A look at the new FCC strategic plan compared to the previous plan

Posted on by
Reply

Benton Institute for Broadband & Society does a nice comparison to the current and most recent FCC strategic plans…

Every few years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) tells Congress and the public what it intends to do with its authority. The agency’s strategic plan is not a rulemaking and creates no legal obligations, but it is the framework around which the FCC builds its annual performance plan and budget request to Congress. The strategic plan also serves as the yardstick against which the agency’s own annual performance reports—and outside overseers like the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)—measure whether the FCC did what it said it would do.

The FCC’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2026–2030, issued July 6, 2026, deserves a close read alongside the plan it replaces—the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2022–2026, which has been pulled down from the FCC’s website. Read side by side, the two documents describe two very different agencies. The 2022 plan, created when Jessica Rosenworcel served as FCC Chairwoman, organized the FCC around bringing “affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband to 100 percent of the country,” with universal service, equity, and consumer protection as pillars. The 2026 plan organizes the FCC around Chairman Brendan Carr’s “Build America Agenda,” with spectrum auctions, deregulation, and national security as pillars—and with affordability, low-income Americans, and digital equity almost entirely absent from the text.

For state broadband officials administering federally funded deployment programs, the new plan signals how the FCC intends to use its maps, its coordination role, and its permitting authority over the next five years. For digital equity practitioners, the plan confirms that the FCC no longer organizes itself around affordability and retains an adoption metric without any strategy behind it. For researchers and policymakers, the plan’s performance metrics—far more specific and quantified than in the prior plan—will define what “success” means in the agency’s own annual reporting through 2030. And for anyone tracking the constitutional status of independent agencies, the new plan contains a quiet but significant change in how the FCC describes itself.

The article goes on to detail specifics, from different perspectives.

U of M Extension creates AI video to spoof cover crop research

Posted on by
Reply

Back when I did more training on how to assess information on the Internet, I would often use an example from a Minnesota university that was a website that featured a mythical town outside of Mankato where, due to geological anomalies, the weather never went below 70 degrees. It got a lot of attention in 1996 as a great example of “not everything you read online it true.” So, I was tickled to see that University of Minnesota Extension has taken up a similar project in the new era of AI. Ag Week reports…

A YouTube video titled “Scientists Tested 41 Cover Crop Mixes for 6 Years” claims a University of Minnesota research team ran a six-season trial and found one three-species cover crop mix that outperformed every other combination by 210%. The 49-minute video, posted May 6 by a channel called Soil & Centuries, says the team tracked nitrogen transfer rates, mycorrhizal network density and weed suppression across hundreds of thousands of data points.

None of it happened. The study does not exist.

University of Minnesota Extension educators said the video is artificial intelligence “slop” — fabricated content built to draw clicks and advertising revenue. They have reported it, and commented on it, but it’s still up. As of mid-July, the video had more than 36,000 views. It had roughly 11,000 when Extension educators first learned of it.

Here’s the video:

Lino Lakes City Council holds preliminary discussion on data centers (Anoka County)

Posted on by
Reply

Quad Community Press reports…

The Lino Lakes City Council recently held a preliminary discussion about the possibility of exploring policy options related to data centers within the city’s commercial and industrial zoning districts.

The idea for the preliminary discussion was brought forward by Council Member Randy Rennaker.

“We don’t want to be a position where the tail is wagging the dog,” Rennaker said. “Right now, we have the ability to look at this from a broad view and, perhaps, put things in place where we can decide what we want to have on property in our city.”

A heads up to folks in the areas. And a different kind of heads up to communities in a similar position.

Kenyon Leader looks at local leaders’ thoughts on data centers

Posted on by
Reply

The Kenyon Leader posts views from several local elected officials on data centers…

Data centers have become one of the most contentious issues across the nation, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle raising concerns about water use, energy consumption and transparency as more projects are proposed across southern Minnesota.

Rep. Keith Allen (R-Kenyon) said he has heard a wide range of perspectives from constituents. Some see data centers as an economic development opportunity that can bring investment and expand the local tax base, while others have raised questions about energy demand, water usage, land use and the long-term impact on communities.

Here are abbreviated views, with the caveat that the article flashes them out more…

From Rep. Keith Allen (R-Kenyon)

Regarding the Faribault project, which is currently paused following a Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling, Allen said it is important to respect the judicial process and allow the legal issues to work their way through the courts.

“More broadly, I think communities deserve transparency and meaningful opportunities for input when projects of this scale are proposed,” Allen said. “At the same time, Minnesota should remain competitive for investment and economic growth. The challenge is finding the right balance between development, local concerns and economic opportunity.”

From Sen. Bill Lieske (R-Lonsdale)

The biggest concerns, Lieske said, are energy consumption and water consumption. Higher energy demand can lead to higher energy costs as utilities build new infrastructure to keep up, while water use raises questions about impacts on private wells and nearby waterways.

From Lonsdale Mayor Tom Berg

Lonsdale Mayor Tom Berg testified in front of the Legislature earlier this year to advocate in support of making it illegal for public officials to sign NDAs.

From Rep. Kristi Pursell (DFL-Northfield)

Rep. Kristi Pursell (DFL-Northfield) said she has focused on water usage because of her expertise in that area, as the former executive director of Clean River Partners. She noted that data centers have been “deeply unpopular” in Farmington, where residents have organized against a proposed project.

Planners share proposed data center development application with City of Monticello

Posted on by
Reply

The Monticello Times reports…

For months, Monticello residents have debated what a proposed data center might mean for the community. Now they can finally see what the developer is planning.

Monticello Tech LLC submitted its long-awaited development application Monday, and the city released the application package publicly Wednesday.

Hundreds of pages of applications, engineering reports and technical studies outline a campus of up to 3 million square feet spread across as many as eight buildings on roughly 547 acres south of 85th Street NE and east of Highway 25.

If approved, the project would be supported by nearly $46 million in new infrastructure improvements, years of phased construction and an extensive public review process before construction could begin.

While many details remain conceptual and will be refined through future site plan review, the application materials outline the campus’s anticipated size, infrastructure needs, water and power demands, environmental impacts and long-term development timeline.

Here are some of the details…

If fully built, the campus could encompass up to 3 million square feet of data center space spread across as many as eight buildings. That’s roughly equivalent to more than 50 football fields of enclosed building space. About 372 acres would be devoted to data center development, with the remaining land reserved for wetlands, stormwater management, landscaping, buffers, open space and related uses.

The proposal would not be built all at once. Instead, construction is expected to occur sequentially over approximately four to eight years, beginning in the north and northeast portions of the property before progressing south and west as demand warrants.

Many of the details residents have asked about — including final building footprints, architectural design, utility routing and mechanical equipment — remain undetermined because an end user has not yet been identified. The application says those elements would be finalized through future site plan and building permit reviews.

Building a campus of that scale would require extensive new infrastructure, much of which does not currently exist at the site.

Utility plans call for extending municipal water and sewer service from the existing system near 85th Street and Edmonson Avenue through a combination of city-led and developer-funded improvements. According to the application, those extensions would ultimately serve the proposed campus while also creating capacity for future development in the surrounding area.

Application documents estimate those public improvements — including streets, sanitary sewer, water mains and storm sewer infrastructure — at approximately $45.9 million, including construction, contingency and indirect costs. The applicant says those costs would be borne by the developer or future data center operator rather than the city.

The City of Monticello has a webpage dedicated to updates related to data center in the area, including past and upcoming public meetings.

Nicollet County Commissioners place one-year moratorium on data centers

Posted on by
Reply

The St Peter Herald reports…

The Nicollet County Board of Commissioners is pausing development of data centers as county staff look to study how their environmental impacts and energy consumption may affect local infrastructure and nearby residents.

The year-long moratorium, approved July 14, prohibits the construction of large-scale data centers and applications to build them while county staff draft study their impact and zoning regulations tailored to the facilities.

In a public hearing Tuesday morning, Nicollet County Zoning Administrator John Zehnder, told the commissioners that data centers raise a number of issues that could prove problematic for county land if left unregulated. Their demands on the energy grid and hefty consumption of water, plus their potential for heat generation and noise could have potential impacts that Zehnder said the current zoning ordinance is unequipped to handle.

Zehnder recommended the county approve a 12-month moratorium on data center applications while Nicollet County staff develop new regulations specific to data centers. A year is the maximum length of time the county can pause data center development while evaluating changes to the zoning code.

Benton explains the recent ruling of the Digital Equity Act’s race provision as both unconstitutional and severable

Posted on by
Reply

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society reports…

On July 15, 2026, Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision that could revive a federal grant program the President declared dead more than a year ago. In National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) v. Trump (Civil Action No. 25-3606), the court held that the Digital Equity Act of 2021 contains an unconstitutional racial classification, but that this single flaw does not doom the law. The court concluded that the relevant provision, which directs consideration of “individuals who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group” in awarding grants, can be ignored without impairing the operation of the rest of the statute (in legal parlance, “severed”). Thus, NDIA’s claim to otherwise restore the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program survives, minus any consideration of the race or ethnicity of the people the grant projects serve.

Most importantly for the cities, nonprofits, and digital inclusion practitioners who applied for—and in some cases won—Competitive Grant Program funds: the court relied upon the government’s submission that it would “now commit[] to restoring the Competitive Grant Program upon receiving this judicial determination.”

This is a ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss the entire case, not a final judgment. The court has not ordered the program restored; it has held that the remaining aspects of NDIA’s challenge may go forward. However, the resolution of the constitutional question essentially addresses the government’s stated reason for ending the program.

The article goes on with some history and greater details into the court’s decision; it also shares a practical summary…

A Win, a Loss, or Both?

How you read this ruling may depend on where you sit. For digital equity advocates, the bottom line is real: a federal court rejected the argument that a single constitutional flaw justified scrapping the Competitive Grant Program, and the government has told the court it will restore the program now that a judge has resolved its only stated objection.

But the government may have won something larger than it lost. A federal court has now held that a provision of the Digital Equity Act is unconstitutional—adopting the Administration’s reading of Students for Fair Admissions and finding that Congress supplied no justification that could survive strict scrutiny. The court also accepted that the Executive Branch may decline to enforce a statute it deems unconstitutional while awaiting judicial review. And the government’s commitment to restore the program is a statement in a legal brief, not a court order; the court has not yet granted any relief, and it noted that once the program is reinstated, some or all of NDIA’s claims may become moot. That means the shape of the restored program—its guidelines, its treatment of the seven remaining covered populations, its timeline—will be decided, at least initially, by the same Administration that ended it.

The Digital Equity Act survives. What it looks like in practice is now an open question—one that will be answered as much by NTIA’s next moves as by anything a court has said.

OBD Broadband Update July 15: BEAD, Tribal Broadband funding opportunities & line extension

Posted on by
Reply

From the MN Office of Broadband Development…

Broadband Matters: Office of Broadband Development Updates

  • ICYMI, webinar from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program
  • Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) updates
  • Reminder, NTIA funding opportunities on Tribal Lands
  • Line Extension Connection Program, registration open for residents and businesses

ICYMI, webinar from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program

The session from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program for the Broadband Development Training Series: Navigating PLUS (Permitting, Land Use, and State Systems) is posted on the OBD Webinars and Recorded Events webpage.

Click below to watch the overview from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Program as it relates to broadband infrastructure deployment under BEAD.

Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) updates

Minnesota continues to make steady progress on the federal BEAD program. The Office of Broadband Development is currently working through required project updates and preparing contracts for execution. Typically, this means removing locations newly identified as already served, or re-awarding locations when providers decline an award.

Because NTIA must approve these project scope changes, the review process can take several weeks. OBD will continue coordinating closely with partners to keep projects moving and to meet the federal contracting deadline of October 8, 2026.

Providers and community members can contact OBD (DEED.broadband@state.mn.us) with questions.

Reminder, NTIA funding opportunities on Tribal Lands

On June 17, 2026, NTIA Announced Two New Funding Opportunities to Expand Broadband Connectivity on Tribal Lands. Applications are due September 17, 2026. More information is available on NTIA’s BroadbandUSA webpage including:

Line Extension Connection Program, registration open for residents and businesses

Registration remains open for residents and businesses for future rounds of the Line Extension Connection Program. For assistance completing the application or to request a paper form to complete, please call 651-259-7610 or email DEED.broadband@state.mn.us.

OBD expects to announce a sixth round of the program with standard timelines using state funds later in 2026.

More information and registration are available on the Line Extension Connection Program webpage.

EVENT Sep 30- Oct 1: MTA (Minnesota Telecom Alliance) Fall Conference

Posted on by
Reply

From the Minnesota Telecom Alliance...

Join us Wednesday, September 30th, and Thursday, October 1st, 2026 at the Minneapolis Marriott Northwest in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota for the 2026 Minnesota Telecom Alliance Fall Conference — the can’t-miss event of the year for telecom professionals across the state!

Why Attend the MTA Fall Conference?

🔹 Engaging Educational Sessions – Dive into timely, high-impact topics that matter most in the ever-evolving telecommunications industry.
🔹 Incredible Networking Opportunities – Reconnect with old friends, forge new connections, and share ideas with industry leaders.
🔹 Vibrant Exhibit Hall – Explore innovative solutions and connect with vendors from all across Minnesota and beyond.

Whether you’re a longtime member or new to MTA, this is your chance to be part of something big. Mark your calendar and get ready to be inspired, informed, and energized!

Mankato City Council Approves Data Center Moratorium (Blue Earth County)

Posted on by
Reply

Southern Minnesota News reports…

The Mankato City Council voted Monday night to approve a one-year moratorium on new data centers and other high-impact utility users while city staff studies their potential impact on the community.

The issue drew significant public interest, with residents voicing concerns about water use, agriculture, energy demands, climate impacts, and transparency. Several speakers urged the council not to sign non-disclosure agreements with prospective data center developers, while others argued the projects could bring construction jobs and increased tax revenue.

MinnPost letter to the editor outlines possible impact of MN data center legislation – especially in Pine Island

Posted on by
Reply

MinnPost posts a letter to the editor from Dan McConnell, president of the Minnesota State Building and Construction Trades Council. He starts by talking about 2025 MN Legislation related to data centers…

While other states scramble to protect families from the cost of the data center boom, Minnesota saw it coming and set the standard first.

In 2025, the Legislature passed one of the strongest data center laws in the country, and Gov. Tim Walz signed it. The law puts the largest electricity users in a class of their own and makes them pay the full cost of the power and infrastructure built to serve them. If one of these companies shrinks or walks away, the bill for that stranded equipment stays off your monthly statement.

Every kilowatt these facilities draw has to meet the state’s carbon-free standard, and each large campus pays millions a year into weatherization for families who need the help. Minnesota built a fence around the ratepayer before a single server arrived.

And then turns his attention to the proposed data center in Pine Island…

That is why the Pine Island proposal deserves a fair hearing rather than a slow death by delay. Google would anchor a data center campus in Goodhue County, tied to an Xcel Energy plan to add 1,900 megawatts of new generation. Under the rules Minnesota wrote, Google pays for the power and the infrastructure its campus needs, and the families nearby pay nothing for the privilege of hosting it. This is the law working as designed, on the first real test of its kind.

Wireline Competition Bureau announces counties where conditional forbearance from Lifeline obligation applies – include all 87 MN Counties

Posted on by
Reply

The FCC reports…

By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announces the counties in which conditional forbearance from the obligation to offer Lifeline-supported voice service applies, pursuant to the Commission’s 2016 Lifeline Order.1 This forbearance applies only to the Lifeline voice obligation of eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) that are designated for purposes of receiving both high-cost and Lifeline support (high-cost/Lifeline ETCs), and not to Lifeline-only ETCs.2 The Appendix lists the counties where the Commission’s conditional forbearance from high-cost/Lifeline ETCs’ Lifeline voice obligation will apply effective on September 8, 2026.

The 2016 Lifeline Order established conditional forbearance from Lifeline voice obligations in targeted areas where certain competitive conditions are met.3 To accomplish this forbearance, the Commission directed the Bureau to release a yearly Public Notice announcing the counties in which the competitive conditions are met.4 In particular, the Commission granted forbearance from high-cost/Lifeline ETCs’ obligation to offer and advertise Lifeline voice service in counties where the following conditions are met: (1) at least 51% of Lifeline subscribers in the county are obtaining broadband Internet access service; (2) there are at least three other providers of Lifeline broadband Internet access service that each serve at least 5% of the Lifeline broadband subscribers in that county; and (3) the ETC does not actually receive federal high-cost universal service support.5

Here are the 87 (out of 87) counties in Minnesota that are included in the list:

  1. MN AITKIN
  2. MN ANOKA
  3. MN BECKER
  4. MN BELTRAMI
  5. MN BENTON
  6. MN BIG STONE
  7. MN BLUE EARTH
  8. MN BROWN
  9. MN CARLTON
  10. MN CARVER
  11. MN CASS
  12. MN CHIPPEWA
  13. MN CHISAGO
  14. MN CLAY
  15. MN CLEARWATER
  16. MN COOK
  17. MN COTTONWOOD
  18. MN CROW WING
  19. MN DAKOTA
  20. MN DODGE
  21. MN DOUGLAS
  22. MN FARIBAULT
  23. MN FILLMORE
  24. MN FREEBORN
  25. MN GOODHUE
  26. MN GRANT
  27. MN HENNEPIN
  28. MN HOUSTON
  29. MN HUBBARD
  30. MN ISANTI
  31. MN ITASCA
  32. MN JACKSON
  33. MN KANABEC
  34. MN KANDIYOHI
  35. MN KITTSON
  36. MN KOOCHICHING
  37. MN LAC QUI PARLE
  38. MN LAKE
  39. MN LAKE OF THE WOODS
  40. MN LE SUEUR
  41. MN LINCOLN
  42. MN LYON
  43. MN MCLEOD
  44. MN MAHNOMEN
  45. MN MARSHALL
  46. MN MARTIN
  47. MN MEEKER
  48. MN MILLE LACS
  49. MN MORRISON
  50. MN MOWER
  51. MN MURRAY
  52. MN NICOLLET
  53. MN NOBLES
  54. MN NORMAN
  55. MN OLMSTED
  56. MN OTTER TAIL
  57. MN PENNINGTON
  58. MN PINE
  59. MN PIPESTONE
  60. MN POLK
  61. MN POPE
  62. MN RAMSEY
  63. MN RED LAKE
  64. MN REDWOOD
  65. MN RENVILLE
  66. MN RICE
  67. MN ROCK
  68. MN ROSEAU
  69. MN ST. LOUIS
  70. MN SCOTT
  71. MN SHERBURNE
  72. MN SIBLEY
  73. MN STEARNS
  74. MN STEELE
  75. MN STEVENS
  76. MN SWIFT
  77. MN TODD
  78. MN TRAVERSE
  79. MN WABASHA
  80. MN WADENA
  81. MN WASECA
  82. MN WASHINGTON
  83. MN WATONWAN
  84. MN WILKIN
  85. MN WINONA
  86. MN WRIGHT
  87. MN YELLOW MEDICINE

Minneapolis City Council stops new data center developments until November

Posted on by
Reply

Minnesota Daily reports…

A halt on the construction of data centers in Minneapolis took effect in July after the Minneapolis City Council discussed the need for more time to understand the facilities’ potential environmental impacts.

The Council approved the halt through November by an 8-5 vote in May. Members said the halt allows time to study the environmental impacts of data centers and plan their development more conscientiously.

However, Council members not in favor of the halt said it will result in reduced tax revenue and may drive away businesses willing to invest in downtown Minneapolis.

Data centers are not new to the Minneapolis area, but community concerns have grown in recent months, President of Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council Dan McConnell said.

The article gives room for various views of the data center issue, including the unions…

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations’ website claims that data centers are a staple for the modern job market and help to create more jobs, but labor protections for workers and regulations to protect surrounding communities are needed.

Resolution 7, a plan created by the AFL and CIO, outlines labor protections for data center employees and regulations aimed to protect surrounding communities. The plan calls for legislation that would require data centers to conserve water and energy. It seeks transparency from data center operators, union labor agreements and policies requiring data center operators to pay their share of energy and water costs.

Lonsdale legislators share their thoughts on data centers (Rice County)

Posted on by
Reply

Hometown Source reports on view of data centers in Lonsdale…

Data centers have become one of the most contentious issues across the nation, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle raising concerns about water use, energy consumption and transparency as more projects are proposed across southern Minnesota.

Sen. Bill Lieske (R-Lonsdale) said data centers are “definitely right up there next to the fraud discussion and the affordability discussion” among the issues he hears about from constituents.

Another local elected official chimes in too…

Rep. Kristi Pursell (DFL-Northfield) said she has focused on water usage because of her expertise in that area, as the former executive director of Clean River Partners. She noted that data centers have been “deeply unpopular” in Farmington, where residents have organized against a proposed project.

“I love to see grassroots organizing, especially if it’s against multi-billion dollar corporations,” Pursell said. “They should have a say.”

Non-disclosure agreements

One of the key issues Pursell highlighted is the use of non-disclosure agreements, which prevent public officials from discussing details of data center negotiations. She called them “literally antithetical to our democracy.”

The topic is coming up on both sides of the aisle…

Both lawmakers agreed that data centers are part of the future and cannot simply be banned outright. But they also agreed that thoughtful regulation is needed.

“We need data centers. The reality is we’re all moving in the direction of these higher-level technologies,” Lieske said. “We have to be able to be prepared at all costs. But I’m not saying to sacrifice our health and our neighborhoods.”

Pursell was more skeptical of the industry’s long-term value.

Mankato Free Press urges communities to think critically about data centers

Posted on by
Reply

Mankato Free Press publishes an editorial about communities and data centers

Upcoming discussions on data center moratoriums by Mankato and North Mankato stand as wise first steps in understanding the economic and community impact of these technologically advanced, new-age developments.

There is no comparison to other local developments that might offer clues on data center impact. New energy, water and power requirements will affect neighbors and the community at large. Sound and lighting can be issues in massive projects that cover sometimes as much as 4 million square feet. In fact, the energy used by data centers can impact large energy needs by business and consumers during extreme hot weather.

Data center developers were asked to be prepared to use their backup power during the recent East Coast heat wave. Much of that backup power is diesel driven and creates emissions that can be harmful.

Proposed data centers around the state have drawn public and legal attention with citizens opposing them in many places while groups such as the Minnesota Center for Environment Advocacy have filed suits in a number of cases. Judges have ruled in cases in Faribault and Pine Island that local officials didn’t conduct proper environmental reviews, and the projects have been halted.

Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount and Minneapolis also have imposed data center moratoriums. The Mankato City Council voted unanimously for a moratorium and will conduct a public hearing July 13. North Mankato City Council discussed a moratorium at its Monday council work session and is considering a study on implications of a moratorium.

But data center developers also have struck back, suing Eagan as developers say the city overstepped its authority when it set a moratorium on data centers that used more than 9 megawatts of power. Developers Eagan Capital claims only the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission can regulate power.

These examples offer even more reasons for cities to move forward cautiously and with care for the legal consequences of their actions. We hope both Mankato and North Mankato can get legal advice from experts in this field beyond what their own legal advisers can provide.