Category Archives: FCC

The FCC looks at new rules for city management of wireline telecommunications infrastructure and public rights-of-way

Posted on by
Reply

The League of Minnesota Cities reports…

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering sweeping new rules that could significantly limit how cities manage wireline telecommunications infrastructure in public rights-of-way. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments (WC Docket No. 25-253), according to the FCC, is intended to accelerate broadband construction by reducing what the FCC characterizes as “excessive permitting delays, fees and other local requirements.”

For cities, however, the proposal reaches well beyond routine streamlining. If adopted, it would establish federal standards for local permitting timelines, cost recovery, and negotiated conditions while making it easier for providers to challenge local requirements as barriers to deployment under Section 253 of the Communications Act.

The article details specifics proposals on the following topics:

  • 120-day shot clock
  • Limits on local fees
  • Restrictions on in-kind compensation
  • Rules for commingled facilities

And explains the potential impact on cities…

The proposed rules could have broad implications for how cities manage public rights-of-way and receive compensation for their use. Wireline construction in the public right-of-way is not a simple desk review. These projects often involve excavation, traffic control, road closures, utility coordination, engineering review, inspections and restoration. Requiring every authorization to fit within one federal timeline, particularly if the clock starts with an incomplete submission or applies to a large batch, could strain staff capacity and make careful coordination more difficult. Smaller and rural communities may feel those pressures most acutely.

Permitting issues emerge in Maple Grove with FCC countering local decisions (Hennepin County)

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast reports…

Broadband providers and a major industry group are backing another ISP’s request for federal regulators to overrule local permitting rules.

Maple Grove, Minn., countered that the Federal Communications Commission didn’t have legal authority to intervene in disputes surrounding broadband internet deployments.

 FCC Commissioner outlines four principles that have guided the US approach to communications policy

Posted on by
Reply

In a Keynote speech in Colombia, FCC Commissioner Olivia Britt Trusty outlines four principles that have guided the US approach to communications policy…

This afternoon, I will discuss four principles that have guided much of the United States’ approach to communications policy and have helped to enable the vibrant and prosperous digital ecosystem we benefit from today. Those principles include the following:

Principle 1: Successful digital markets depend upon sustained investment into resilient, adaptable, secure, and trusted communications infrastructure;

Principle 2: Robust competition is essential to continuous innovation and consumer choice;

Principle 3: Innovation flourishes when regulation remains flexible and can adapt alongside technological change; and

Principle 4: International cooperation is strongest when it advances our shared interests while respecting each nation’s sovereignty, laws, and institutions.

GAO recommends FCC and NTIA work more closely with underserved areas and focus on sustainability

Posted on by
Reply

The GAO (Government Accountability Office reports…

Federal agencies target funding to underserved areas using FCC mapping data showing which locations do and do not have broadband access, as reported by providers. To improve data accuracy, FCC accepts challenges from the public and makes updates if needed. Some program participants and stakeholders said this challenge process was burdensome and unclear. For example, challenging a
large number of locations in an area could be difficult for smaller communities and providers with limited resources. Without targeted outreach to smaller communities and providers to address such difficulties, FCC may not be able to obtain the most accurate information about broadband availability and therefore may not be able to effectively identify and target funding to underserved areas.
As one of the largest programs focused on broadband deployment GAO reviewed, BEAD holds great potential to make broadband available to areas that have been underserved. GAO has previously reported on issues providers face in high-cost areas, including financial sustainability. In October 2025, NTIA announced a requirement that BEAD providers certify that they will not accept federal funding from other sources for broadband deployment and operations costs for locations funded by BEAD for at least 10 years. This provision is intended to ensure that BEAD projects are financially self-sustainable without additional federal funding. NTIA’s BEAD documentation for states and territories states that there may be a basis for them to request certain data from providers. However, NTIA did not detail the circumstances that could warrant such a request. By providing more details, NTIA would help states anticipate potential
problems and prevent service lapses to underserved areas when providers cannot continue providing services due to financial issues.

Getting into specifics…

Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected – Federal Communications Commission
Recommendation – The Chair of FCC should conduct targeted outreach to smaller participants (such as local and tribal governments and providers), to identify and address difficulties they have experienced completing the bulk Broadband Data Collection challenge process. (Recommendation 1)

Agency Affected – National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Recommendation – The NTIA Administrator should provide information to NTIA’s partner states and territories on when and why to request additional information from BEAD subrecipients, to monitor and support their ability to remain financially sustainable in offering affordable broadband during the 10-year federal interest period. (Recommendation 2)

FCC takes Gigabit access off the broadband speed goal board

Posted on by
Reply

Ars Technica reports…

The Federal Communications Commission last week eliminated the gigabit speed goal established during the Biden administration and declared that current levels of broadband deployment in the US are acceptable. Though fiber networks have routinely offered such speeds for years, the FCC said the gigabit speed goal is not “technologically neutral,” suggesting that it isn’t fair to other, slower technologies.

In 2024, the FCC raised its broadband benchmark to 100Mbps downstream and 20Mbps upstream, setting the new standard by which to judge whether deployment is reasonable and timely. The FCC at the time also set a long-term speed goal of 1Gbps download speeds paired with 500Mbps upload speeds, saying it would use the goal “as a guidepost for evaluating our efforts to encourage deployment.”

Republican Brendan Carr, who is now the FCC chairman, never liked that long-term goal. He proposed abolishing it last year, and the change was finalized on August 14 in the FCC’s latest broadband deployment report. The reports are mandated by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act.

“As part of our return to following the plain language of Section 706, we adopt our proposal from the Notice [of Inquiry] to abolish without replacement the long-term goal of 1,000/500 Mbps established in the 2024 Report,” the order said. “A long-term goal is not mentioned in Section 706 and could appear to violate our obligation to conduct our analysis in a technologically neutral manner. At present, it is impossible to predict long-term technological developments and the evolution of consumer preferences.”

The FCC said that comments submitted by cable industry group NCTA and wireless industry group CTIA “support our reasoning for abolishing the long-term goal.”

WCB Announces Lifeline Minimum Service Standards and Indexed Budget

Posted on by
Reply

The FCC announces…

By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announces the minimum service standards for Lifeline-supported services as required by the 2016 Lifeline Order.1 The 2016 Lifeline Order established minimum service standards for certain Lifeline-supported services and established annual increases in those standards either in the Commission’s rules or pursuant to calculations set out in the Order and the Commission’s rules.2 Accordingly, we announce the minimum service standards for fixed and mobile broadband data usage allowance. These standards will continue until December 1, 2027. Additionally, we announce that the budget for federal universal service support for the Lifeline program for calendar year 2027 will be $3,053,892,630.3

Fixed and mobile broadband minimum service standard for data capacity. On July 1, 2026, the Bureau issued a waiver for one year pausing the increases in the Lifeline minimum service standards for the fixed and mobile broadband data usage allowance. As such, the standards will continue to be 1280 GB per month for fixed broadband and 4.5 GB per month for mobile broadband.4

Mobile voice telephony minimum service standard. The 2016 Lifeline Order established an automatic update to the Lifeline minimum service standard for mobile voice service through November 30, 2018.5 Accordingly, pursuant to the 2016 Lifeline Order, on December 1, 2026, the Lifeline minimum service standard for mobile voice service will remain unchanged, at 1000 minutes per month.6

Annual budget. The 2016 Lifeline Order adopted an initial budget of $2.25 billion for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2017.7 The 2016 Lifeline Order also stated that the budget amount will be indexed to inflation in accordance with the Consumer Price Index for all items from the

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.8 To perform this calculation, the Bureau used the annual percent change factor for the preceding year (here, 2025) to the year in which the calculation is being performed.9 Based on this calculation, the indexed budget for federal universal service support for the Lifeline program for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2026 was $2,976,503,538,10 and the indexed budget for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2027 will be $3,053,892,630.

For further information, please contact Sam Lewis, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at samuel.lewis@fcc.gov.

FCC to make changes to Broadband labels for consumers and streamline process for providers

Posted on by
Reply

The FCC reports...

Today, the Federal Communications Commission improved the FCC’s broadband labels, making them a more useful tool for consumers and reducing compliance burdens on providers. The Report and Order adopted today will ensure consumers have access to clear, accurate, and concise information about the broadband plans available to them.
Consumers want information that helps them make informed decisions—information that is relevant, easy to read and understand, and quick to access. They should know exactly what they are getting when they shop for and purchase broadband service and should be able to determine whether the high-speed internet product they are buying meets their needs. Labels that are overly complex or
difficult to navigate end up frustrating or confusing consumers, not empowering them.
In 2021, Congress directed the Commission to enact rules to require the display of broadband consumer labels to disclose to consumers information regarding the broadband plans offered by broadband internet access service providers. The Commission’s initial broadband label rules, adopted in 2022, resulted in sometimes-confusing labels that strayed beyond the statutory framework
Congress created, increasing compliance costs for providers in the process. The Report and Order
adopted today will refocus the rules and minimize some of the confusion and frustration that consumers have had with the labels.
The Commission’s action enables consumers to visualize the monthly cost of service more clearly and removes outdated information and other details that distract from essential information, giving consumers a label that they can more clearly understand and use when comparing high-speed
internet service plans. The updated rules also give providers the freedom to discuss the label
conversationally over the phone, rather than reading it to consumers verbatim. Finally, the changes ensure consumers can access a plan’s label when they need it, while offering providers the flexibility to use links, QR codes, or icons to quickly connect consumers with the label for a plan.
Internet service providers are required to have a label for each standalone broadband service plan they currently offer. The labels must show introductory rates, data allowances, and broadband speeds, and must also include links to information about network management practices and privacy policies. More information about the labels is available on fcc.gov/broadbandlabels.
Action by the Commission July 22, 2026 by Report and Order (FCC 26-48). Chairman Carr, Commissioners Gomez and Trusty approving and issuing separate statements.

School and libraries are working to preserve E-Rate funding

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast reports…

 A campaign to preserve the nation’s largest school and library broadband subsidy is intensifying.

Advocates have launched a coordinated effort to mobilize opposition to the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed changes to E-Rate, the $2.5 billion federal program that helps more than 100,000 schools and 11,000 libraries pay for broadband service. Supporters said the FCC’s proceeding, adopted June 25, poses the most serious threat to the program in decades.

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.

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

Folks in education are concerned about losing E-Rate funding for broadband in schools

Posted on by
Reply

Gov Tech reports…

A few weeks after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr called for a broad review of the 30-year-old federal E-rate program, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking June 26 that floated the idea of ending the program. Education leaders and experts on the digital divide have since weighed in, arguing that would be a grave mistake.
The E-rate program, which provides financial support to schools and libraries for broadband connectivity, was established in 1996 and funded starting in 1997. At that time, 65 percent of U.S. public schools had Internet access, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The FCC’s notice asked whether the program has fulfilled Congress’ original objective of bringing Internet access to schools and libraries, given that “virtually all schools report having broadband connectivity and Wi-Fi.” It also cited ill effects of screen time as a reason to rethink the program.
Indeed, rates of digital connectivity have grown since E-rate’s introduction. The FCC’s notice cited a 2019 State of the States report from the nonprofit EducationSuperHighway that found 99 percent of K-12 schools had high-speed Internet access. In 2023, researchers found that 96 percent of New York public schools were connected.

Some detail that might help the E-Rate…

The FCC’s notice acknowledges that the Congressional mandate that created the E-rate program does not empower the FCC to terminate the program, but advocates are still worried. Education and library organizations argue that the framing of the FCC’s notice misunderstands that digital connectivity requires ongoing maintenance, that the program’s success is evidence of its importance, and that cybersecurity threats and evolving technologies necessitate ongoing work.

The Wireline Competition Bureau pauses the phase-out of Lifeline program support for voice-only services

Posted on by
Reply

The FCC announces…

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) issues a waiver pausing both the phase-out of Lifeline program support for voice-only services and changes to the Lifeline minimum service standards. As discussed below, we find good cause to pause these adjustments for a year because the Commission is undergoing a rulemaking proceeding that seeks comment on these issues and could result in changes to the Lifeline program.1

II. BACKGROUND

2. In the 2016 Lifeline Order, the Commission revised the Lifeline program to phase-in increasing broadband minimum service standards and phase-out Lifeline support for voice-only service.2 The Commission took these actions with the intent to “avoid undue consumer disruption and to allow Lifeline providers sufficient time to adjust operations as the Commission moves from a primarily voice-only Lifeline program to a Lifeline program embracing broadband services.”3

3. The 2016 Lifeline Order established a three-step schedule by which Lifeline support for voice-only service would be decreased before ending entirely, which so far has led to voice-only support being reduced to $5.25.4 The final step was to be a complete phase-out of Lifeline support for voice-only services on December 1, 2021, when support for such services was to be eliminated in most areas.5 However, the Bureau issued a waiver pausing the phase-out before support elimination occurred due in large part to many Lifeline subscribers’ continued reliance on voice service and has maintained this pause each year since through one-year waiver extensions.6 The most recent waiver is currently still in effect and ends on December 1, 2026.7

4. The Commission also created broadband capacity minimum service standards in the 2016 Lifeline Order effectuated through update mechanisms for the fixed and mobile broadband speed and data capacity standards to provide predictable improvements to these offerings.8 In prior years, the Commission has waived the mobile broadband capacity minimum service standard when it determined that doing so would be necessary to prevent service costs from rising to unaffordable levels.9

5. The Commission is currently considering recommendations to revise certain Lifeline rules in its 2026 Lifeline NPRM, released on February 23, 2026.10 The 2026 Lifeline NPRM launched a comprehensive review of the Lifeline program and seeks comment on support for voice-only service and the minimum service standards and their updated mechanisms.11 In the NPRM, the Commission asked whether it should maintain voice-only service support at the current $5.25 amount and the justifications for doing so, including “[h]ow vital is voice service to consumers’ ability to access public safety resources or to participate in today’s society” and whether these subscribers would be able to fulfill these needs through alternative services.12 The Commission also requested comment on Lifeline minimum service standards, including whether the current minimum service standards meet the needs of Lifeline subscribers, increasing minimum service standards could lead to prohibitively expensive plans or providers leaving the program, update mechanisms should exist, and these mechanisms should update the minimum service standards at set or variable amounts, among other issues.

DISCUSSION

6. The Bureau acts on its own motion to waive the implementation of the phase-out in Lifeline support for voice-only services and the increase in Lifeline minimum service standards for one year, until December 1, 2027. In evaluating whether good cause exists for waiver of its rules,14 the Commission considers whether the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest.15 The Commission may also take into account concerns of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of policy on an individual basis.16 Waiver of the Commission’s rules is therefore only appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such deviation will serve the public interest.17 The Bureau finds good cause to act on delegated authority to waive the Lifeline rules as described herein, as further discussed below.18

7. Careful consideration of how to continue to support a stable and robust affordable communications market through the Lifeline program led to our decision to issue this waiver. This waiver pauses changes to the minimum service standards and voice support phase-out as the Commission develops and analyzes the record in the 2026 Lifeline NPRM. By maintaining the current Lifeline program minimum service standards and support for voice-only service while these programmatic changes are under consideration, this Order prevents potential excessive provider obligations, subscriber confusion, and loss of service that could accompany multiple changes to the minimum services standards in a short period. For these reasons, we find good cause to pause the Lifeline minimum service standards for broadband and the phase-out in Lifeline support for voice-only services

EVENT July 15: Litigation Update: Minnesota Telecom Alliance v. FCC

Posted on by
Reply

An event hosted by the Federalist Society. on July 15 (2pm in MN)…

Topics:
Civil Rights • Communications & Technology
Communications & Technology Practice Group
  •  Webinar

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently vacated the Federal Communications Commission’s 2023 Digital Discrimination Order, finding the commission exceeded its statutory authority.
The dispute centered on the FCC’s implementation of Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which directs the commission to prevent “digital discrimination of access” in broadband deployment and service. In carrying out this statutory mandate, the FCC adopted a disparate-impact framework, under which broadband providers and other entities that impact broadband could face liability for policies or practices that disproportionately affect certain communities without regard to discriminatory intent. The Eighth Circuit concluded that Section 60506 does not authorize the FCC’s disparate-impact regime or regulation of entities other than broadband providers.
Join us for a litigation update on the decision and its implications for broadband deployment, digital equity initiatives, FCC authority, and future efforts to address alleged discrimination in access to broadband service.
Featuring:

  • Dr. Christopher Ali, Pioneers Chair in Telecommunications, Penn State University
  • Jennifer B. Dickey, Vice President and Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
  • Daniel H. Kahn, Partner, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, LLP
  • [Moderator] Matthew Furlow, Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce

 

Previously unused Rural Health Care Program Funding carries forward to 2026 applications

Posted on by
Reply

The FCC announces…

By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), in consultation with the Office of the Managing Director (OMD), announces the amount of unused funds for the Rural Health Care (RHC) Program that have been carried forward for funding year 2026.1 The Commission’s rules for the RHC Program establish a process to carry forward unused funds from past funding years for use in future funding years.2 In consultation with OMD, the Bureau must announce a specific amount of unused funds from prior funding years to be carried forward to increase available funding for future funding years.

The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) projects that, as of April 30, 2026, $226.42 million in unused funds is available for use in future funding years beginning in funding year 2026.4 Pursuant to the Commission’s direction and section 54.619(a)(4)-(5) of the Commission’s rules, the Bureau, in consultation with OMD, directs USAC to carry forward up to $226.42 million in unused funds from prior funding years to the extent necessary to satisfy funding year 2026 RHC Program demand.

With the carry-forward funding announced in this Notice, eligible RHC Program funding requests filed during the funding year 2026 application filing window or filed after the close of the filing window but received a waiver of the application filing deadline can be fully funded without prioritization. The RHC Program funding cap for funding year 2026 is $744,161,841.7 The internal cap on multi-year commitments and upfront payments under the Healthcare Connect Fund Program is $187,898,742.8 These funding year 2026 caps represent a 2.8% inflation-adjusted increase to the RHC Program funding cap and the internal cap on multi-year commitments and upfront payments from funding year 2025.9 The estimated total RHC Program demand for funding year 2026 is $911.25 million,10 of which approximately $166.75 million represents demand for multi-year commitments and upfront payments in the Healthcare Connect Fund.

Gateway Fiber asks FCC to get involved with rights-of-way issues in Minnesota

Posted on by
3

Broadband Breakfast reports…

A dispute between Minnesota cities and broadband provider Gateway Fiber is escalating at the Federal Communications Commission, with both sides accusing the other of delaying fiber deployment and misrepresenting state franchising law.

Gateway Fiber, a Missouri-based broadband provider led by CEO Chris Surdo, recently asked the FCC to intervene after several Minnesota cities allegedly refused to issue right-of-way permits unless the company first obtained local cable franchise agreements.