House Commerce Hearing Critiques NTIA's Handling of BEAD Program

As I previewed in a Monday post to the Free State Foundation blog, the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology the following day held a hearing on the status of the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. Participants had much to say about NTIA's management of the program, particularly with respect to timing, clarity, and the approval process.

Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) in her opening remarks focused on "NTIA's decision to pressure states to regulate the rates charged for broadband service," "unnecessary workforce and climate-related requirements," "an expensive fiber-first agenda," and "unnecessary delays in NTIA's approval process."

Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) touched on similar topics in his opening remarks – and expressed concern that "NTIA continues to add requirements that are contrary to Congressional intent and make this program less attractive and more expensive to the broadband providers needed to deploy to unserved and underserved communities."

In a Written Statement, Misty Ann Giles, Director of the Department of Administration and Chief Operating Officer for the State of Montana, characterized navigating the BEAD Program process as "akin to building a plane while flying it without having the necessary instructions to be successful" and complained that "Montana has often received conflicting or even new and changed guidance after submitting our plans or beginning a previously approved NTIA operational process."

One specific example provided relates to NTIA's recent guidance regarding "alternative technologies" such as satellites and unlicensed wireless. Many, including Committee Chair Rodgers and Subcommittee Chair Latta, support the use of these and other non-fiber distribution platforms in areas where the deployment of fiber would be prohibitively expensive. But Giles, echoing an argument I made a month ago in "BEAD Program Technological Neutrality 'Fix' Falls Short," a Perspectives from FSF Scholars, pointed out that "[w]hile much of the guidance is helpful and needed, it has come at the 11th hour for Montana."

Shirley Bloomfield, NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association CEO, testified that "several concerns, if not adequately addressed, could deter small, community-based providers from participating in BEAD." They include: the accuracy of the FCC's National Broadband Map, prohibitively large project areas, preferences based upon fund-matching ability, higher-than-expected costs and longer-than-expected permitting processes, and the uncertain fate of the Universal Service Fund.

Video of the hearing is available here.

USF Surcharge Rate Hike – Now Up to 35.8%

On September 11, the FCC's Office of Managing Director announced that the Universal Service Fund (USF) contribution factor for the fourth quarter of 2024 will be 35.8% This appears to be an all-time high and serious concern for voice consumers who bear the burden of paying for USF surcharges. Absent any unlikely intervention by the FCC's Commissioners, the proposed rate will soon go into effect.

Functionally, USF surcharges are taxes paid by voice consumers on the long-distance portion of their monthly voice service bills. The USF tax money collected by the voice carriers goes to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), a corporation established by the FCC, which is the administrator of the USF program and distributes the money to program recipients. For additional background on the recent history of persistent and worrisome increases in the USF surcharge rate, see Free State Foundation President Randolph May's June 14, 2024 blog post, "The Telephone Tax Rises Again – Now 34%." 

 

My August 9 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Court Ruling on USF's Unconstitutionality Should Spur Reform in Congress" explained that the Fifth Circuit’s decision holding the USF contribution scheme unconstitutional in Consumers' Research v. FCC should serve as a catalyst for Congress to promptly undertake fiscal reforms of the USF program and put it on stronger constitutional footing.  

FCC Opens New Inquiry into the State of Broadband Deployment

On September 6, the FCC announced that it was opening its eighteenth inquiry on the state of broadband in the U.S., which is expected to culminate in the next iteration of the Commission’s Section 706 report. Under Section 706(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission is required to annually determine "whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion." In other words, for the upcoming report, the Commission is required to assess whether broadband Internet access service – an advanced telecommunications service under the statute – is being timely deployed to all Americans.

Earlier this year, the Commission initiated a proceeding for its forthcoming Communications Marketplace Competition report – a different report that includes an assessment of the broadband market over the previous two years. In public comments filed in June of this year, Free State Foundation scholars wrote: "In 2022 and 2023, overall conditions in the broadband Internet services market were effectively competitive, in many instances even more so than in 2020 and 2021 when this was already the case." FSF's comments cited publicly available data points, including broadband provider quarterly reports and analyst estimates, about fiber deployments, cable broadband network upgrades and footprint expansion, nationwide 5G network upgrades and new deployments, 5G fixed wireless access (FWA) entry in the residential broadband market, cross-platform competition from cable-hybrid wireless providers, and improvements in satellite broadband capabilities to support that conclusion. 

 

The pro-deployment trends from 2022-2023 identified on FSF's comments in the 2024 Communications Marketplace Competition Report proceeding appear to support an affirmative answer to the question that the Commission is addressing in its upcoming Section 706 report. Yet the Commission's just-opened Section 706 proceeding will provide a forum for considering more recent data about availability and deployment progress and enable a more definitive determination about the current state of ongoing broadband deployment. 

 

Expect Free State Foundation scholars to have more to say this year about the state broadband deployment to all Americans. FSF's public comments from December 2023 that were filed in the Commission's previous Section 706 report proceeding can be found on FSF's website.

House Commerce Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on BEAD Program

Tomorrow the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold a hearing titled "From Introduction to Implementation: A BEAD Program Progress Report."

In the hearing announcement, Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) state that the "hearing will serve as an opportunity to hear about how the implementation of the program is going, better understand the impact of NTIA's rules, and what to expect going forward as states begin to award funds."

Regarding rate regulation and the statutorily mandated "low-cost broadband service option," a concern Free State Foundation President Randolph May addressed in a Perspectives from FSF Scholars published earlier today, the accompanying Majority Staff Memo asserts that "NTIA is responsible for reviewing and approving these low-cost options and has used this requirement as a way to regulate rates. The Committee considers these rate regulated approvals to be a violation of the IIJA's rate regulation prohibition."

Other topics teed up by the Majority Staff Memo include the disconnect between the clear congressional goal of technology neutrality and NTIA's "fiber-first" bias; the need for permitting reform; and the implementation impact of labor, letter of credit, and Buy America requirements.

The following witnesses are scheduled to testify:

• Misty Ann Giles, Director and Chief Operating Officer, Montana Department of Administration
• Basil Alwan, Chief Executive Officer, Tarana Wireless
• Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Office, NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association
• Blair Levin, Policy Analyst, New Street Research and Non-Resident Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Project, Brookings Institution

The hearing will begin at 10:30 am.

Congress Should Fully Protect Valuable Copyrighted Music Recordings

On August 29, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) released its "Mid-Year 2024 RIAA Revenue Statistics" report. RIAA's report finds a 4% increase in U.S. recorded music market retail revenues for a total of $8.7 billion during the first half of 2024 compared to $8.4 billion during the first half of the prior year. Digital streaming service subscriptions totaled about 99 million during the first half of this year, and those subscriptions account for almost two-thirds of total revenues. Additionally, the reported $994 million in physical sales during the first half of 2024 was up from $822 million during the first half of 2023, due primarily to a 17% increase in revenues from vinyl record sales. See RIAA's report for more details.

As music recording artists, producers, and the rest of the recorded music industry pursue creative and economic opportunities in 2024, there remains work for the 118th Congress to do to help ensure that valuable copyrighted sound recordings receive full protection under the law. One important thing Congress should do is advance the American Music Fairness Act – S.253 and H.R. 791. 

Under current copyright law, terrestrial AM/FM radio stations have a special exemption from paying royalties to owners of copyrighted sound recordings when those stations play the music on the air. Consequently, foreign terrestrial AM/FM radio stations do not have to pay royalties for playing copyrighted music owned by Americans so long as domestic terrestrial AM/FM radio stations in the U.S. have no obligation to pay such royalties. In other words, the recorded music industry does not generate any direct revenues from radio broadcasts of copyrighted sound recordings. 

But S.253 and H.R. 791 would require AM/FM stations to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings for the use of their intellectual property just like online streaming services do. Passage of the Act would enable U.S. copyright owners to receive royalties from foreign stations. Notably, the Act provides a low flat royalty rate for small commercial and non-profit stations. 

 

For further background on the American Music Fairness Act, see my February 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings." And for a brief overview of the hearing on H.R. 7910 held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet during the summer, see my July 5 blog post "American Copyright Owners Deserve Royalties When Radio Stations Use Their Property."

Lawsuit Challenges FCC Order Subsidizing Wi-Fi Away from Schools and Libraries

On August 29, a petition was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that challenges the legal basis for the FCC's July 2024 Off-Premises Wi-Fi Order. The petition filed in Molak v. FCC states that the Commission's order "unlawfully expands the FCC’s E-Rate Program to subsidize Wi-Fi service and equipment anywhere students might go." E-Rate is part of the Universal Service Fund (USF), which is funded by surcharges – functional taxes – paid each month by voice consumers. The petition alleges that the order’s increase in E-Rate Program outlays will directly increase USF surcharges that the petitioners pay each month. It also alleges that subsidizing Wi-Fi use away from school premises "enabl[es] unsupervised social-media access by children and teenagers."

The unlawfulness of the Commission's Off-Premises Wi-Fi Order is the subject of my August 20 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "FCC Can't Subsidize Wi-Fi Use Away from Schools and Libraries." As explained therein, Section 254(h) of the Communications Act, the statutory provision that provides the legal basis for the E-Rate Program and upon which the Commission relies for its order, authorizes universal service subsidies only to or for "schools," "classrooms," and "libraries." But subsidies for off-premises Wi-Fi use – potentially anywhere in the world – are not included in the statute.

 

Moreover, the legal challenge to the Off-Premises Wi-Fi Order in Molak v. FCC parallels a prior legal challenge with an identical case name that was filed in the Fifth Circuit last year against the Commission's 2023 School Bus Wi-Fi Order. The prior agency order authorized universal subsidies for Wi-Fi equipment and service on school buses. The unlawfulness of the prior order is the subject of a February 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars by Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I, titled "FCC's School Bus Wi-Fi Subsidy Lacks Statutory Support."

 

In both Molak v. FCC cases, the petitioners raise important issues about agency accountability to the law and to the American public. The outcome of these pending legal challenges to administrative agency overreach will have implications for responsible spending of precious dollars collected from the public and for child online safety.