Tag Archives: FCC

AT&T v. California

AT&T filed several petitions at the FCC asking the Commission to override regulations from the State of California. The State is forcing AT&T to maintain copper networks until such time that AT&T can offer the same services to customers using some alternate technology.

The FCC reacted by issuing two requests for public comments related to the AT&T petitions. In the first, the FCC asks for comments related to its ability to preempt California’s regulations related to copper networks. The second asks for public comments related to AT&T being able to walk away from carrier-of-last-resort responsibilities in California as it tears down copper networks.

These proceedings ask some interesting questions, although my hunch is that the FCC already plans to preempt California on these issues and is only going through the formalities first.

One interesting issue raised is whether the FCC can grab regulatory authority from a State. The historic framework for telecom regulation has always been that States are free to regulate anything that the FCC elects not to directly regulate. Back when AT&T was the primary telephone company, every state had numerous regulations related to telephone companies. The FCC established the big nationwide rules, often dictated by Congress, but the States were free to regulate anything the FCC didn’t directly regulate. This usually meant issues like consumer rates and customer service practices. As competition was introduced into the telecom market, AT&T and the various Bell companies were successful in convincing most states to relax regulations, and in some case telcos became almost totally unregulated. California eased some regulations, but still maintains a lot of regulation of telcos. It will be interesting to see how hard California will fight back if the FCC overrides the state’s regulatory authority.

Another interesting request is for AT&T to get out of carrier-of-last resort (COLR) obligations. The petition describes this as AT&T being relieved of ETC status (Eligible Communications Carrier), which is the formal process where states certified companies with COLR status. COLR is an obligation originally created by the Communications Act of 1934, and expanded by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which said that regulated telcos are required to serve customers located inside their regulated service areas, with only a few exceptions related to customers in remote locations. Telcos have been obligated to connect new customers to the existing networks and to build new networks to meet new homes and businesses. This feels like a quaint concept today, and it’s one of the first things that disappeared as states deregulated telephone companies. I find it interesting that many telcos still have ETC designations and use that status to receive various kinds of universal service funding while only playing lip service, at best, to carrier-of-last-resort obligations. The real question being asked in the FCC proceeding is whether the agency has the authority to override any COLR obligation required by California.

I have to think that AT&T has already been ignoring this obligation for years in California. I recall news stories of AT&T discontinuing rural copper services in rural California with little or no notification to customers. I have to think that it’s been a long time since AT&T has built any new copper infrastructure to reach newly constructed homes and neighborhoods. But there are other obligations related to COLR and ETC status that AT&T would like to have preempted.

It’s going to be interesting to see who, other than regulators in California, responds to these dockets. These particular issues are largely already dead in most of the rest of the country, although some states still maintain greater levels of regulation over telcos than others.

These dockets don’t address the even bigger question, which is whether the state or federal government should be regulating telephone service at all. I think everybody is in favor of the FCC’s efforts to tamp down on robocalls and texts, but how much other regulation of traditional telephone companies is still needed?

Proposed Changes to E-Rate

The FCC announced in April it would be taking a fresh look at all aspects of the Universal Service Fund (USF). The agency recently kicked off this process for the E-Rate program by issuing a combined Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

E-Rate is the Universal Service Fund program that subsidizes broadband for schools that have the highest percentage of students who qualify for the federal school lunch program. E-Rate also brings broadband to libraries. The program has been in effect since 1997. In recent years, E-Rate has disbursed around $2.5 billion annually to subsidize broadband bills. There are over 101,500 schools and 11,600 libraries served by the program.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asks for public feedback on some fundamental questions about the existing program. The FCC asks if E-Rate is still meeting the original intent and asks if the program should be narrowed in scope or even ended. The FCC notes that when E-Rate was created, most schools did not have broadband access, but virtually all schools are connected to fiber broadband today. As an aside, I wrote a blog last year that noted that a large percentage of schools now need a lot more than one gigabit of broadband, with many schools now needing 5- to 10-gigabit service.

Most of the NPRM asks questions related to students’ use of broadband. Probably the most controversial question in the NPRM asks if the FCC should somehow try to limit screen time for students. The FCC cites some statistics that say that children ages 5- 8 average about three and a half hours per day of screen time. For students ages eight to twelve, the average is about five and a half hours daily. Finally, teens spend an average of eight hours per day using a screen. The FCC cites an expert who recommends that children five years and older should be limited to no more than two hours per day of screen time.

The FCC asks if it should intervene to try to limit screen time inside schools that receive E-Rate. It’s an interesting question, and I suspect there will be parents who welcome this. When reading the document, it’s easy to think the FCC is leaning towards ordering this. I have a hard time understanding how this is within the FCC’s jurisdiction. The E-Rate rules from Congress give the FCC instructions to make sure schools have adequate broadband, but didn’t give any authority over how schools or students should use broadband. In a related question, the FCC asks if parents should be allowed to opt out of having their children use computers in school. I’m sure teachers are shuddering at the possibility of having a mix of students with and without computers in every class.

The NPRM also asks about stricter regulations to make sure that students with school-supplied computers cannot access harmful information on the web, both when using devices in the school and when taking the devices home. This is a requirement that’s been around since the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which was enacted in 1999. Apparently, the FCC is hearing of examples of students able to bypass restrictions on computers.

In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC is tackling the issue of better regulating E-Rate consultants. This is due to some recent headlines where consultants defrauded schools and the E-Rate fund. The FCC is suggesting an annual disclosure and certification of E-Rate consultants.

In addition to these proposals, the FCC recently separately suggested that E-Rate service move to a portal operated by USAC, where ISPs could competitively bid to serve E-Rate schools.

New Rules for FCC Maps

At the end of April, the FCC released a Report and Order and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to its broadband mapping processes. There are no earth-shattering changes in the order and this is part of the ongoing process of finetuning the FCC broadband maps.

The following are the changes that were ordered:

  • The FCC ordered that the definition of broadband be the same for the BDC map collection process as the Form 477 process where ISPs and carriers report customers. Currently, there are some types of customers included in the BDC maps that are not included on the Form 477.
  • The FCC is eliminating the process, where an ISP or carrier must be notified of challenges to the map fabric and given a chance to respond. The map fabric is the database of potential customer locations. Eliminating this extra step will hopefully speed up the process of implementing challenges to the fabric.
  • The FCC shifted the responsibility to the FCC staff (or its mapping vendor) to remove demonstrably bad data from the BDC maps rather than requiring the ISP or carrier to make changes.

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC asked for feedback from the industry on a number of questions:

  • The FCC asks about changing the map restoration This is the process where ISPs or carriers can reenter data into the FCC maps that was removed due to map challenges or other FCC actions. We now know that a lot of changes were made to the maps as a result of the BEAD map challenges, and the FCC is asking if there can be a simpler process for ISPs or carriers to fix the maps.
  • The FCC asks if it should eliminate the requirement for ISPs to report “grandfathered” broadband coverage, meaning locations where maximum download speeds are slower than 25 Mbps.
  • The FCC also asks about eliminating the requirement to report 3G cellular coverage.
  • The FCC asks if the rules for fixed wireless reporting should be changed when reporting the ‘buffer size’, which is the maximum distance an ISP wants to claim to be able to provide service from a tower site.
  • The FCC asks if it should change or relax the assumption that fixed wireless providers should assume the height of a customer receiver at a height no higher than 7 meters.
  • The FCC currently requires BDC providers to retain all of the backup for reported data for three years, and it asks if that should be something different.
  • The FCC is seeking comments on changes that would speed up and streamline the map challenge process. There are questions related to individual map challenges, bulk challenges, and crowdsourced challenges.
  • The FCC asks if there are needed changes to the mobile verification and audit processes.
  • Finally, the FCC asks if certain kinds of data should automatically be considered to be confidential, rather than requiring ISPs and carriers to seek confidentiality with each data submittal.

Are Broadband Prices Dropping?

The FCC recently asked for comments in Docket 26-78, which is the latest iteration of its biennial report to Congress that looks at the State of Competition in the Communications Marketplace. Various industry players provided input to the FCC on issues related to competition and pricing for broadband and cellular service, with fewer caring about voice and cable service.

One of the issues widely discussed in this year’s filing is broadband prices. Some of the big ISPs continue to assert that broadband prices are dropping. For example, USTelecom refers to a report it generated that asserts that Internet prices have fallen for the eleventh straight year. I’ve written about the annual USTelecom reports before, and a big part of their assertion comes from looking at the price over time of the cost per megabit of speed being sold. On that basis, prices are dropping, mostly because ISPs have been increasing the speeds being delivered at a faster pace than prices.

One set of comments came from the Benton Institute, which described the issue perfectly. They cite the example that the price for 200 Mbps was around $50 in 2021. Many ISPs have unilaterally increased speeds without increasing price, and the average price for 400 Mbps in 2025 was also around $50. While the cost per megabit cut in half, customers are still paying $50.

Of course, ISPs don’t sell, and consumers don’t buy broadband by the megabit. Benton made a humorous observation on the big ISP’s focus on cost per megabit. Benton cites a USTelecom comment that the price per megabit for gigabit service is around 7 cents per megabit, or $70 per month. If USTelecom members are happy with that price, then why aren’t they applying that price to slower products so that 200 Mbps would cost $14 per month?

Perhaps the best discussion of prices in the docket comes from a study by John P. Horrigan, PhD, which is attached to the Benton comments. Horrigan takes a neutral look at prices and found that the weighted average for all broadband products increased by 4.8% from 2024 to 2025. Horrigan found that broadband prices for products slower than gigabit declined 8.5% from 2024 to 2025, with prices increasing for faster products.

Horrigan found that low-price options are disappearing from the market. When the ACP plan was operating, 9% pf broadband being sold was priced at $30 or less. He says this fell to just 3% of the market in 2025. This also holds true for plans with slower speeds. In 2022, 57% of consumers were buying Internet at a speed of 100 Mbps or less. In 2025, that has dropped to 32% of the market.

While the Benton Institute comments hint at it, I think most other comments in the docket are missing the bigger picture. Customers are choosing to migrate to lower-cost broadband options. One doesn’t have to look any further than the phenomenal success of FWA cellular. Since 2022, 16.5 million customers have subscribed to FWA cellular. While some of these customers live in rural areas where FWA is the only fast broadband option, I think a vast majority of these folks choose FWA to save money. The list prices for FWA home broadband are in the $50-$60 dollar range. However, there are big discounts for bundling with cellular service and for using autopay, and it’s possible to buy FWA home broadband for as little as $20-$30 per month.

Any analysis that just looks at prices for specific speeds over time will account for folks willing to take less speed for a lower bill. The big ISPs don’t want to talk about this, but there is no other way to discuss the huge success of FWA without talking about customers self-selecting lower prices.

How Good is Rural Cellular Coverage – Part II

Yesterday’s blog looked at AT&T cellular coverage in a typical rural county in Illinois and included the following map. The map shows where AT&T can provide 5G coverage in a moving vehicle in the dark areas, and where somebody standing stationary outdoors could get a 5G signal in the lighter colored areas.

Let’s look at the maps for the other two major carriers in the same areas. The first map below is T-Mobile, and the second is Verizon.

These maps show typical coverage. The two carriers support 5G in moving vehicles in and close to towns and cities. The light colored areas are where somebody standing outdoors can likely get a 5G signal. An indoor cellular coverage map would likely not be a lot larger than the dark areas.

Taken altogether, these maps show a typical rural story of cellular coverage. Cell carriers rarely share towers, and each carrier is on different towers and has different coverage. All three carriers have areas where they have no 5G coverage, and somebody subscribed to any one carrier in this county would find a lot of dead zones. All three carriers have little or no coverage in the northwest sector. These maps show something that every rural delivery driver knows – to work in rural America means carrying multiple cellphones subscribed to different carriers.

When Chairman Carr says that 96.8% of households have 5G coverage, we have to put that into perspective. Over 80% of Americans live in cities and suburbs and likely have good cell coverage. Another substantial percentage live in smaller towns that happen to have at least one cell tower. In this particular county, 60% of people live in incorporated towns and villages, meaning there are a lot of rural residents.

What’s the point of these two blogs? The FCC considers this County to have good 5G coverage. That assumption comes largely from looking at the combined coverage of the three carriers shown for somebody standing stationary outdoors. The light colored areas of the three maps combined cover most of the county.

If the FCC ever decides to finally launch the 5G Fund for Rural America, this county will likely not be a candidate for a grant to build new cell towers. That’s unfortunate, because I estimate that 30% of the residents of this county would say they have poor cellular coverage. They will say that they don’t have good coverage indoors, and no matter which carrier they subscribe to, they hit dead spots when they drive around the county. The FCC’s assertion that 96.8% of homes have good 5G coverage can be supported by the FCC maps – but those maps don’t show the reality of the way that people judge cellular coverage.

How Good is Rural Cellular Coverage – Part I

The FCC has opened a docket that periodically looks at ways to improve the FCC’s broadband and cellular maps. As part of that docket, Chairman Brendan Carr issued the following statement: On the mobile side, 96.8 percent of locations have access to mobile 5G services of at least 7/1 Mbps.

To put that into perspective, there are roughly 116.7 million total passings counted in the FCC maps, and the Chairman is saying that all except 3.7 million have good access to 5G. The Chairman’s statement can be supported by the FCC cellular maps, but I think the reality in rural areas is far different than what is shown on the maps. I’m not saying that the FCC maps are a lie – because I think it’s likely that the maps represent what the FCC asked carriers to report. But I think the maps tell a different story than what Chairman Carr is pushing, and I don’t think anywhere near 96.8% of folks in the country would say they have good cellular coverage.

Let’s look at the FCC maps for 5G coverage in an actual county in Illinois. I didn’t pick this county because it doesn’t have good cell coverage. The coverage in the counties around it would all tell the same story. One thing to note about this county is that there are homes located in all parts of the county – the areas with no coverage on these maps are not parklands or forests.

The following map shows AT&T 5G coverage from the FCC cellular maps. The FCC asks carriers to show coverage in two ways. The darker orange areas are where AT&T claims that 5G coverage will work in a moving vehicle. The lighter areas are where AT&T says that a customer can receive 5G when standing stationary outdoors. AT&T is claiming no 5G coverage in the gray areas.

This AT&T map is typical of rural cell coverage. Cell towers are located roughly in the center of the dark-colored areas, and those areas mostly covering towns and cities. Anybody who understands cellular technology understands that speeds drop quickly with distance from a cell site. The cellular download data speeds at the center of the dark areas could easily be as fast as 300 Mbps. But within two miles of a tower, speeds drop to around 25 Mbps. 5G speeds and coverage in the light-colored areas are a lot slower and spottier, and as you get to the outer parts of the light-colored areas, farthest from the towers, it’s likely that somebody would have to move around in their yard to find the sweet spot where they could make a call.

What this map doesn’t measure, and the FCC doesn’t ask about, is indoor cellular coverage. It’s a general rule of thumb that indoor speeds are roughly half of outdoor speeds. You can easily test this by taking an outdoor cellular speed test and then an indoor test away from a window (turn off your WiFi). If the carriers were to map expected indoor cellular coverage, the areas with indoor coverage would be a lot smaller than the light-colored areas shown for outdoor coverage.

When you ask a rural resident what good cell coverage means, they will define it as working in their home and working in their car. With that definition, AT&T doesn’t have great 5G coverage in the county for people who live or drive outside the dark circles.

Tomorrow’s blog will compare AT&T’s coverage to T-Mobile and Verizon to show the overall picture of cell coverage in this county.

Sunsetting the High Cost Fund

SpaceX recently filed comments in the FCC’s open docket looking at the Universal Service Fund (USF) with a recommendation that the FCC should sunset the High-Cost Fund and eventually eliminate it. This is one of the four major components of USF, with an annual budget of $4.5 billion.

SpaceX argues that Starlink has now solved rural broadband connectivity issues with ubiquitous broadband available throughout the country. SpaceX argues that ongoing subsidy payments to support rural voice and broadband networks are no longer needed.

To put the SpaceX comments into perspective, let me start by reviewing the stated goals of the High Cost Fund:

  • Preserve and advance universal availability of voice service.
  • Drive universal availability of modern networks capable of providing voice and broadband service to homes, businesses, and community anchor institutions.
  • Drive universal availability of modern networks capable of providing advanced mobile voice and broadband service.
  • Ensure that rates for broadband and voice services are reasonably comparable in all regions of the nation.
  • Contain administrative costs and minimize the universal service contribution for consumers and businesses through efficient, effective program management.

The High-Cost Fund is the home to a multitude of different subsidy programs:

  • It’s the home of six different Connect America (ACAM) funding mechanisms.
  • This fund is still making the annual subsidy payments for RDOF, which were spread over ten years.
  • The fund has separate funds to support Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.
  • The fund includes the Mobility Fund that pays subsidies to cellular carriers that operate in very rural markets.
  • There are also legacy funds that provide subsidies to regulated telcos operating in high-cost markets.

SpaceX’s recommendation to sunset the various programs refers to the fact that many of the subsidy programs will expire if not renewed. For example, RDOF payments end after the tenth year of payments.

This is not a surprising recommendation. SpaceX and Starlink have been claiming in other forums that satellite broadband technology has solved the universal service problem and that everybody in the U.S. now has access to broadband. That’s been a problematic argument to some extent, since Ookla has been reporting a lot of Starlink speed tests below the FCC’s definition of broadband of 100/20 Mbps. Ookla reported earlier this year that average Starlink speeds had exceeded the 100 Mbps download test and recently reported that Starlink is close to meeting the uplink speed threshold.

However, there is still one troubling aspect of declaring Starlink to be a universal solution everywhere, which is the affordability issue. It’s hard to argue that a product priced at $120 per month, and which requires the purchase of the receiver, is affordable for low-income households. However, there has been no federal effort to define an affordable broadband rate. In the early days of BEAD, before the Benefit of the Bargain changes, various State Broadband Offices around the country were considering a definition of affordable rates between $30 and $50.

There has been a lot of criticism of some of the High-Cost Fund programs over the years. I wrote many times about the ludicrous billions of dollars paid to the largest telcos in the CAF II program that required that rural broadband speeds be increased to 10/1 Mbps – with payments that started months before the FCC raised the definition of broadband to 25/3 Mbps. But there has also been a lot of demonstrable benefits from some of the programs. You don’t have to look much further than the fiber networks built by numerous rural electric cooperatives that were jump-started with the RDOF subsidy.

Abandoned Rural Calls

I’m hearing an increasing number of stories from rural ISPs and telcos about voice calls that are not completing to their customers. People place a call to customers on a rural network and give up when they don’t hear the phone ringing at the receiving end of the call in a reasonable amount of time. The industry term for this phenomenon is an abandoned call, which generally occurs when the caller assumes the call didn’t work.

You might assume that this means that something is wrong with the PSTN (public switched telephone network) that is stopping calls from being completed. That would be a huge problem, and one that would also affect calls made to urban areas. From what I’m hearing, this is strictly a rural problem. The telephone environment has changed a lot over the years. Telephone calls today originate from a dizzying array of different sources. While people can still make phone calls from landline telephones and cellphones, they can also place calls from numerous online platforms, applications, and devices.

I think it is far more likely that this is happening for financial reasons and is related to the fees charged to terminate long-distance calls. Rural carriers still charge a fee, called an access charge, to terminate a long-distance call made into their local network. Access charges were created in 1983 when the FCC approved Part 69 rules that were put into place after the divestiture of AT&T into several regional Baby Bell telephone companies, with AT&T remaining as a long-distance company. Access charges were the mechanism by which long-distance companies compensated the telcos that owned the local infrastructure needed to reach customers and complete long-distance calls.

Access charges were originally fairly expensive, and I recall access charges in 1984 being around five cents per minute, even in some of the Bell companies. That may sound high, but at that time, most long-distance rates ranged between twelve and fifty cents per minute. Over time, The FCC forced a series of drastic reductions in access charge rates, and today the rate to terminate a call in urban areas is at, or just barely above, zero. The cost to terminate a call in most rural areas has been reduced to a small fraction of a penny per minute. Most people probably think that long-distance call are a thing of the past since they no longer pay by the minute to call, but long-distance is still very much real, and companies like cellular carriers charge customers a flat rate to cover the cost of the calls.

I think the resurgence of abandoned calls is due to least-cost routing. Anybody company with customers who originate calls, be that a telco, cable company, VoIP provider, or some online app, must pay to have that call terminated at the other end. This has historically been done by using long-distance carriers that carry the call between the call originator and the called party. However, there is an industry segment that few people know about. There are a lot of companies generically referred to as intermediate carriers that provide the function of carrying calls between carriers.

That’s where least-cost routing comes in. Long-distance companies use real-time software to determine the lowest cost to get a call completed. The long-distance carrier might deliver many of the calls using its own network. But it will hand calls off to an intermediate carrier that charges less than its own cost to complete the call. I think the dropped calls are happening because intermediate carriers also have least-cost tables, and they also hand off some calls to another intermediate carrier if that saves them money. This process is automated, and it’s possible for a call to be handed off multiple times to different intermediate carriers. Each transfer between carriers takes time, and the customer making the call abandons the call when nothing is happening.

The phenomenon of abandoned calls to rural areas is not new. This was an issue in 2017, and the FCC implemented rules from the Improving Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2017 (RCC). Those rules did not forbid using multiple carriers to route a call, but established regulations to ensure reliability and accountability, particularly to prevent rural call completion issues. In those rules, the originating carriers were held responsible for making sure that calls are completed. The rules required intermediate carriers that touch calls to be registered with the FCC, and it was forbidden to hand calls to an unregistered carrier.

The FCC needs to deal with this issue again, because something has broken down. There might be new, unregistered carriers in the mix. Or maybe AI is now involved and is making poor routing decisions. But it’s a problem that must be fixed. If not, rural residents won’t be able to receive calls, and rural businesses will be at a huge disadvantage.

Restart on Digital Discrimination Rules

On May 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the FCC’s digital discrimination rules. The discrimination rules were required by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The FCC took an interesting approach to the issue and defined discrimination in two ways. The FCC prohibited intentional discrimination – meaning that ISPs can’t have policies and practices that are clearly intended to discriminate against any portion of the public. The FCC also prohibited disparate discrimination, which measures discrimination by looking at the results of ISP practices in the market rather than trying to judge the intentions of ISPs.

As was expected for almost all FCC orders these days, ISPs quickly banded together and sued to stop the FCC order. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce brought the first suit in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in January on behalf of big ISPs like AT&T, Charter, Comcast, T-Mobile, and Verizon. Twenty industry groups like NCTA, WISPA, ACA Connects, and US Telecom entered the fray, and the suits were eventually joined into one case in the Eighth Circuit.

The ISP industry threw a number of arguments against the wall, hoping one would stick. The primary complaint was that Congress didn’t intend to impose a disparate discrimination test, and that disparate discrimination is rarely applied anywhere in the regulatory world. The ISPs also argued that the FCC violated the major questions doctrine with its ruling. This concept was based on recent Supreme Court rulings that prohibit federal agencies from adopting regulations that have “vast economic and political significance” without clear authorization from Congress. ISPs argued that the FCC went further in its discrimination rules than was specifically authorized by Congress. Finally, ISPs said the ruling was too widely applied, and should only have been applied to last-mile ISPs, while the FCC rules applied to a wider market, such as MDU owners who provide broadband in their buildings.

The Court made a number of rulings. It said the FCC had overreached its authority since Congress had not explicitly allowed a disparate discrimination test. The Court also ruled that the FCC had exceeded its authority by applying the discrimination rules to entities other than last-mile ISPs.

The Court completely vacated the FCC’s 2023 discrimination order, which means it is the same as if it didn’t exist. The FCC is still obligated by the IIJA to implement discrimination rules, so we can expect the FCC to restart the process. Any new FCC proposed rules will undoubtedly acknowledge the Court rulings.

The natural question to ask is what the court order means in the market. There should be little immediate impact since the FCC’s 2023 discrimination rules never went into effect when they were immediately challenged in court.

There will be repercussions since the Court considerably weakened the 2023 FCC order by only allowing the intentional discrimination test. It seems likely that it will be nearly impossible to prove that an ISP intentionally discriminated against some subset of customers. The proof would have to be some sort of written documentation or public statement that proves the ISP’s intention to discriminate. The Court eliminated the disparate discrimination test, which is basically an “if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck” test. That’s the kind of test that has routinely been applied to housing discrimination complaints, as was ordered by the Fair Housing Act. The revised rules will also let landlords off the hook since they will not be subject to broadband discrimination complaints.

Satellite Update April 2026

There is so much news and activity in the satellite sector that I find myself gathering a pile of news items each month. Here are some of the highlights from April.

Amazon Entering Direct-to-Device Market. Amazon announced it has signed an agreement to buy Globalstar for $10.8 billion. Globalstar is one of the early leaders in developing technology for providing direct-to-device services to smartphones and other devices. Globalstar currently has about two dozen satellites in orbit.

Jeff Bezos Enters the Space Data Center Race. Jeff Bezos’s rocket company Blue Origin has applied to the FCC to launch a data center in space. The application asks for approval to launch 51,600 satellites that would constitute a huge AI data center. The company argues that a data center in space will complement terrestrial data centers and will give the U.S. the edge in machine learning, autonomous systems, and predictive analytics. The satellites would be placed between 300 and 1,100 miles above Earth, with most of them higher than broadband satellites. This announcement follows a proposal from SpaceX and Elon Musk to put a million data center satellites in space.

Growing Feud Between SpaceX and Amazon Leo. We’re seeing a budding regulatory rivalry between the two American broadband satellite companies. It seems that both SpaceX and Amazon Leo file comments about anything filed by its rival at the FCC. Earlier this month, SpaceX filed comments at the FCC complaining that Amazon Leo is violating the FCC’s orbital space debris mitigation plans. SpaceX claims that Amazon Leo placed several satellites 90 kilometers higher than authorized by the FCC. In a similar complaint, Amazon LEO accused SpaceX of placing satellites too low into its authorized space. Both companies have made negative comments on the other’s plans to create a satellite-based AI data center in space.

Will Starlink Honor BEAD? A group of House Democrats sent a letter to the NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth that raises concerns that SpaceX might not meet its BEAD obligations. The letter was prompted by letters sent by SpaceX to various state broadband offices that said the company doesn’t want to comply with various BEAD reporting requirements. The legislators fear that Starlink will walk away from BEAD, leaving locations with no broadband alternative (although these customers can buy satellite broadband regardless of the BEAD grants).

Failed Satellite Launch. A Blue Origin rocket failed to place a satellite for AST Space Mobile into the proper orbit, and the satellite had to be de-orbited. It was expected that insurance would be used to recover the cost of the lost satellite.

Amazon Leo to Launch Service in Mid-2026? The company said earlier this month that it is still planning to begin offering broadband service by mid-2026. That seems like an extraordinary claim since the company still had around 240 satellites in orbit as of the date of this blog. By comparison, Starlink had almost 900 satellites in service when it began beta tests with customers. At the time, the beta test customers described noticeable gaps in coverage between satellites. What’s most interesting about the announcement is that Amazon has asked the FCC for a two-year delay in meeting the full deployment obligation for its first constellation of over 3,200 satellites.

Environmental Protesters. Residents who live close to SpaceX’s Starbase launch site recently protested during a meeting centered on SpaceX’s planned IPO. The residents of the area complained about the repeated vibrations and pollution caused by regular rocket launches, along with concern about possible fires set in the arid South Texas landscape.

Denied Spectrum Sharing. The FCC recently denied requests from multiple satellite companies that wanted to share in spectrum bands already being used by other entities. As an example of the rejection, SpaceX had asked to share in the 1.5 GHz, 1.6/2.4 GHz, and 2 GHz bands. Other satellite companies had asked to share other spectrum bands. The FCC rejection said these requests were premature and that the agency needs to revise the way it allocates spectrum to accommodate direct-to-device service.