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.
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:
- AT&T, Inc. Forfeiture Order: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-fines-att-57m-location-data-violations
- Sprint Corporation Forfeiture Order: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-fines-sprint-12m-location-data-violations
- T-Mobile USA, Inc. Forfeiture Order: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-fines-t-mobile-80m-location-data-violations
- Verizon Communications Forfeiture Order: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-fines-verizon-46m-location-data-violations
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
Much like nutritional labels on food products, “broadband labels” for internet packages will soon tell you just what is going into the pricing of your service, thanks to new rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission this week.
“If you’ve ever shopped for home or mobile internet, you can understand how hard it can be to understand what you’re actually paying for,” said Jon Donenberg, Deputy Director of the White House National Economic Council, on a call with reporters. “The broadband nutrition label is a tool that can help consumers make sure they have a clear, straightforward explanation of home and mobile services before signing up for anything.”
Following the design of FDA food labels, these broadband labels will provide easy-to-understand, accurate information about the cost and performance of high-speed internet service to help consumers avoid junk fees, price hikes, and other unexpected costs.
Internet service providers selling home access or mobile broadband plans will be required to have a label for each plan beginning April 10.
The labels will be mandated to appear at any point of sale, including online and in stores, and they will be required to disclose all pricing information — including introductory rates, data allowances, and speeds. The labels will also include links to information about network management practices and privacy policies.
FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel today announced the Commission will vote during its April Open Meeting to restore Net Neutrality, which would bring back a national standard for broadband reliability, security, and consumer protection. If adopted, the Chairwoman’s proposal would ensure that broadband services are treated as an essential resource deserving of FCC oversight under Title II authority.
“The pandemic proved once and for all that broadband is essential,” said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. “After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the internet remains fast, open, and fair. A return to the FCC’s overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet.”
If adopted, the proposal would:
- RETURN POPULAR NET NEUTRALITY PROTECTIONS – The FCC would once again play a key role in preventing at the federal level broadband providers from blocking, slowing down, or creating pay-to-play internet fast lanes.
- PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF BROADBAND OUTAGES – When households and businesses lose internet service, consumers often expect that the FCC might either be able to help the restoration or at least have information about the outage. By restoring the FCC’s Title II authority over internet service providers, the FCC will bolster its ability to require these companies to address internet outages. Without such authority, the FCC cannot require companies to report broadband outages, cannot collect outage data, and lacks the authority to even consider ways that it can help protect against and recover from internet service outages.
- BOOST SECURITY OF BROADBAND NETWORKS – In this digital age, there are new and emerging digital threats. Without broadband oversight, the FCC is unable to fully monitor and respond to such national security concerns. For example, without reclassification, the FCC is limited in its authority to direct foreign-owned companies deemed to be national security threats to discontinue any domestic or international broadband services under Sec. 214 – as the agency has done with telephone services. In addition, without reclassification, the FCC has limited authority to incorporate updated cybersecurity standards into network policies.
- INCREASE CONSUMER PROTECTIONS – Net Neutrality protections would increase the tools the FCC has available to protect consumer data and respond to evolving consumer threats. Updated rules could mean broadband providers could not sell your location data, among other sensitive information. This would empower the agency to protect consumers from other harmful practices.
- RESTORE A WIDELY ACCEPTED NATIONAL STANDARD – When the previous FCC stepped back from Net Neutrality protections, the court said states could step in. Despite these efforts by individual states to provide robust oversight in response to the prior administration’s retreat from authority, we need a national standard to keep internet access fast, open, and fair. A national standard is also broadly popular: eighty percent of Americans support open internet policies.
The Chairwoman will circulate her proposal to her fellow Commissioners for their review. As is the general practice, a public draft of the proposal – officially a Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration – will be made public on Thursday on FCC.gov. At the Commission’s April 25 Open Meeting, the Commissioners will consider and vote on the proposal. The meeting will be open to the public and streamed live at www.fcc.gov/live. If adopted, the reclassification and rules would largely go into effect 60 days after Federal Register publication.
Starlink’s mobile ambitions were dealt at least a temporary blow yesterday when the Federal Communications Commission dismissed SpaceX’s application to use several spectrum bands for mobile service.
SpaceX is seeking approval to use up to 7,500 second-generation Starlink satellites with spectrum in the 1.6 GHz, 2 GHz, and 2.4 GHz bands. SpaceX could still end up getting what it wants but will have to go through new rulemaking processes in which the FCC will evaluate whether the spectrum bands can handle the system without affecting existing users.
The FCC Space Bureau’s ruling dismissed the SpaceX application yesterday as “unacceptable for filing.” The application was filed over a year ago.
The FCC said the SpaceX requests “do not substantially comply with Commission requirements established in rulemaking proceedings which determined that the 1.6/2.4 GHz and 2 GHz bands are not available for additional MSS [mobile-satellite service] applications.”
But the FCC yesterday also issued two public notices seeking comment on SpaceX petitions to revise the commission’s spectrum-sharing rules for the bands. Dish Network and Globalstar oppose the SpaceX requests, and SpaceX will have to prove to the FCC that its plan won’t cause harmful interference to other systems.
An Internet service provider that admitted lying to the Federal Communications Commission about where it offers broadband will pay a $10,000 fine and implement a compliance plan to prevent future violations.
Jefferson County Cable (JCC), a small ISP in Toronto, Ohio, admitted that it falsely claimed to offer fiber service in an area that it hadn’t expanded to yet. A company executive also admitted that the firm submitted false coverage data to prevent other ISPs from obtaining government grants to serve the area. Ars helped expose the incident in a February 2023 article.
The FCC announced the outcome of its investigation on March 15, saying that Jefferson County Cable violated the Broadband Data Collection program requirements and the Broadband DATA Act, a US law, “in connection with reporting inaccurate information or data with respect to the Company’s ability to provide broadband Internet access service.”
“To settle this matter, Jefferson County Cable agrees to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States Treasury,” the FCC said. “Jefferson County Cable also agrees to implement enhanced compliance measures. This action will help further the Commission’s efforts to bridge the digital divide by having accurate data of locations where broadband service is available.”
Minnesota alone is about to get $650 million in federal funding to expand broadband. It’s a good time to make sure money is going to the right areas and to the providers who are best able to serve those communities.
The FCC gives public notice...
DA 24-195
Released: March 4, 2024
WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU ANNOUNCES THE FINAL MONTH OF THE
AFFORDABLE CONNECTIVITY PROGRAM
WC Docket No. 21-450In this Public Notice, due to the lack of additional funding for the Affordable Connectivity
Program (ACP), the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the last fully funded month for the ACP benefit is April 2024. 1 Absent additional funding from Congress, the ACP can only provide a partial reimbursement for May 2024, and ACP providers have the option to claim and pass on that partial reimbursement amount to enrolled households. After May 2024, the ACP will no longer support any benefits to enrolled households. This Public Notice also (1) provides guidance on the May 2024 partial reimbursement month; (2) reminds participating providers of the notices they must send to ACP households; and (3) provides guidance on the consumer protections for ACP households during wind-down and after the ACP ends. The instructions and guidance in this Public Notice further the goal set forth in the ACP Wind-Down Order of keeping as many households as possible connected to broadband service after the end of the ACP.
LTD Broadband has filed a petition for review of the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to deny it funding as part of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.
The company, which largely offers fixed wireless broadband, filed a request for judicial review with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on February 2, contesting the agency decision on December 4.
I recently posted a recap of the situation with LTD Broadband in Minnesota shared by the MN Public Utilities Commission. Very briefly, LTD Broadband was awarded the chance to bid of building broadband in Minnesota. Then the funding was denied. A byproduct of that series of events is that the MN PUC is now looking at revoking LTD’s ETC designation. In a recent meeting with the PUC, LTD Broadband referred to the “unlikely event that the FCC does ultimately approve the long form [application for funds]…
It will be interesting to see how the petition regarding the FCC will go.
Le Sueur County, Minnesota, is urging the Federal Communications Commission to adopt a more proactive and regulatory role in the BEAD challenge process, contending the challenge process currently places the burden of proof on local units of government, when it should be on internet service providers.
In comments submitted to the commission on Monday, Le Sueur County officials call for the FCC to provide grants or resources to local government units to hire professional vendors to work on addressing challenges submitted to the FCC’s national broadband map.
I’ve had several questions about broadband mapping and BEAD challenges lately, especially since the Minnesota Broadband Task Force meeting last week. A quick reminder, or framing for new folks, broadband mapping is important because it determines eligibility for funding. There are a lot of moving pieces to how to best correct (challenge) the maps if you feel your location is misrepresented if you have the time and talent to do it.
Leave it to my smarter friend Doug Dawson (POTS and PANS) to take a step back and ask, who is creating the maps and how is the data made available…
My biggest current pet peeve about the FCC mapping is that the agency made the decision to give power over the mapping and map challenge process to CostQuest, an outside commercial vendor.
The FCC originally awarded CostQuest $44.9 million to create the broadband maps. Everybody I know who works with mapping thinks this is an exorbitant amount, but if this was the end of the mapping story, then congratulations to CostQuest for landing a lucrative federal contract – lots of other companies have made hay doing so over the years.
Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of the mapping story because the FCC gave CostQuest the ability to own the rights to the mapping fabric, which is the database that shows the location of every home and business in the country that is a potential broadband customer. This is a big deal because it means that CostQuest, a private company, controls the portal for data needed by the public to understand who has or doesn’t have broadband.
A case in point is that soon after CostQuest created the first FCC map, the company was hired by the NTIA to provide the databases and maps for the BEAD grant process for a price tag of $49.9 million – more than the FCC paid to create the maps. CostQuest will also sell access to the mapping fabric to others for a fee. I have to imagine that the FCC is also paying CostQuest a big fee twice a year to update the FCC maps and to process map challenges.
I’m just flabbergasted that there is a private company that holds the reins to the database of broadband availability and which only makes it available for a fee.
Again, Doug hits the nail on the head with the frustration level in the field…
Our industry is full of data geeks who could work wonders if they had free access to the mapping fabric database. There are citizen broadband committees and retired folks in every community who are willing to sift through the mapping data to understand broadband trends and to identify locations where ISPs have exaggerated coverage claims. But citizens willing to do this research are not going to pay the fees to get access to the data – and shouldn’t have to.
The FCC says that getting broadband to everybody is its most important mission. However, restricting access to mapping data doesn’t support that sentiment. It almost feels more like the FCC doesn’t want folks pointing out the many errors in the data, which is a shame. Nobody expected mapping data that is reported by ISPs to be accurate since ISPs all have their own agendas. When the new maps were created. I had high hopes that an army of volunteers could challenge the ISPs and set the record straight. It seems like the FCC went out of its way to make sure that doesn’t happen by giving a gatekeeper the ownership of the data.
A recent survey revealed that 81 percent of households with schoolchildren receiving a monthly broadband subsidy are worried about the prospect of losing this assistance and its potential effects on their children’s education, according to the Universal Service Administrative Company.
These metrics “demonstrate with incredible clarity just how important it is to stay connected in modern life and how dangerous it is to threaten disconnection,” said Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, speaking during a Tuesday keynote at the Net Inclusion 2024 event convened by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance.
Rosenworcel further reported that 75 percent of households receiving broadband internet subsidies use their broadband connection for telemedicine purposes.
You can watch the session from the conference below:
(You can watch the conference in progress today and tomorrow on YouTube.)