For me, Juneteenth has always lived at the intersection of joy and sorrow. It highlights a systemized violation of human rights in our country. Throughout history, access to information has always been used as a tool of oppression, with the knowledge that it can also liberate. A modern form of institutional oppression is digital inequity. Under-resourced communities, often comprised of people of color, don't always have the same access to affordable internet, devices and digital proficiency as in more affluent communities, thus limiting employment opportunities, healthcare, banking, education and social connections. The parallels between digital inequity and Juneteenth are undeniable. As we work toward digital access for all - access to technology along with the skills to use it to our benefit - we take the chains off opportunity and open up the world for individuals, families and communities. 

In Ammon, Idaho, every home has access to a fiber optic connection with 1 gigabit per second download and upload speeds. It costs roughly $30 per month. And it’s not controlled by a single big company. Nine different providers can offer you that connection. If you wanted, each of the four ethernet ports in your home gateway could deliver service from a different broadband provider. It’s all thanks to one simple idea picking up steam in pockets of the US: the internet should be treated like a public street. That means providers have to compete, unlike many parts of the US where people are lucky to have even two real choices of providers and subsequently pay some of the highest rates in the world. However, the US is about to deploy $41.6 billion to expand high-speed internet access across all 50 states and every major US territory through a program called Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD). It’s the largest public investment in US broadband ever, and the Comcasts of the country will try their damndest to make sure that public money winds up in private hands. But in many states, the fight will be over before it even begins — because of lobbyists. Over the past three decades, hundreds of US cities and towns have tried to launch municipal broadband services in one form or another. But the deck has always been stacked in favor of incumbents.

The Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund (USF) faces its third recent challenge June 14 in oral arguments before the Eleventh Circuit over Congress’ delegation authority. The lawsuits from Consumers’ Research seek to clarify limits on Congress’ authority to delegate power to executive agencies, and what powers agencies can leave to private actors. In 2022, the USF approved nearly $7.5 billion in non-COVID spending on accessible broadband service, funded by its increasing contribution factor. If it’s struck down as unconstitutional, that funding could be at risk. However, the Eleventh Circuit wrote in United States v. Ambert that “the Supreme Court has not struck down a single statute” as an improper delegation since 1935. Congress needs to reach a higher bar to delegate its revenue-raising authority, argues conservative non-profit Consumers’ Research. For it, the principles of universal service expressed in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 say nothing about how much money the FCC can raise from carriers, and giving the private non-profit Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) the ability to set rates violates the private non-delegation doctrine. But in a bipartisan amici brief, members of Congress—including Sens. John Thune (R-SD) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)—said that “an evolving USF system is consistent with Congress’s explicit direction.” Supporters of the fund, like Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Senior Counselor for the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, say that while the contribution factor isn’t a tax.

Fiber manufacturers are always trying to make it easier to deploy fiber. One of the most interesting trends is the increasing migration from 250-micron fiber to 200-micron fiber. For those not familiar with the metric system, a micron is one-thousands of a millimeter. A 250-micron fiber has a diameter of 0.25 millimeters, while a 200-micron fiber has a diameter of 0.2 millimeters. That may not sound like a big difference, but when each fiber is thinner, the overall size of a fiber bundle is smaller. A larger fiber bundle of 200-micron fiber can be 20-30% smaller than the equivalent bundle of 250-micron fiber. There are big benefits of using smaller fiber. The smaller size means smaller fiber bundles that are far easier to use during the construction process. There is the added benefit of getting a lot more of the thinner fiber on a reel, meaning fewer changes of reels. One of the more interesting benefits is to use a bendable version of the thinner fiber (Bending Inflexible Fiber). Bendable fiber is more tolerant of bending during the construction process, leading to less damage and stress on the fiber. Thinner fibers make it easier to install indoor fiber in places with a lot of 90-degree bends. Perhaps the ultimate benefit is that smaller diameter fiber makes it easier to use microduct conduits. This opens up the possibility of installing huge numbers of fiber along a street in those situations where it’s needed.

The Michigan High-Speed Internet Office (MIHI) announced its initial recommendations for the Realizing Opportunity with Broadband Infrastructure Networks (ROBIN) grant program, which will provide $238 million in federal funding through the Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund (CPF) to support the deployment of high-speed internet to approximately 100,000 unserved locations throughout the state. Project proposals were submitted through a competitive application process and reviewed by MIHI’s ROBIN Steering Committee, a group of representatives from across state government responsible for guiding the development of administrative procedures for the ROBIN Program, scoring applications, reviewing challenges and making relevant decisions and recommendations on programmatic needs. Out of 154 applications submitted by 40 unique applicants, 24 projects submitted by 11 applicants were selected for the initial grant recommendations and would connect nearly 106,000 homes, businesses and institutions throughout the state to high-speed internet access. More than $311 million of matching funds have also been committed by the 11 applicants to support the 24 projects which total $578 million. All project proposals were examined and scored on categories including experience, financial wherewithal, long-term viability of the project; readiness to build, operate and maintain the project; economic impact; locations passed; and digital equity and inclusion. Initial grant recommendations were made based on the final application score following review by the ROBIN Steering Committee.  Not all initial grant recommendations are expected to be funded or receive their full funding pending the outcome of a 45-day comment and objection window, where anyone may file a comment or objection to one or more of the recommendations. The comment and objection window will be open from June 16 through July 31, 2023. 

All states are tackling broadband accessibility in some way, but each is taking its own approach. What Indiana’s focusing on, according to Deputy Broadband Director Earnie Holtrey, is getting everyone on the same page about the broadband landscape, particularly with the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. Holtrey said in his office’s community engagement sessions with counties “one of the questions right away that we ask is who’s heard of BEAD, and usually it’s 25% to 50% of the room.” “That’s a pretty small percentage, I think, given that we are inviting leaders from schools, hospitals, libraries, community foundations, chambers of commerce, local elected officials,” Holtrey went on to say. He noted communication has to be done on the “micro level” with each individual city, town or county that lacks broadband connectivity, so that they can prepare for the BEAD funds that will roll in 2024. 

The Federal Communications Commission announced an important update to its Mapping Broadband Health in America platform to incorporate maternal health data, enabling policymakers, public health experts, clinicians, researchers, innovators, and other public and private stakeholders to better explore the intersection of broadband and maternal health. This tool is the latest step in the FCC’s efforts to explore the role of broadband connectivity in improving maternal health. The US is the only developed country with increasing maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity rates, and research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that many of these deaths and complications are preventable. Furthermore, this nationwide crisis disproportionately impacts Non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaska Native pregnant women at almost two to three times the rate of Non-Hispanic white pregnant women. Similarly, pregnant women living in rural areas without access to appropriate health care providers are 60% more likely to die than women living in non-rural areas. Through this latest broadband health data effort, the Mapping Broadband Health in America platform allows users to generate customized maps and view the intersection of broadband connectivity, maternal health outcomes, and selected risk factors in a number of ways. Specifically, the public can use this platform to:

• Intersect broadband data and maternal mortality or severe maternal morbidity rates at the state level.
• Determine how connectivity and access to obstetric care coincide at the county level, revealing “double burden” counties with high health need and lower connectivity resources.
• View connectivity metrics (e.g., internet adoption, download speed) and maternal health data filtered by rurality, race/ethnicity, and maternal age to visualize patterns, possible disparities, and areas where broadband-enabled interventions could create the greatest impact.
• Visualize the intersection of broadband and mental health provider shortages, given the association between mental health and poor maternal health outcomes.

The Wi-Fi signal is weak outside the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site in Anacostia, a historic African-American section of Washington, DC. It is one of Monica Sanders’s final stops on an overcast December afternoon. Sanders, an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University, isn’t just checking Wi-Fi speeds. She’s drawing connections between a host of indicators at the intersection of internet availability, environmental risk, and historical racial inequity. The findings will be added to a report that Sanders and her colleagues are assembling for the Undivide Project, a nonprofit she launched in 2022. The organization conducts research pro bono for communities to help them document evidence of the digital divide—the gap between areas with and without adequate internet access—as well as the root causes and linked effects of this discrepancy.  So far, her findings in Anacostia fit a pattern Sanders has noticed walking around low-income majority-minority neighborhoods throughout the US: a lack of internet access mirrors other inequities. In neighborhoods shaped by racism and insufficient infrastructure investment, among other structural choices, residents can face disproportionate risk from climate change, affecting everything from flood vulnerability to the ability to get disaster warnings.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sent letters to 50 online marketplaces nationwide notifying them about their obligation to comply with the new Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces for Consumers Act – or the INFORM Consumers Act – as soon as it takes effect on June 27, 2023. “The INFORM Consumers Act requires online marketplaces to protect consumers from counterfeit, unsafe, and stolen goods by verifying their high-volume third-party sellers’ identities, and making it easier for consumers to report suspicious marketplace activity,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. The letters enclose a copy of the act, highlight the responsibilities the act places on online marketplaces, and urge that businesses carefully review the statute and take all steps necessary to fully comply by June 27. In the letters, FTC staff also urge online marketplaces to communicate with their third-party sellers about the information the act requires to be collected, verified, and disclosed. Finally, the letters emphasize that a violation of the act may be treated as a violation of an FTC rule, and thus noncompliant online marketplaces may face enforcement that could result in civil penalties of $50,120 per violation.

Access to clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate information about the pricing of video services helps consumers make informed choices and encourages competition in the market. It does so by empowering consumers with information to comparison shop and to find the video programming services that best meets their needs and matches their budget. Consumers who choose a video service based on an advertised monthly price may be surprised by unexpected fees related to the cost of video programming that raise the amount of the bill significantly. These fees, with names like broadcast TV fee, or regional sports programming surcharge, are listed in the fine print as “fees” or “taxes and surcharges,” separate from the top-line listed service price and can result in a bill that is substantially more than the advertised price. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the FCC proposes to enhance pricing transparency by requiring cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to specify the “all-in” price for service in their promotional materials and on subscribers’ bills. This proposal would require cable operators and DBS providers to clearly and prominently display the total cost of video programming service. This all-in pricing proposal is intended to give consumers a transparent and accurate reflection of their subscription payment obligations and eliminate unexpected fees. It also seeks to provide consumers with the ability to comparison shop among competing cable operators and DBS providers, and to compare programming costs against alternative programming providers, including streaming services. The FCC also seeks comment on whether it should consider expanding the requirements of this proceeding to other types of multichannel video programming providers (MVPDs) and on our authority to do so.

Gannett, the largest publisher in the US, filed a federal lawsuit in US District Court for the Southern District of New York against Google for monopolization of advertising technology markets and deceptive commercial practices. The lawsuit seeks to restore competition in the digital advertising marketplace and end Google’s monopoly, which will encourage investment in newsrooms and news content throughout the country. Google’s practices have depressed revenue and impacted local newsrooms adversely by monopolizing the markets for important software and technology products that publishers and advertisers use to buy and sell ad space. Google controls 90% of the market for “publisher ad servers,” which publishers use to offer ad space for sale. Google also controls over 60% of the market for “ad exchanges,” which run auctions among advertisers bidding for ad space on publishers’ websites. Google controls the largest source of advertisers bidding on exchanges. For Gannett, 60% of all buyers come through Google. The result is Google unfairly controlling selling, buying, and the exchange that matches sellers and buyers – and manipulating all aspects of online advertising transactions.