Category Archives: FCC

Arvig and BEVCOMM ask the FCC to look into classification of Midcontinent

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast reports…

The Minnesota companies said a local competitor does not offer voice service.

A federal agency is planning to take a close look at whether two broadband providers deserve millions more dollars in future support after what they say was a flawed allocation process.

The Federal Communications Commission is seeking input on claims that two Midwest broadband providers saw lower Enhanced ACAM support because a competitor was misclassified.

Here’s more info on the claim from the FCC Public Notice of comment… (Comments due September 13)

By this Public Notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on the filing submitted by Arvig Enterprises, Inc. (Arvig) and Rural Communications Holding Corporation (BEVCOMM),[1] which claimed that those companies’ Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model (Enhanced A-CAM) support offers were incorrectly calculated because Midcontinent Communications (Midco) was incorrectly classified as an unsubsidized competitor offering voice service.[2]

[1] Comments of Arvig Enterprises, Inc. (Arvig) and Rural Communications Holding Corporation (BEVCOMM), WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Jul. 16, 2024) (Arvig Comments).

[2] Id. at 2.

Is the Universal Service Fund Unconstitutional? Why does it matter? A Connect This conversation

Posted on by
Reply

Connect This is a regular podcast hosted by the Institute for Local Self Reliance, where smart people talk about complicated technology policy issues. Each participant is smart in his/her own silo and those silos shadow each other but they “dumb down” the conversation a little to be understood. So, the lawyers, the engineers and the policy wonks all use English! Acronyms are explained – but the assumption is that you know what broadband is. It’s rarely a 101 discussion; it’s graduate level but interdisciplinary.

The other day they took on the Universal Service Fund (USF) and its constitutional standing. Sounds wonky – it is. But it’s important to schools, providers, customers who get charged USF and the ones who reap the benefits. RDOF could be in a sticky situation.

Here’s the blurb and video from the ILSR… (pro tip: I walk while I listen so I don’t get distracted and I soak up the MN summer while I can!)

On July 24, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 9-7 that the Universal Service Fund is unconstitutional.

The decision throws a whole raft of federal broadband programs – including those which help schools pay for connectivity, those which help homes pay for home Internet access, and more – into a state of uncertainty.

All signs point to a stop at the Supreme Court for final ruling on the future of the program. On the most recent episode of the Connect This! Show, hosts Christopher Mitchell (ILSR) and Travis Carter (USI Fiber) were joined by regular guests Doug Dawson (CCG Consulting) and Kim McKinley (UTOPIA Fiber) as well as special guest Casey Lide (Keller and Heckman Law Firm) to talk about the decision. They discuss the impact of the decision in the long-term, including how the USF fits into the jigsaw puzzle of federal broadband funding programs and what we can expect to see if the decision is upheld.

OPPORTUNITY: FCC Announces Anticipated Renewal of its Consumer Advisory Committee and Solicits Nominations for Membership

Posted on by
Reply

From the FCC…

By this Public Notice, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces the anticipated rechartering of the Consumer Advisory Committee (Committee) and solicits nominations for membership. The Commission intends to recharter the Committee for a period of two (2) years following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Service Administration. It is anticipated that after this consultation, the renewed charter will become effective on or before October 13, 2024.  Nominations for membership are due by September 6, 2024.

 

PURPOSE AND FUNCTION

 

The Committee’s mission is to make recommendations to the Commission regarding topics of particular interest to consumers that will be specified by the Commission.  For additional background about the Committee, see its website:  www.fcc.gov/consumer-advisory-committee.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Committee will operate in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10.  Each meeting of the Committee will be open to the public. A notice of each meeting will be published in the Federal Register at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the meeting.  Records will be maintained of each meeting and will be made available for public inspection. All meetings will be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities.

 

Members will serve at the discretion of the Chairperson of the Commission. The Commission will determine the appropriate Committee size necessary to effectively accomplish the Committee’s work.  While there is no required number of meetings, the Committee typically holds meetings three times per calendar year, to be conducted in Washington, D.C., and/or by video conference.

 

Members of the Committee will be expected to participate in at least one working group. The time commitment for participation in any such group may be substantial. However, working group meetings may be conducted informally, using suitable technology to facilitate the meetings, subject to oversight by the Designated Federal Officer of the Committee.

 

WHO MAY APPLY FOR MEMBERSHIP AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS

 

The Commission seeks nominations from interested nonprofit organizations, corporations, trade associations, government agencies, or other entities from both the public and private sectors, who wish to be considered for Committee membership for a two-year term of service.  Selections will be made based

on factors such as expertise and diversity of viewpoints that are necessary to effectively address the topics before the Committee.

 

Individuals who do not represent an organization, corporation, trade association, or entity, but who possess expertise valuable to the Committee’s work may also apply.  However, any applicants who want to serve in their individual capacities should be aware that government ethics rules may require detailed disclosures as part of the consideration of their application to serve as independent subject matter experts, and if appointed, such individuals would be considered Special Government Employees (SGEs).  Federally registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve as SGEs.  The Commission’s Office of General Counsel conducts ethics reviews of all organizational and individual members of the Committee or its working groups. SGEs, in particular, are subject to a variety of restrictions under the conflict of interest statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 203 et seq., and the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 C.F.R. Part 2635.  SGEs must file confidential employee financial disclosure forms prior to beginning their service and annually thereafter.  SGEs will also be subject to ethics restrictions in section 4(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 154(b), and in the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR Part 19 and 5 CFR Parts 3901 and 3902.

 

NOMINATION PROCEDURE, DEADLINE, AND MEMBER APPOINTMENTS

 

All nominations must be received by the Commission by no later than September 6, 2024, and should be submitted via an online nomination form at www.fcc.gov/consumer-advisory-committee unless use of that form would present a hardship, in which case the information and documents specified below may be submitted by email to CAC@fcc.gov.  Nominations will be acknowledged shortly after receipt. Because mail delivery may be delayed by security screening and precautionary measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic, interested parties are required to submit applications online.

Get more details.

US Bill introduced in Senate to return defaulted broadband grants to states

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Hawley’s website reports…

Today, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced new legislation to help deliver reliable internet to more rural Americans by returning dormant federal funding back to the state it was intended for.

“Missourians and rural Americans across the country are losing out on internet service thanks to failed funding policies,” said Senator Hawley. “My bill would put states in charge of their own broadband funding—not government-backed companies that overpromise and under-deliver.”

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) current funding structure favors large companies that reap billions in federal government contracts meant to provide high-speed internet access to rural communities. These companies, however, often fail to meet obligations, leaving federal funds in default and America’s rural communities without internet service.

So far, the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund has seen more than $2.8 billion in defaulted funds.

Senator Hawley’s Broadband Fairness Act would:

  • Allocate defaulted FCC funds to the state that originally received the award for broadband deployment;
  • Ensure that the geographic region where an award defaulted is eligible for other broadband funding opportunities; and
  • Allow states to supplement other grant funding to complete broadband projects.

The Missouri Farm Bureau has endorsed Senator Hawley’s legislation.

Full text of the Broadband Fairness Act is available here.

This could have a large impact on Minnesota, where LTD Broadband was awarded and then defaulted on $311 million.

Appeals Court rules put Universal Service Fund in jeopardy

Posted on by
Reply

KSTP reports…

Calling it a “misbegotten tax,” a federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled Wednesday that a method the Federal Communications Commission uses to fund telephone service for rural and low-income people and broadband services for schools and libraries is unconstitutional.

The immediate implications of the 9-7 ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were unclear. Dissenting judges said it conflicts with three other circuit courts around the nation. The ruling by the full 5th Circuit reverses an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel of the same court and sends the matter back to the FCC for further consideration. A Supreme Court appeal was likely by advocates for media access.

“The majority’s hostility to the policies underlying the Universal Service Fund is palpable. That, plus the bipartisan group of seven dissenters, makes it almost certain that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the issue,” said Andrew Schwartzman, an attorney representing advocacy groups including the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society.

 

FCC Launches New Mobile Speed Test App

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast reports on a new speed test for *mobile* connections. (I had to read it three times before I caught the word mobile.)…

The Federal Communications Commission announced on Tuesday a new Mobile Speed Test app to help users easily challenge provider-reported mobile coverage data, replacing the original FCC Speed Test app.

While the original app allowed consumers to test their mobile and in-home broadband performance, the new app ensures accurate provider-reported mobile coverage data with features such as “Repeated Test” for hands-free testing, displays an in-app map of where a test was taken and the ability to review speed test results on the National Broadband Map.

Midwest Broadband Providers concerned about E-ACAM subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast reports…

 A group of midwest broadband providers is seeking an increase in rural broadband subsidy support from the Federal Communications Commission, claiming a program snafu is causing a multimillion dollar annual shortfall.

The companies receive support from the agency’s Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model program, which the FCC stood up last year to continue subsidizing rural broadband through its Universal Service Fund.

They tagged Midco, ITC, Red River, BEVcomm and Arvig in the post.

Conference of Mayors asks the FCC to rethink franchise fees

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast reports on an issue that came up in the Minnesota Legislature this year, the MN Equal Access to Broadband, which would have allowed local governments to charge franchise fees to broadband providers in their area, akin to cable franchising fees. It did not pass, but the idea clearly lives on…

A gathering of American mayors adopted a resolution Sunday designed to obtain fees from cable operators that utilize municipal property to provide consumers with access to the Internet.

The resolution – adopted at the 92nd annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Kansas City, Mo. – called on the Federal Communications Commission to modify a rule that shields cable Internet access revenue from the 5% fee collected on cable’s pay-TV revenue.

The mayors’ resolution urged the FCC “to act promptly” to modify its “mixed use” rule that they said costs “local governments millions of dollars in reduced franchise and other right-of-way fees and threaten[s] the future of cable franchise access channel and institutional network requirements.”

Also…

In other action, the USCM passed a second resolution announcing opposition to the American Broadband Act of 2023 (H.R. 3557), a bill which the resolution said would “preempt local governments’ rights-of-way compensation and management authority, zoning powers, cable franchising authority, and property rights.”

FCC has plan to help libraries and schools with cybersecurity

Posted on by
Reply

A heads up to libraries and schools from Broadband Breakfast…

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday took the first step toward creating a pilot program to invest millions of dollars into cybersecurity software for eligible K-12 schools and libraries.

The agency voted to adopt the proposal 3-2, with Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington dissenting.

“The vulnerabilities in the networks that we use in our nation’s schools and libraries are real and growing, so today we’re going to do something about it,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in her statement.

The proposal, first introduced last November, would provide $200 million from the Universal Service Fund to pay for firewall protections in eligible schools and libraries over the next three years. The funds will also go toward studying the most effective equipment, services and tools to safeguard digital infrastructure.

KSTP 5 on your Side video on new broadband nutrition labels

Posted on by
Reply

KSTP 5 reports…

The new labels show the provider’s name, the plan’s name and the base monthly price for internet service, along with any additional one-time or recurring fees — like installation charges, modem rental fees and other equipment-related fees, which must be separated from the base price.

The new labels are mandated by the Federal Communications Commission after nearly a decade of lobbying by Consumer Reports and other advocacy groups.

FCC Fines Largest Wireless Carriers for Sharing Location Data

Posted on by
Reply

From the FCC…

Today, the Federal Communications Commission fined the nation’s largest wireless carriers for illegally sharing access to customers’ location information without consent and without taking reasonable measures to protect that information against unauthorized disclosure.  Sprint and T-Mobile – which have merged since the investigation began – face fines of more than $12 million and $80 million, respectively.  AT&T is fined more than $57 million, and Verizon is fined almost $47 million.

“Our communications providers have access to some of the most sensitive information about us.  These carriers failed to protect the information entrusted to them. Here, we are talking about some of the most sensitive data in their possession: customers’ real-time location information, revealing where they go and who they are,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel.  “As we resolve these cases – which were first proposed by the last Administration – the Commission remains committed to holding all carriers accountable and making sure they fulfill their obligations to their customers as stewards of this most private data.”

The FCC Enforcement Bureau investigations of the four carriers found that each carrier sold access to its customers’ location information to “aggregators,” who then resold access to such information to third-party location-based service providers.  In doing so, each carrier attempted to offload its obligations to obtain customer consent onto downstream recipients of location information, which in many instances meant that no valid customer consent was obtained.  This initial failure was compounded when, after becoming aware that their safeguards were ineffective, the carriers continued to sell access to location information without taking reasonable measures to protect it from unauthorized access.

Under the law, including section 222 of the Communications Act, carriers are required to take reasonable measures to protect certain customer information, including location information.  Carriers are also required to maintain the confidentiality of such customer information and to obtain affirmative, express customer consent before using, disclosing, or allowing access to such information.  These obligations apply equally when carriers share customer information with third parties.

“The protection and use of sensitive personal data such as location information is sacrosanct,” said Loyaan A. Egal, Chief of the FCC Enforcement Bureau and Chair of its Privacy and Data Protection Task Force.  “When placed in the wrong hands or used for nefarious purposes, it puts all of us at risk.  Foreign adversaries and cybercriminals have prioritized getting their hands on this information, and that is why ensuring service providers have reasonable protections in place to safeguard customer location data and valid consent for its use is of the highest priority for the Enforcement Bureau.”

The investigations that led to today’s fines started following public reports that customers’ location information was being disclosed by the largest American wireless carriers without customer consent or other legal authorization to a Missouri Sheriff through a “location-finding service” operated by Securus, a provider of communications services to correctional facilities, to track the location of numerous individuals.  Yet, even after being made aware of this unauthorized access, all four carriers continued to operate their programs without putting in place reasonable safeguards to ensure that the dozens of location-based service providers with access to their customers’ location information were actually obtaining customer consent.

The Forfeiture Orders announced today finalize Notices of Apparent Liability (NAL) issued against these carriers in February 2020.  The fine amount for AT&T and Sprint are unchanged since the NAL stage.  Both the T-Mobile and Verizon fines were reduced following further review of the parties’ submissions in response to the NALs.  The law does not permit forfeiture amounts for specified violations to escalate after issuance of an NAL.

The Forfeiture Orders are available here:

In 2023, the Chairwoman established the Privacy and Data Protection Task Force, an FCC staff working group focused on coordinating across the agency on the rulemaking, enforcement, and public awareness needs in the privacy and data protection sectors, including data breaches (such as those involving telecommunications providers) and vulnerabilities involving third-party vendors that service regulated communications providers.  More information on the Task Force is available at: https://www.fcc.gov/privacy-and-data-protection-task-force.

It’s like finding your toddler in the backyard alone. Happy you found her, yet so many questions.

FCC reports on broadband adoption in States and Counties

Posted on by
Reply

The FCC reports on the status of broadband access…

Access to affordable, reliable broadband is essential to full participation in modern life. Consumers rely on both their fixed and mobile connections to work, learn, access health care, and connect with each other. Today, we issue this Report pursuant to our obligation under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, concluding our inquiry into whether “advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”1 We find that more work remains to ensure that all Americans have access to advanced telecommunications capability.

They are using a new resource…

This Report also represents an important milestone with regard to the data that we use for our inquiry. For the first time, we use data from the Commission’s Broadband Data Collection (BDC). The Commission’s Section 706 Reports have for many years relied primarily on the FCC Form 477 deployment data to evaluate consumers’ broadband options for fixed and mobile services.3 The BDC data, unavailable for past section 706 inquiries, represent significant improvements over FCC Form 477 data, through the use of more precise location-by-location fixed data, mobile data based on standardized parameters, and the Commission’s ability to improve the data through public challenge processes and conducting verifications and audits of provider-reported data.

Based on our evaluation of the data, we find that our universal service goals for section 706 have not been met, and we therefore conclude that advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. Most significantly, at present, 100/20 Mbps terrestrial fixed broadband service4 has not been physically deployed to approximately 7% of Americans. Rural areas and Tribal lands significantly trail more urban areas, with approximately 28% of people living in rural areas and approximately 23% of people living on Tribal lands lacking access to 100/20 Mbps fixed broadband services.5 While we expect the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program and other federal and state programs will narrow these divides in the coming years, at this time, we find that these physical deployment shortcomings are sufficient to warrant a negative finding under section 706 before we even begin to consider our other universal service goals, for which we hope to have more comprehensive data available in future inquiries.

At a high level here’s how Minnesota stands:

  25/3 Mbps 100/20 Mbps 940/500 Mbps
Including Fixed Wireless 76.5% 32.1% 8.3%
Excluding Fixed Wireless 76.1% 32.3% 8.3%

Here are the stats by county

  Pop Evaluated % with fixed 100/20 % with mobile 5G-NR 35/3 % with fixed & mobile Pop density Per capita income
Minnesota 5,717,184 94.3% 88.8% 85.4% 71.8 $44,947
Aitkin County 16,126 69.5% 48.5% 38.5% 8.9 $32,980
Anoka County 368,864 97.5% 97.0% 94.8% 874.2 $43,106
Becker County 35,371 81.0% 49.9% 44.2% 26.9 $38,444
Beltrami County 46,799 99.2% 54.5% 54.4% 18.7 $32,055
Benton County 41,463 88.4% 94.1% 83.1% 101.6 $35,885
Big Stone County 5,144 98.9% 24.3% 24.0% 10.3 $35,797
Blue Earth County 69,631 97.0% 82.9% 80.4% 93.1 $35,182
Brown County 25,723 94.5% 72.6% 70.9% 42.1 $35,340
Carlton County 36,708 60.6% 58.8% 41.7% 42.6 $35,642
Carver County 110,034 98.9% 99.0% 98.0% 310.8 $55,216
Cass County 31,274 63.7% 55.3% 39.9% 15.5 $34,505
Chippewa County 12,284 99.1% 66.4% 65.9% 21.1 $32,772
Chisago County 57,988 76.2% 92.4% 72.4% 139.8 $41,814
Clay County 65,929 99.3% 90.1% 89.9% 63.1 $36,586
Clearwater County 8,649 99.2% 53.3% 53.0% 8.7 $31,879
Cook County 5,708 95.2% 54.0% 53.3% 3.9 $44,316
Cottonwood County 11,356 88.7% 76.6% 71.1% 17.7 $32,818
Crow Wing County 67,948 88.2% 71.0% 65.6% 68.1 $36,878
Dakota County 443,341 99.2% 99.3% 98.6% 788.1 $48,894
Dodge County 20,981 99.9% 72.1% 72.1% 47.8 $42,838
Douglas County 39,668 84.6% 56.2% 51.2% 62.3 $41,889
Faribault County 13,926 86.2% 49.2% 43.2% 19.5 $35,307
Fillmore County 21,414 86.0% 63.4% 58.6% 24.9 $35,645
Freeborn County 30,718 99.4% 70.6% 70.2% 43.4 $36,751
Goodhue County 48,013 94.0% 73.5% 71.7% 63.5 $40,087
Grant County 6,136 82.2% 39.1% 36.7% 11.2 $36,750
Hennepin County 1,260,121 99.3% 99.8% 99.1% 2,274.4 $55,199
Houston County 18,800 84.5% 49.1% 46.9% 34.1 $39,340
Hubbard County 21,960 92.3% 56.2% 52.7% 23.7 $36,944
Isanti County 42,727 59.7% 83.9% 56.8% 98.1 $38,609
Itasca County 45,205 92.8% 62.3% 59.4% 16.9 $34,528
Jackson County 9,893 95.5% 56.6% 54.1% 14.1 $37,818
Kanabec County 16,463 27.4% 59.8% 25.1% 31.6 $33,805
Kandiyohi County 43,839 95.7% 85.8% 82.5% 55.0 $35,814
Kittson County 4,059 95.2% 34.0% 33.9% 3.7 $35,565
Koochiching County 11,844 83.1% 52.0% 49.2% 3.8 $36,515
Lac qui Parle County 6,689 100.0% 43.7% 43.7% 8.7 $37,520
Lake County 10,939 90.6% 75.2% 71.5% 5.2 $39,930
Lake of the Woods County 3,871 80.9% 57.6% 53.3% 3.0 $35,308
Le Sueur County 29,153 98.5% 78.0% 77.3% 65.0 $41,400
Lincoln County 5,580 99.1% 41.6% 41.1% 10.4 $35,638
Lyon County 25,262 99.9% 78.0% 77.9% 35.4 $35,256
Mahnomen County 5,328 71.3% 38.0% 32.8% 9.6 $24,710
Marshall County 8,861 94.6% 45.3% 44.7% 5.0 $35,920
Martin County 19,650 98.6% 62.1% 61.9% 27.6 $35,152
McLeod County 36,714 97.5% 97.2% 95.0% 74.7 $39,361
Meeker County 23,496 92.9% 80.5% 75.5% 38.6 $37,233
Mille Lacs County 27,280 81.7% 76.8% 65.9% 47.7 $33,933
Morrison County 34,246 82.0% 63.8% 54.0% 30.4 $34,269
Mower County 40,140 98.7% 75.6% 75.4% 56.4 $33,921
Murray County 8,060 98.8% 61.3% 60.8% 11.4 $38,783
Nicollet County 34,441 93.0% 83.4% 79.2% 76.8 $41,658
Nobles County 21,947 96.0% 79.7% 77.3% 30.7 $29,786
Norman County 6,377 87.7% 50.2% 46.9% 7.3 $36,245
Olmsted County 164,020 99.1% 97.5% 96.9% 251.0 $49,799
Otter Tail County 60,519 75.9% 49.4% 41.8% 30.7 $37,202
Pennington County 13,845 98.7% 75.0% 74.4% 22.5 $37,342
Pine County 29,446 48.8% 57.7% 37.6% 20.9 $32,335
Pipestone County 9,355 99.0% 59.8% 59.5% 20.1 $34,973
Polk County 30,731 99.0% 66.9% 66.7% 15.6 $34,273
Pope County 11,431 91.6% 35.0% 32.7% 17.1 $38,905
Ramsey County 536,413 99.6% 99.9% 99.5% 3,523.3 $43,203
Red Lake County 3,874 94.7% 62.2% 61.7% 9.0 $35,198
Redwood County 15,361 80.5% 54.7% 49.8% 17.5 $33,175
Renville County 14,525 97.9% 61.4% 60.7% 14.8 $34,554
Rice County 67,693 96.4% 93.5% 90.5% 136.5 $37,050
Rock County 9,537 97.7% 22.9% 21.9% 19.8 $38,472
Roseau County 15,292 94.8% 61.3% 58.8% 9.1 $36,125
Scott County 154,520 98.9% 99.2% 98.2% 433.7 $51,259
Sherburne County 100,824 89.1% 95.7% 85.9% 232.9 $41,412
Sibley County 14,955 94.6% 73.1% 71.3% 25.4 $37,919
St. Louis County 199,532 79.2% 86.3% 74.0% 31.9 $37,850
Stearns County 160,405 92.5% 95.3% 88.7% 119.5 $36,087
Steele County 37,398 100.0% 68.8% 68.8% 87.0 $40,146
Stevens County 9,637 98.2% 24.3% 24.2% 17.1 $38,425
Swift County 9,755 99.2% 27.4% 27.2% 13.1 $35,595
Todd County 25,538 63.9% 52.8% 39.9% 27.0 $30,812
Traverse County 3,275 82.3% 45.5% 43.3% 5.7 $36,023
Wabasha County 21,658 93.7% 57.9% 57.3% 41.4 $40,471
Wadena County 14,307 99.3% 36.9% 36.8% 26.7 $28,011
Waseca County 18,893 100.0% 77.5% 77.5% 44.6 $35,814
Washington County 275,912 94.8% 97.7% 93.2% 717.2 $54,418
Watonwan County 11,075 100.0% 76.0% 76.0% 25.5 $34,363
Wilkin County 6,350 84.5% 63.6% 58.8% 8.5 $38,317
Winona County 49,478 97.1% 51.7% 51.1% 79.0 $34,889
Wright County 148,003 86.9% 98.8% 86.5% 223.9 $43,067
Yellow Medicine County 9,486 99.5% 56.3% 56.0% 12.5 $36,737
             
Tribal Areas 39,095 78.7% 41.3% 31.7%    

And a deep dive into state stats…

Continue reading →

Today FCC Restores Net Neutrality

Posted on by
Reply

From the FCC...

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to restore a national standard to ensure the internet is fast, open, and fair.  Today’s decision to reclassify broadband service as a Title II telecommunications service allows the FCC to protect consumers, defend national security, and advance public safety.

Through its actions today, the Commission creates a national standard by which it can ensure that broadband internet service is treated as an essential service.  Today’s vote also makes clear that the Commission will exercise its authority over broadband in a narrowly tailored fashion—without rate regulation, tariffing, or unbundling—to foster continued innovation and investment.

 With today’s vote, the Commission restores fundamental authority to provide effective oversight over broadband service providers, giving the Commission essential tools to:

  • Protect the Open Internet – Internet service providers will again be prohibited from blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful content, restoring the rules that were upheld by the D.C. Circuit in 2016.
  • Safeguard National Security – The Commission will have the ability to revoke the authorizations of foreign-owned entities who pose a threat to national security to operate broadband networks in the U.S. The Commission has previously exercised this authority under section 214 of the Communications Act to revoke the operating authorities of four Chinese state-owned carriers to provide voice services in the U.S.  Any provider without section 214 authorization for voice services must now also cease any fixed or mobile broadband service operations in the United States.
  • Monitor Internet Service Outages – When workers cannot telework, students cannot study, or businesses cannot market their products because their internet service is out, the FCC can now play an active role.

For further information on Net Neutrality, including the history of this proceeding starting in 2004 when the then Chairman of the agency challenged the broadband industry to preserve “Internet Freedoms” followed by more than a decade of work to secure these protections, visit: https://www.fcc.gov/net-neutrality.

Action by the Commission April 25, 2024 by Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration (FCC 24-52).  Chairwoman Rosenworcel, Commissioners Starks and Gomez approving.  Commissioners Carr and Simington dissenting.  Chairwoman Rosenworcel, Commissioners Carr, Starks, Simington, and Gomez issuing separate statements.

Bank ranking and federal funding: FCC won’t use Weiss ratings for one year

Posted on by
Reply

Broadband Breakfast follows the reasons and realities behind the FCC’s decision to quit using Weiss ratings for banks’ letters of credit of RDOF, CAF II winners for one year…

 In January, Consolidated Communications notified federal regulators about a financial issue that had cropped up, could do harm to hundreds of broadband Internet Service Providers, and frustrate the effort to deliver high-speed Internet service to rural America.

In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission, Consolidated said the bank from which it had received a letter of credit (LOC) – a requirement under the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction rules – was no longer an eligible lending institution.

Although the FCC did not provide data, the agency in the Consolidated filing was evidently looking in broad terms at a problem that involved hundreds of banks that were backstopping millions of dollars pledged to the FCC as protection against auction winners that defaulted or otherwise underperformed in a manner that would trigger payment to the agency.

Under the FCC’s rules, an LOC had to come from a bank with a Weiss rating of at least B-minus. Consolidated’s bank had just dipped to C plus. The FCC’s rules stipulated that an inferior Weiss rating required the suspension of RDOF support until the auction winner found a new bank with a Weiss rating with at least a B minus.

Finding a new LOC provider can take time and involve additional expense. The FCC’s rules said an LOC from a qualified bank had to be equal to the amount of RDOF support in the first year.

Consolidated sought a six-month waiver from the Weiss requirement, which the FCC granted shortly thereafter. Based in Mattoon, Il., Consolidated has about 393,000 broadband subscribers located in more than 20 states.

That’s just the first chapter but it speaks to the intricacies behind every aspect of every question on these federal applications and the frustration of these intricacies.

League of Rural Voters opposes FCC vote on Net Neutrality rules

Posted on by
Reply

The Center Square posts an OpEd from Neil Ritchie, executive director of the League of Rural Voters…

The over $42 billion in Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment federal funding being distributed across the country provides us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to connect unserved rural America and give communities like Clay County the tools they need to thrive in the digital age.

Rural America can only benefit if we ensure our leaders manage these investments responsibly and effectively. That means working to maximize the impact of every broadband dollar invested by proactively removing barriers to deployment. From the ruggedness of the Appalachian Mountains to the vastness of the Great Plains, our country has no shortage of tough-to-build-in areas that challenge internet service providers every day. The last thing they need is additional obstacles to deployment, such as heavy-handed regulation that threatens rural broadband progress.

And yet, the Federal Communications Commission is poised to do just that later this month when it is expected to vote on and pass excessive, and frankly unneeded, net neutrality rules.

These rules will force outdated 1930s utility regulations onto our 21st-century internet, placing it into the same category as water and electricity. But can we afford to allow our dynamic internet infrastructure to go the same way as our aging, underinvested national water and electricity infrastructure?

Unlike utilities, the internet has flourished without these regulations for decades. ISPs have invested more than $2.1 trillion in building, maintaining, and upgrading the national communications infrastructure since 1996 – with billions more to complement the infusion of BEAD funds. Unnecessary regulatory interference from Washington will introduce uncertainty for ISPs and discourage private broadband investments.

This isn’t conjecture – we already have proof. The FCC imposed similar net neutrality rules between 2015 and 2017, which resulted in more than $30 billion in forgone private investments. These private investments are critical to complement BEAD funding if we are serious about connecting every pocket of rural America.

We can transform our nation’s rural communities with the upcoming influx of broadband investments. We cannot allow ill-advised regulation to stand in the way.