Carr Updates Congress on Broadband Interagency Coordination

In a series of letters dated September 9, 2025, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr updated congressional leaders on steps taken by the Commission to improve data collection and interagency coordination efforts related to federal broadband infrastructure subsidies.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published "Broadband Programs: Agencies Need to Further Improve Their Data Quality and Coordination Efforts" on April 28, 2025. That report, which I described in detail in a May post to the FSF Blog, highlighted shortcomings in the processes by which the four agencies primarily responsible for distributing billions in federal dollars – the FCC, NTIA, and the Departments of Treasury and Agriculture – share data to prevent the awarding of duplicate grants and the overbuilding of privately funded infrastructure.

It also identified concerns relating to the accuracy of the FCC's maps – the National Broadband Map and the Broadband Funding Map – and the efficacy of federal and state agency coordination.

To address these issues, the GAO report made 14 recommendations, six specific to the FCC.

In his letters to committee leadership in both the Senate and the House, Chairman Carr wrote that the Commission "is pleased to inform you that the Commission is actively addressing and incorporating GAO's six recommendations into [its] processes and interagency coordination of federal broadband funding projects."

Regarding data collection, the FCC, consistent with its internal corrective action plan, has been documenting internal policies and procedures, reviewing how mapping data is validated, and aligning processes relating to verifications, audits, and enforcement.

To improve interagency coordination, the Commission has been working with other agencies to establish a common definition of "covered data" for the purpose of information sharing as well as timelines governing that sharing process.

In conclusion, the letters assert that, "[t]ogether, when fully implemented, the Commission, as well as our sister agencies, expect these process improvements will further minimize wasteful duplicative funding."

For more on the critical importance of effective interagency coordination regarding broadband subsidies, I direct your attention to "The Failure's in the Footnote: Agencies Must Improve Broadband Expenditure Coordination Efforts," my January 2025 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, as well as the numerous Free State Foundation publications referenced therein.

PRESS RELEASE: FSF Says the Proposed Charter - Cox Transaction Will Benefit Consumers

Today, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and Senior Fellow Andrew Long filed comments with the FCC in the agency’s proceeding to consider the proposed Charter - Cox transaction. Below are excerpts from the Introduction and Summary and the Conclusion that capture the essence of FSF’s comments: 

"We evaluate the likely relevant impact that the proposed transaction would have – that is, how it might affect the public interest, convenience, and necessity – given the specifics of the proposal and, critically, the broader competitive context that exists today. In short, we find there is ample evidence that the proposed Charter/Cox transaction, if approved, would benefit consumers by invigorating competition in the broadband, mobile, and video marketplaces. We also conclude that, given the de minimis extent to which the applicants' footprints overlap and the indisputable widespread existence of competitive pressures, there appear to be no substantial transaction-specific harms that might offset those benefits.”

 

*     *     *

"[T]he combination of Charter and Cox promises numerous consumer benefits. These include lower costs, greater choice, and additional innovation in traditional cable offerings (broadband and video) fostered by an enhanced ability to compete with often much larger rivals, including Big Tech platforms with global reach; (2) the expansion of Charter's hybrid MVNO offering into Cox's footprint combined with lower costs through greater scale; and (3) the "onshoring" of Cox customer-service jobs. And given the lack of any meaningful overlap in service territories, not to mention the high level of third-party competition in all three marketplace sectors, there appears to be little, if any, basis for concern that the transaction could result in significant harms."

Wireless Taxes Are Way Too High

The Wireless Foundation's valuable annual report regarding the taxes and fees imposed on wireless services has just been released. It short, it paints a dismal picture for consumers with respect to the taxes, fees, and government surcharges added to their bills.

 The top line: A typical American household with four phones on a “family share” plan, paying $100 per month for taxable wireless services, would pay over $330 per year in taxes, fees, and government surcharges.

 

Taxes, fees, and government surcharges now make up a record-high 27.60% of the average wireless services bill.

 

The federal Universal Service Fund (FUSF) charge has increased again, from 12.76% to 13.36% of the average wireless services bill, and state and local taxes on the average bill also increased, from 14.01% to 14.25%. Together, you get the 27.60% total.

 

Maryland, where the Free State Foundation is located, ranks in the top quartile of those states with the highest taxes, fees, and government surcharges imposed on wireless services. Over 30% of the average Marylander's wireless services bill is composed of those add-ons.

 

Some good news: The average charge from wireless providers has decreased by 29% since 2012, from $47.00 per line per month to $33.36 per line.

 

Now the bad news: During this same time, wireless taxes, fees, and government surcharges increased from 17.18% to 27.60% of the average bill. The result – the consumer benefits from lower wireless prices are almost totally offset by higher taxes and fees.

 

Of course, the Tax Foundation's report is not just a sterile exercise in collecting and organizing data. All this matters greatly to consumers, and especially to low-income families. According to the report, approximately 83 percent of low-income adults live in wireless-only households. Wireless taxes, fees, and surcharges are regressive and disproportionally adversely impact low-income families.

 

That should be reason enough for state and local taxing authorities, and the federal government with regard to the USF fee, not only to halt the upward trend but to act to substantially reduce the current tax burden on wireless consumers!

The South Carolina BEAD Way

South Carolina's broadband office has announced that of the $551 million originally available under BEAD grants for connecting the state's remaining unserved locations, it plans to spend just $41.3 million, or 7.49 percent of the $551 million originally allocated to the state. 

Only 20,480 eligible homes and businesses remain to be served. South Caolina attributed this to the investments already made using American Rescue Plan Act funds. These funds led to the relatively rapid reduction in unserved and underserved locations.

 

This very sizeable reduction in expenditures is a testament to the success of the revamping and reorienting of the BEAD program under the Trump administration. The Biden administration's rules, contrary to the congressional direction, disfavored the use of lower cost technological platforms other than fiber. And the Biden administration created additional costs by including it its rules mandates requiring use of union labor, favoring government-owned networks, and inducing rate regulation.

 

South Carolina should be commended. The state is committed to connecting all its unserved locations. And saving the federal government millions of dollars too.

Constitution Day 2025

 by Randolph May

 

Tomorrow, September 17, is Constitution Day, the day on which we celebrate the 238^th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of 1787 by thirty-nine Framers in Philadelphia. The signing marked the end of a long hot summer of debate – debate sometimes seemingly as heated as the temperature in the modest Assembly Room of the Pennsylvania State House, the name of which was later changed to Independence Hall.

After the Constitutional Delegates adjourned for a final time, Elizabeth Willing Powell questioned Ben Franklin: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin's response: "A republic, if you can keep it."

Perhaps this is an apocryphal tale. But nevertheless, one that should be a constant reminder to all Americans of good will that the democratic Republic which our Constitution established is not preordained to last forever. It always has been and forever will be dependent upon "We the People" – the Constitution's first three words – to nourish and sustain the American Experiment in democracy.

Now, in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination, the fabric of our Republic seems especially frayed. Of course, the societal instability – even breakability – we feel because of increasing acts of violence rooted in political differences did not arise overnight. Far from it. And it has many causes.

But it's blinking reality not to acknowledge that over-the-top overheated political rhetoric – while never ever a justification for acts of violence like the one that killed Charlie Kirk – is likely one of those causes.

I do not intend to point fingers from or at the left or right. That's not what's needed in America now.

Here, on this Constitution Day, one should turn back to the Constitution – and the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The guarantee that citizens must enjoy the freedom to speak freely is essential to the continuation of the American Experiment.

But with that freedom, secured by the Constitution if we can keep it, also comes the responsibility of us all to encourage civil discourse and respectful debate about controversial issues, while at the same time adhering to fundamental principles in which we believe.

Voltaire declared: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

At the Free State Foundation, we have tried to model that behavior since our founding in 2006. And I pledge we will continue to do so.

With friendship and optimism on Constitution Day,  

 

Congressman Latta's Bill Would Cut Wireless Permitting Red Tape

On September 4, Representative Bob Latta (R-OH), co-chair of the Rural Broadband Caucus, reintroduced the Winning the International Race for Economic Leadership and Expanding Service to Support (WIRELESS) Leadership Act (the Act). First introduced in February 2021, the Act would "modernize broadband permitting to reduce barriers to deployment."

Among other things, the Act would:

• Establish shot clocks for state and local agencies to act on an application (60 days for the placement of a "small" personal wireless facility using an existing structure, 90 days for other actions relating to a "small" facility or to a larger facility using an existing structure, and 150 days for other actions relating to a larger facility), after which, and upon written notice to the agency, the application would be deemed granted.

• Prohibit "discriminat[ion] among personal wireless service facilities or providers of communications service."

• Ban state and local agencies from exercising their local zoning authority in a manner that would "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision, improvement, or enhancement of personal wireless services.

• Require that fees be "competitively neutral, technology neutral, and nondiscriminatory"; "established in advance and publicly disclosed"; "calculated based on actual and direct costs" that are "objectively reasonable."

Parties that have been "adversely affected by any final action or failure to act" could seek either expedited judicial relief or administrative relief from the FCC, which would be required to act upon such a request within 120 days.

As Congressman Latta was quoted in the Press Release, "Over the years, billions of dollars have been allocated to expand rural broadband, but without meaningful broadband permitting reform, … all of the federal money will be tied up in burdensome permitting reviews…. " The Act would "streamline state and local permitting, cut through burdensome reviews, and accelerate broadband deployment so more communities can get connected."

The President's Ultimate Authority to Manage Government Spectrum Shouldn't Be Restricted

 

Senator Deb Fischer is proposing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) currently being debated on the Senate floor that would prohibit modification of the spectrum between 3.1 - 3.4 GHz and between 7.4 - 8.4 GHz unless the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly agree. In spectrum provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill reconciliation statute, these bands generally were exempted from being designated for auction to private sector entities. But the Defense Department was not granted authority to supercede normal executive branch decision-making. Nor could it be. 

Here's a tweet from August 14 with my response to Senator Fischer's proposal: 

 

I agree w/ @SenatorFischer it's imp't for DoD to have sufficient #spectrum to carry out its mission. But this does't mean DoD's spectrum needs shouldn't be questioned or balanced against other nat'l interests. And DoD can't be left to decide for itself its own #spectrum needs.

Free State Foundation (@FSFthinktank) x.com

Now that the NDAA bill is being debated, the White House has issued a formal objection to Senator Fisher's proposed amendment, stating: "The certification would hinder the President’s executive authority."

                                               

                                                

I agree. This is not a matter of supporting the military and its mission, which I do. But, ultimately, under our Constitution, the president is Chief Executive as well as Commander in Chief, responsible for overseeing the entire executive branch, and, of course the military. Congress cannot properly restrict a president's executive authority by handing over final decision-making authority to his subordinates.

Presumably President Trump - and any future president - will want to ensure, just as much as Senator Fischer, that our nation's military has the spectrum it needs to protect defend us.

Senator Fischer should withdraw her amendment.