networks. This new order gives the company the use of all 10 MHz of the spectrum.

One of the most interesting aspects of the new order is that it anticipates that the spectrum will be made available to others through voluntary negotiations and market-based transactions. The Anterix spectrum today is largely deployed on a county-by-county basis, and this order opens the door for entities other than utilities to license the spectrum to create local private 5G networks. This could be used by corporations or local governments looking for a private and secure wireless network outside of the public cellular networks.

I recently noted how the public cellular networks crashed in Western North Carolina after Hurricane Helene. While a number of cell sites sustained physical damage, many were still operational, but still failed since the backhaul fiber lines feeding the region were damaged or destroyed. While the lack of cell signal was a major inconvenience for the public, it was a crushing blow to first responders who found themselves unable to communicate. A private in-county 5G network for first responders using 900 MHz could have continued to work locally on the functional cell towers. This would have greatly benefited the search and rescue effort and the overall coordination of first responder resources.

It will take a while to see if this is a giveaway to Anterix or if this will really open up new opportunities for first responders and other local private wireless network providers.

Broadband Shorts April 2026

The following are topics I found to be interesting but which didn’t justify an entire blog:

Update on the Telecom Act? Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, announced a hearing titled The Telecommunications Act of 1996: 30 Years Later. The stated purpose of the hearing is to examine the lessons learned from an examination of the Act. The hearing announcement suggests that Congress will see “how Congress can build on those lessons to modernize our laws to promote innovation, strengthen competition, and drive investment in modern communications networks.”

It’s obvious to anybody who follows telecom regulations that a lot of the changes made in the Act were quickly obsolete when broadband products became the predominant products of the telecom industry. Every reform effort has to start somewhere, and maybe this is the first step towards real discussions on updating telecom regulation. But in an industry dominated by regulatory capture from carriers, it seems highly unlikely that Congress has the appetite to take a fresh look at regulating the large carriers.

Will Starlink Bail on BEAD? A group of twenty House Democrats wrote a letter to Arielle Roth, head of NTIA, expressing concern that Starlink will walk away from the BEAD grants. The concerns come because of requests made by Starlink to state broadband offices for waivers of some of the ongoing reporting requirements that apply to all grant winners. For example, Starlink asked to be excused from conducting speed tests or providing ongoing financial reporting. NTIA has already told state broadband offices that states don’t have the authority to relax any BEAD reporting requirements. Perhaps the House members are worried that NTIA will issue a nationwide waiver for Starlink.

Arielle Roth said recently that states would have to reconsider the awards to Starlink if the company defaults. This has the industry wondering if defaults could result in an invitation for ISPs who want to build fiber or fixed wireless networks to rebid to serve such areas. In most states, there is still a lot of unspent grant funds that could be used for this purpose.

Copper Thefts by Organized Crime? AT&T published a blog that speculates that the magnitude of the theft of telephone copper wires is a lot higher than what might be attributed to random acts of crime. Rahdeese Alcutt, the lead investigator for AT&T Global Security, speculates that thefts in places like Southern California are likely coming from organized crime. The blog points out that it’s not just telephone copper wires being stolen, but anything made of copper, like material in railroads and transit systems, power utilities, HVAC systems, and city lighting systems. He says there are now days with hundreds of thefts of copper. Alcutt thinks this is an organized effort because it involves the use of heavy equipment and a well-coordinated effort to avoid law enforcement.

Fear of the Kessler Syndrome? LeoLabs, a company that monitors satellites in low-earth orbit reported that a Starlink satellite suffered an “anomaly” and broke apart into space debris. LeoLabs believes the likely cause was an “internal energetic source” and not due to a collision with another satellite. This is a concern because of the Kessler Syndrome, which predicts that there is some level of space debris that will result in a spreading cloud of debris that will destroy other satellites and result in a circling cloud of debris around the Earth that would be a barrier to space travel.

This risk increases as the number of satellites in orbit increases. The announced plans of current satellite companies could result in hundreds of thousands of satellites in low-earth orbit within a decade. The more satellites, the higher the chance of having catastrophic collisions. LeoLabs is not predicting that this anomaly will be a problem, but nobody knows what it might take to initiate the cloud of debris.

FCC Suspends Lifeline Providers. The FCC has always investigated fraud in the Universal Service Fund. The agency recently blocked seven individuals from ever participating in USF again after they were convicted of fraud. All of the convictions involved E-Rate reimbursement for broadband at schools and libraries. The fraud covered a range of bad behavior. A few individuals embezzled money that was legitimately paid to school systems. A few submitted fraudulent invoices to the E-Rate program or hired unsavory E-Rate partners.

Spectrum Relocation Costs

The FCC has been directed by Congress to free up 800 MHz of mid-range spectrum that will then be auctioned off to commercial users. One of the important steps to repurpose spectrum is that existing users of spectrum must be relocated to other spectrum bands before the auction winner can use the spectrum.

Two decades ago, Congress formalized some of the spectrum relocation process with the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA), which created the Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF). This fund was created to pay for the cost of federal agencies that have to change to using a different spectrum band if the spectrum they had been using is sold in an auction. By statute, any auction of federal spectrum must raise at least 110% of the estimated relocation costs for the federal incumbent, ensuring the move does not cost taxpayers. The SRF fund covers the cost of planning, research and development, and hardware upgrades needed to change to a different spectrum. The process of a federal agency having to relocate its spectrum use is handled by the NTIA.

Any commercial customers that are disadvantaged by a spectrum move must coordinate with the FCC to be compensated for changing to a different spectrum. The FCC also hopes to cover these costs through auction proceeds. A good example of this in action was the 2016 incentive auction, where almost 1,000 television stations moved to a new over-the-air channel to free up spectrum for cellular purposes. Anybody bidding on this spectrum understood that the price they needed to pay had to be high enough to compensate television stations that were being displaced.

There have been a number of spectrum auctions that were profitable for the FCC and that raised a lot of money over and above the relocation costs. But not all spectrum auctions have gone as planned. For example, the 2012 Spectrum Act required the FCC to auction the T-Band spectrum (470-512 MHz). This spectrum was widely used by first responders and public safety, and it was determined by the GAO, after a lot of complaints from public safety agencies, that the cost to relocate the existing users was going to exceed $5.9 billion, which was more than what the auction was expected to raise. Congress eventually repealed the requirement for the auction.

There are a few auctions where the actual relocation costs were higher than had been estimated. In the AWS spectrum (1710-1755 MHz) auction in 2013, the actual federal relocation costs were $474 million higher than anticipated.

There are other spectrum auctions where it has taken the incumbents a lot longer to vacate the spectrum than expected, making the spectrum unusable for the new buyer. A good example is the 2016 incentive auction, when it took some television stations a long time to make the transition to a new spectrum band.

The relocation issue is relevant today due to the upcoming efforts that will be required by the FCC to auction 800 MHz of spectrum, including 200 MHz this year. These auctions were ordered by the One Big Beautiful Bill with the expectations that the auctions would raise $60 billion for the U.S. Treasury. However, that revenue number ignored the impact of paying existing users of spectrum to relocate. It’s impossible to know what relocation might cost since the specific spectrum bands haven’t yet been identified. But most of the mid-range spectrum bands are already heavily used by military, government, and commercial users. It seems likely that the net gain from the auctions could be less than $60 billion expectation

The FCC’s Ability to Levy Fines

Today’s blog takes a deeper dive into the upcoming case at the Supreme Court concerning appeals by AT&T and Verizon over fines levied by the FCC. The original appeals followed an FCC finding that all three major U.S. cellular carriers were liable for violating customer privacy by selling access to customer location data. This data showed every place that a customer visited during the day, something that should make every cell customer uncomfortable. The FCC fined AT&T $50 million, T-Mobile  $80 million, and Verizon $47 million, with smaller fines against a few other carriers. The case at the Supreme Court looks specifically at the FCC’s ability to levy fines against the carriers for violating consumer privacy rights.

AT&T and Verizon appealed the FCC fines. Both companies were emboldened by two recent Supreme Court rulings that weakened the FCC’s authority. The first was Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, which said that courts don’t have to defer to expertise at federal agencies when deciding lawsuits. The second case was SEC v. Jaresky, which said that federal agencies should give defendants a chance to have a trial by jury in a federal court rather than levying fines.

As usually happens with cases that make it to the Supreme Court, lower courts issued conflicting opinions about the FCC fines. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the fines levied against AT&T, while the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FCC’s fines against Verizon.

One of the more interesting things about both appeals was that the carriers did not deny their bad actions – they had clearly allowed access to customer location data. Both appeals relied on the Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jaresky and argued that the FCC should have offered the carriers the chance to take the cases to court and hold a jury trial as an alternative to the FCC fines.

It’s clear that the carriers are trying to weaken or break the FCC’s ability to levy fines and are willing to go through this process as a way to avoid future fines. I find it unbelievable that the carriers would have chosen to take this specific case to a jury if they had been given that option. It’s impossible to seat a jury of people who don’t use cellphones, and I would wager that a jury would be unhappy that a carrier would sell the data to track them 24/7. It’s easy to imagine that a jury would assess damages much larger than the FCC fines if these cases had instead gone straight to court.

It will be interesting to see what the carriers do if they win this case. Winning doesn’t take them off the hook for selling customer data, and the cases would likely be remanded back to the FCC to give the carriers the option for a jury trial. As silly as it sounds, I’m dubious that, even with a second chance, the carriers would choose the jury trial. Again, the real goal of the carriers in this case is to weaken the FCC’s options in future disputes.

It will be unfortunate if the Supreme Court sides with the carriers and hobbles the FCC’s ability to levy fines. The FCC typically fines regulated companies for two reasons, for failing to comply with FCC rules or for abusing the general public. The first type of fines is generally relatively small and the big fines are saved for companies engaged in abuse and fraud of the public. In a recent action, the FCC fined Telnyx LLC for allowing foreign scam robocalls into the U.S. telephone network.

Protecting the public is one of the major roles of a regulatory agency. A policy shift that makes it difficult or impossible to hold large corporations accountable for abuses against the public would be a terrible outcome.

The Regulatory Death Knell for Copper?

In March, the FCC issued an order in docket WC 25-209 and 25-208 that may signal the final regulatory death knell for telephone copper networks. The docket is titled Reducing Barriers to Network Improvements and Service Changes / Accelerating Network Modernization.

The stated purpose of the order is to speed up the transition from the TDM technology used in copper telephone networks to all IP-based networks used by fiber and other newer technologies. The secondary purpose of the docket is to override state regulations that are slowing down the transition away from copper networks.

The order comes in eight parts:

  1. Adopt one consolidated rule applicable to all efforts to discontinue services and applications, eliminating all prior rules.
  2. Give blanket authority to grandfather copper services, meaning telcos don’t have to accept new orders for these services.
  3. Allow ISPs to use technologies other than copper T1s to connect to 911 centers.
  4. Give carriers the right to discontinue wholesale products provisioned over copper.
  5. Create a 31-day automatic grant of a request to discontinue services.
  6. Clarify discontinuance requests to ensure they do not adversely affect the public.
  7. Revise the rules applicable to emergency discontinuance of services during and after disasters.
  8. Eliminate redundant rules and regulations related to discontinuing services.

In probably the most consequential part of the order, the FCC is preempting all state laws and processes that hinder telcos from decommissioning copper networks.

Taken as a whole, these new rules greatly reduce the paperwork involved with decommissioning copper networks and related services, which should speed up the stated intent of the big telcos to get out of the copper business.

There are instant impacts on the public. Telcos no longer have to sell telephone service or DSL provided over copper lines. Somebody moving into a rural home with no cell service will no longer be able to count on buying a traditional telephone line.While the FCC order didn’t explicitly state it, this new requirement just killed the carrier of last resort responsibility for copper-based telcos.

The new FCC rules still retain the requirement that customers must be provided an alternative when their copper services are discontinued. However, under the new rules, a telco doesn’t have to provide the services if they can point to alternative from a different provider. I’m envisioning telcos telling the FCC and customers that the alternative is satellite broadband for voice and data – eliminating the need for the telco to provide an alternative.

One of the biggest concerns of discontinuing rural copper is connectivity to 911. A lot of rural residents still buy landlines to have a sure way to connect to 911. Consider the many people who live in rural areas with little or no cellular coverage. If these households don’t have broadband, either by choice or because of affordability, they will lose the ability to call 911. Even customers buying broadband do not automatically have connectivity to 911 through their broadband connection. Rural broadband customers have to buy an online VoIP product to be able to safely guarantee they can register their home address for identification to 911 through the broadband connection.

We’ve known this was coming for a long time, and the FCC just took the steps to make it quick and painless for telcos to walk away from copper, including in states like California that have still been enforcing copper regulations. It’s going to take a few more years for telcos to abandon copper. For example, AT&T has a goal of being out of the copper business by 2030. But this order makes it clear that the end of copper is on the horizon.

Supreme Court Rules on ISPs and Copyrights

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cox Communications in the longstanding lawsuit by Sony that sought to hold Cox liable for customers who download copyrighted material. The Court’s ruling was unanimous, which is a big win for ISPs. The Supreme Court went further and said that ISPs would only be liable if they intended for their service to be used for copyright infringement.

The Supreme Court’s ruling goes back to a 2018 lawsuit where Sony sued Cox when the ISP refused to disconnect customers who were reported to be downloading music. The record labels insisted that Cox should permanently disconnect any customer who engages in repeated copyright infringement. Cox argued this would turn ISPs into Internet policemen who would have to monitor and punish customers who engage in copyright infringement. That doesn’t just mean people who download copies of music, but could also apply to movies, games, books, pirated sports events, and copyrighted written materials. A Virginia Court agreed with the music labels and found Cox liable for both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and awarded the record companies an astonishing $1 billion in damages.

Cox appealed the ruling, and the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the penalties for vicarious infringement and vacated the $1 billion of damages. This was still a troublesome ruling for Cox because the company was still considered to be liable for contributory damages for actions taken by its customers.

ISPs would be in an uncomfortable position if the Court had ruled in favor of the music labels. ISPs don’t monitor customer usage because that would mean looking closely at everything that customers do. The music labels wanted Cox and other ISPs to react to complaints made by copyright holders. That might make sense in a perfect world, but complaints to ISPs rarely come directly from copyright holders. Instead, there is an entire industry that makes a living by issuing takedown requests for infringements of copyrighted materials.

The music companies expected Cox to cut off subscribers after only a few violations of copyright. The permanent loss of a customer would be a severe financial penalty for Cox. It would be a severe penalty for the public, where a household would lose broadband in a world where a lot of markets have only one realistic choice of fast broadband. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where a teenager or visitor to a home violates copyrights and gets the entire household disconnected from broadband. The music industry was trying to avoid the harder solution, which is to legally pursue and seek fines for people who violate copyright.

The ruling has wider implications than just for ISPs and record labels. Social media platforms are filled with news articles, video clips, and other copyrighted materials that users post. The Court’s ruling was an affirmation that companies are not liable for users who abuse online services by downloading or posting copyrighted material. Ultimately, the people who violate copyright should be held liable, regardless of how hard that is to implement.

This ruling doesn’t take online platforms off the hook for responding to takedown requests to block copyrighted materials. However, the ruling does lower the potential for copyright holders to seek huge dollar judgments against ISPs that refuse to act as copyright policemen.

WiFi Router Ban

The FCC issued a ban on March 23 on all consumer-grade routers made in foreign countries. A router is the device in your home that connects your ISP broadband to the WiFi that almost everybody uses to connect devices in the home. Businesses use routers to direct ISP broadband around the business on fiber or copper networks. The ban covers all new brands and models of routers except those that have been granted a Conditional Approval by the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security.

The ban comes after the White House convened an interagency group comprised of government security experts, which collectively decided that new routers made overseas “pose unacceptable risks to national security of the United States and the safety and security of United States persons”. There have been previous technology bans for security reasons, such as a ban on using software from Kaspersky Lab, and telecommunications services provided by China Telecom and China Mobile International USA. It’s worth noting that the FCC cannot decide to ban any equipment or service and can only do so if directed by national security agencies.

The ban noted that malicious actors have exploited security gaps in foreign-made routers to attack households, disrupt networks, engage in espionage, and steal intellectual property. The notice says that foreign-made routers were involved in cyberattacks from Volt, Flax, and Salt Typhoon.

The ban does not stop consumers from using existing routers. It doesn’t stop retailers from selling existing stocks of routers or from continuing to buy routers that previously have been approved by the FCC’s equipment authorization process. All that is blocked is any new models or generations of routers.

Router manufacturers can petition the DoD or DHS for conditional approval, which would allow them to apply to the FCC for equipment authorization for new routers. There are no manufacturers today that have this conditional approval.

It’s hard to know where this ban will lead, but this could become a big concern for ISPs, since most ISPs provide a WiFi router for new customers. Many cable companies and fiber builders build the router into the modem. Any ISP that is currently using a router that has not been approved by the FCC is in trouble, because according to this ban, they can’t give an unauthorized router to a new customer. Every ISP should be checking this week to make sure the routers they are providing have been blessed by the FCC.

This has longer-term implications since virtually all routers are made overseas, including those made by American companies like TP-Link, which manufactures its routers in Vietnam. Manufacturers routinely upgrade and improve routers every few years, and American ISPs will be stuck with older routers if the government doesn’t approve any new brands or models of routers.

One unspoken intent of the order is probably to promote the manufacture of routers in the U.S. I have to wonder if an American-made router would be any less susceptible to hacking than a foreign-made one. If not, I’m not sure what this ban will accomplish, other than making it more expensive to get routers. It will be interesting to see if any router companies move manufacturing to the U.S. due to this ruling. A more likely outcome might be that American consumers won’t be able to get some of the newest routers that are available to the rest of the world.

States Addressing Affordability

I recently wrote a blog about the new legislation approved in New Mexico that will fund a low-income program similar to the now-defunct federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). The New Mexico program provides a subsidy of up to $30 per month to help qualified households afford a home broadband connection. The new LITAP program is being funded by a monthly surcharge of around $1.50 added to telephone, VoIP, and cellular bills.

State legislatures across the country are recognizing that good broadband adoption is vital for a robust economy and have tackled or are considering plans to make broadband more affordable.

In June of last year, the Oregon legislature passed HB 3148, which strengthens support for low-income broadband customers. The legislation increased the monthly subsidy for low-income households for broadband from $10 to $15 per month. On Tribal lands, the subsidy is increasing to $40. When added to the federal Lifeline subsidy, residents get a total reduction of broadband bills of $24.95. The program also allows a one-time subsidy of $100 to help low-income households buy a computer or tablet.

Like in New Mexico, the Oregon program is funded through the Oregon Telephone Assistance Program (OTAP), which is funded from the existing Residential Services Protection Fund (RSPF) that is supported by surcharges on retail telecommunications bills. All ISPs in the state are required to participate in the plan.

California also has a new low-income broadband plan. The California LifeLine Home Broadband Pilot Program is a three-year program designed to make home broadband more affordable. The program officially launched on January 26 of this year.

The California program offers a $20 discount for qualified homes to help pay for standalone broadband. The subsidy is $30 if used for a bundle of broadband and telephone service. The program also covers up to $39 to cover the installation cost of enrolling with an ISP. The California program is also funded by surcharges on customer bills through the California Lifeline program.

The Connecticut legislature also passed legislation that implements a plan in reaction to the end of the federal ACP plan and that creates affordable broadband for qualified low-income households. Connecticut took a different approach from the other states and is mandating that ISPs offer at least one affordable plan for low-income households.

The Net Equality Program requires ISPs to offer a broadband plan to eligible households for a rate of $40 that must deliver speeds of at least 100/5 Mbps for the first year of the plan and 100/20 Mbps after that. The plan goes into effect this month on a voluntary basis and becomes mandatory for ISPs by October 1 of this year. The $40 rate can be adjusted annually by the rate of inflation. The program is administered by the Office of Consumer Counsel.

If Congress is unwilling to tackle broadband affordability, then states will have to step up. I have to think other states are discussing the topic, and I’d love to hear from folks about other efforts.