White House to Congress: Fix the AI Patchwork

The Trump Administration issued seven AI policy recommendations for Congress on Friday, March 20, 2026, including one for preemption, asking Congress to make sure state legislatures don’t get in the way of AI innovation (Recommendation VII). 

This recommendation is exactly what the moment calls for. Last week, I wrote a FSF Blog post about just this issue. After describing the extraordinarily wide range and volume of AI bills moving through statehouses across the country, I wrote: “What the nation really needs is an overarching federal framework that avoids ex ante heavy-handed regulation and that supplants the growing patchwork of state laws.” The White House has now said the same thing. 

Recommendation VII reads: “Congress should preempt state AI laws that impose undue burdens to ensure a minimally burdensome national standard consistent with these recommendations, not fifty discordant ones.” It clarifies the distinction between federal and state domains of AI regulation. The federal government is better positioned to “supporting innovation” because AI is “an interstate phenomenon” that is part of the “national strategy to achieve global AI dominance.” Absent preepmtion, states may otherwise “unduly burden Americans’ use of AI.” State governments are positioned to regulate AI as it pertains to issues specific to their state such as consumer protection, zoning, law enforcement, and public education.

Here are a few additional details encouraging innovation among the White House’s six other recommendations: “lead the world in AI by removing barriers to innovation” (Recommendation V); “not create any new federal rulemaking body to regulate AI” (Recommendation V); and “streamline federal permitting for AI infrastructure construction and operation” (Recommendation II); The White House also recommends preventing censorship and protecting free speech (Recommendation IV).

Noticeably absent from the seven recommendations, however, is an explicit acknowledgment that free market competition is both a means of achieving the White House’s ambitions and an essential benefit to American consumers. Recommendation VII frames preemption in terms of competing with other nations but overlooks a foundational point: robust competition among American companies is the precondition for national competitiveness. A truly pro-innovation framework would make free market competition an explicit objective in recognition that this helps ensure that the best products and services are made available to consumers at the lowest prices. 

Now, Congress needs to follow through on the White House’s recommendation for preemption. And with a strong commitment to fostering market competition, Congress and existing federal agencies have the opportunity to get AI regulation right.

Charter/Cox Transaction, Approved by Federal Regulators, Awaits California OK

On March 19, the New York State Public Service Commission approved – with questionable conditions – the transfer of control of Cox Enterprises, Inc. (Cox) to Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter). Weeks before, the FCC signed off on this pro-consumer transaction with no strings attached. The Department of Justice (DOJ), for its part, cleared the deal in September 2025, thereby triggering a one-year countdown during which the transaction must close lest that approval expire.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) now stands as the final, time-sensitive hurdle preventing the formation of a combined company better able to compete in broadband, mobile, and video. The parties therefore requested on February 27 that, should the CPUC find it necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing, it do so "promptly" – specifically, at some point next week. However, on March 2, the CPUC announced that it would not hold evidentiary hearings until April 20-24.

In a June 2025 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, FCC comments coauthored with Free State Foundation President Randolph May, and a brief submission to the CPUC, I consistently have argued that this transaction likely would deliver tangible consumer benefits without imposing significant offsetting harms. For example, in those comments filed with the CPUC, I wrote that:

[T]he combination of these two companies promises to provide California consumers of broadband, wireless, and video services with cost savings, expanded choice, and accelerated innovation, particularly in Cox service areas. Moreover, potential concerns regarding transaction-specific harms are obviated by (1) the de minimis overlap between the parties' respective geographic footprints, and (2) the substantial competitive pressures cable operators face from Big Tech, rival distribution technologies, and over-the-top content providers.

In a February 27 order, the Chiefs of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau, Office of International Affairs, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau agreed, concluding that there are "certain public interest benefits [that] are likely to be realized, including promoting competition and consumer benefits for broadband and other services the combined company will provide" – and not "a significant likelihood of any material transaction-related public interest harms."

But as these things go, Charter and Cox also must obtain approvals from the states within which they operate. As noted above, New York recently blessed the transaction – though not without first extracting a figurative pound of flesh in the form of commitments to (1) spend at least $100 million on network upgrades to deliver symmetric Gigabit per second broadband speeds (that is, speeds well above the FCC's definition of "broadband": 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) downstream and 20 Mbps upstream), (2) replace 500+ Wi-Fi access points and provide free Wi-Fi access to non-customers, and (3) "fund digital inclusion and community initiatives."

That leaves California.

At the Morgan Stanley Investors Conference earlier this month, Charter Communications, Inc. CEO Chris Winfrey acknowledged that, "[n]o secret, we're working through California as the big state that remains open." And as a Charter spokesperson was quoted in a recent Broadband Breakfast article, "[w]e are working with California state regulators to complete the transaction review soon so we can bring lower prices, higher wages, and our 100% US-based customer service to more communities across the country."

There is now widespread agreement, at both the federal and state levels, that the combination of Charter and Cox would net substantial consumer benefits. California therefore should conclude its review with all due speed. Specifically, it should do so with a watchful eye toward the September 15 expiration date associated with the DOJ's approval – a deadline that, if missed, "would cost the companies $2.5 million in filing fees and require them to wait at least another 30 days for DOJ clearance."

State Lawmakers Are Not Waiting for Washington to Regulate AI

With annual legislative sessions beginning to wind down, lawmakers in 44 states and D.C. have introduced over 800 bills related to artificial intelligence during the 2026 session so far, according to the National Council of State Legislature’s AI bill tracker. This is a remarkable volume of regulatory interest from lawmakers who have not had much of a chance to understand any possible related market failures or to study the costs and benefits of regulations for a new technology that has only recently entered mainstream use. This regulatory interest represents continued momentum from the past few years. In the 2025 session, the 50 states and D.C. introduced over 1,000 AI bills altogether.

The bills during this and recent sessions cover an extraordinarily wide range of targets and approaches. Some bills target AI developers such as Anthropic and OpenAI. Some target deployers of AI such as social media companies or businesses that use AI internally. Others target other parties such as data brokers. Many bills are sector-specific: AI in healthcare, AI in housing, AI in employment, AI in insurance, and AI in elections. And many bills are issue-specific: for example, lawmakers in the 2026 session have introduced 188 bills in 38 states on AI deepfakes and 22 bills in 22 states covering AI chatbots.

A few examples illustrate the range of the 726 bills pending in statehouses and awaiting governor signatures: An Illinois bill would require AI developers to report safety incidents and publicly publish their protocol on risk management, transparency, and cybersecurity (2026 IL SB3312). A Hawaii bill would require AI deployers to run risk management programs for algorithmic discrimination and cybersecurity, including pre-market and ongoing testing, and recordkeeping (2026 HI SB2967). A Minnesota bill would prohibit, “surveillance-based price discrimination,” or the use of AI in using certain consumer data to set prices (2026 MN HF 3764). A New Jersey bill would require companies to conduct AI safety tests and report results to the state (2026 NJ S 1802). A New York bill would hold companies liable for harm caused by AI chatbots offering medical, legal, and other types of regulated speech (2025 NY S7263). 

So far, 13 states this session have enacted or adopted 14 pieces of legislation. A few examples illustrate the range of what lawmakers are passing: Indiana placed restrictions on when healthcare insurance providers can use AI (2026 IN H 1271). New York state and local government may not use AI to reduce staffing, or as the language reads, from using AI in a way that would displace governments jobs (2025 NY S 8831). South Carolina placed restrictions on how data can be collected from minors and implicated AI in the law (2025 SC H 3431). In Vermont, AI videos of political candidates must now be labeled as such (2025 VT S 23).

In a recent Perspectives from FSF Scholars, my colleague, Joe Kennedy, suggests the need for a streamlined AI regulatory framework that incentivizes the build-out of a robust supporting infrastructure and that encourages competition and innovation. What the nation really needs is an overarching federal framework that avoids ex ante heavy-handed regulation and that supplants the growing patchwork of state laws.

Without such a framework, companies must navigate a growing and inconsistent patchwork of state regulations, each with varied definitions, thresholds, compliance timelines, and enforcement mechanisms. States may still decide to pass legislation on AI as it pertains to their specific state criminal codes, public education requirements, state government use of AI, or other state matters. But at the current rate, an AI developer, deployer, or other AI party could theoretically face 51 different pieces of legislation regulating the same activity. And the burden of complying with this patchwork falls even harder on startups and emerging competitors trying to offer better alternatives for consumers. AI has potential to improve countless dimensions of everyday life. The emerging regulate-first patchwork of state laws is not the path to realizing that potential.

The Broadband Providers Growing Role in AI

AI services and platforms and providers of high-speed broadband services are increasingly engaged in a symbiotic relationship. So I argue in the Free State Foundation’s latest Perspectives from FSF Scholars, AI promises significant improvements to broadband providers. But AI itself depends on the networks that collect, analyze, and transmit massive amounts of data. I point out that: “[i]f AI cannot obtain the vast amounts of power and water it needs, if it cannot connect with users to gather data and deliver value, or if access to this infrastructure is compromised, AI collapses.” 

This trend has caught the attention of industry leaders. NCTA President and CEO Cory Gardner recently gave a keynote speech to the State of the Net Conference. He stated that: “[T]his critical infrastructure isn’t just a byproduct of AI. It is the backbone, the workhorse, the foundational element that made and makes AI possible.” This is the result of sustained private investment. According to Gardner, NCTA members have invested more than $355 billion in broadband infrastructure over the last 20 years, including $26 billion last year.

On March 11 President and CEO of CTIA Agit Pai wrote on BroadbandBreakfast that “breakthroughs in artificial intelligence won’t matter much if the networks connecting devices and infrastructure cannot support them. AI without a strong wireless network is like a new car without a road.” Pai pointed to two pillars for success: harmonized spectrum policy and investment-friendly regulatory frameworks.

The dependence on reliable, secure, and high-capacity communications also applies to networks for power, water, and transportation. Each increasingly requires powerful broadband networks to provide the large amounts of data and computing ability required by AI. In order to attract the massive amounts of private investment required, regulators will have to craft sensible regulations that minimize uncertainty and delay. Luckily, the providers of broadband networks are increasingly aware of the opportunity. Hopefully, policymakers are too.

Using the BEAD Savings to Eliminate Mobile Dead Zones

Since being nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in July 2025, Arielle Roth has been doing an excellent job in reforming the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The $42.45 billion program is intended to subsidize broadband deployment to unserved and underserved areas.

For several years after Congress authorized the BEAD program, it languished under the Biden administration, encumbered by costly extraneous requirements that delayed development of the state plans that were required to be approved to distribute the funds in each state. Even before Administrator Roth assumed office, the Department of Commerce, under the leadership of Secretary Howard Lutnick, required changes to the Biden administration's BEAD rules. These critical Trump administration reforms, implemented by Administrator Roth, in short order led revisions in the state plans that produced substantial "Benefit of the Bargain" cost savings in the states' deployment proposals. This has resulted in a $21 billion surplus. The abandonment of the Biden administration's unreasonably presumptive preference for funding fiber-only deployments, regardless of cost, in favor of a more economically efficient rational technology-neutral approach, played a significant role in producing the surplus.

Administrator Roth is now considering how the $21 billion in savings attributable to the "Benefit of the Bargain" process should be used to best serve the American people.

Along with me, my Free State Foundation colleague Andrew Long has played a key role in advocating reforms to the BEAD program during the Biden administration years, most of which have been adopted by Secretary Lutnick and Administrator Roth. Now, in a recent FSF Perspectives, Mr. Long recites some of the acceptable uses that should be considered for expenditure of the BEAD surplus, including, for example, establishing a reserve fund to ensure the deployment job would be finished, enhancing public safety, and improving the permitting process.

Here I want to call attention to another suggestion deserving serious consideration – T-Mobile's proposal to allow states to use a portion of the BEAD surplus to "End Mobile Dead Zones." T-Mobile proposes that no more than $8 billion should be used to close remaining rural dead zones. According to John Saw, T-Mobile's President and CTO, T-Mobile's analysis shows that, with the capped $8 billion, about 6,000 more mobile macro sites could extend 5G coverage to roughly 99% of Americans, including key rural roads. Using a portion of the BEAD funds this way, to support a national mobile infrastructure program, would alleviate the need for a new USF 5G fund. And by extending 5G coverage to rural locations still lacking it, public safety would be enhanced by eliminating remaining mobile connectivity gaps.

If I had my druthers, I would prefer returning a significant portion of the $21 billion in cost savings to the U. S. Treasury for the benefit of America's taxpayers. Regardless of whether or not that's in the cards, T-Mobile's proposal to use no more than $8 billion of the surplus to build out mobile macro sites to close remaining rural dead zones is certainly worthy of serious consideration. 

Talkie's Preemption Petition Looks Persuasive

An item in today's Law360 Telecommunications newsletter, "Md. Gov't Agencies Oppose Talkie's FCC Preemption Bid,"caught my attention. [A subscription is required to access Law360.] The report involves a petition filed with the Federal Communications Commission by Talkie Communications, Inc., in January 2026, asking the agency to preempt Queen Anne's County in Maryland from enforcing what it claims are local zoning requirements that have the effect of prohibiting Talkie from attaching its communications equipment to a utility pole owned by Talkie.

According to Talkie, the county's bureaucratic permitting roadblocks are preventing it from providing voice, data, and cable services to Maryland residents and businesses. In recent years, Talkie has made significant investments to deploy its broadband services, including high-speed Internet services, in order to expand its competitive footprint.

 

Like many of the disputes between wireless and wireline communications providers and local authorities, there is a lot of back-and-forth, with assertions and counter-assertions. I haven't taken the time to independently investigate the facts of this dispute. But after reviewing Talkie's preemption petition, it looks to me like Talkie has presented a good prima facie case.

 

This is just one of many, many instances in which local cities and counties across the country implement onerous and often costly requirements, or engage in bureaucratic delay tactics, that prevent the timely deployment of new communications services and advanced broadband infrastructure. It's important that, when appropriate, the FCC grant meritorious preemption petitions. Talkie's petition looks like it may be just such a case.

 

The proper exercise of the Commission's preemption authority in a timely fashion is crucial to the full realization of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's important, much-needed "Build America" agenda.

 

Broadband Prices: Evidence of a Competitive Market

Recent reports have described falling prices in broadband coverage. These declines are kind of surprising given the high initial costs of deploying broadband and the general increase in most other costs of living basics, including food and gas. Two recent articles look at some of the actual plans offered by Internet service providers. They confirm the general price declines but look more closely at how prices play out in the actual market

The conclusion of both articles is that both users and companies have been experimenting with pricing policy to get the best deal. The key finding is that broadband is already affordable to the vast majority of Americans, largely as the result of market competition. One of the articles (subscription required) states that: “It would not be an exaggeration to say that many U.S. ISPs – responding to free-market forces rather than regulatory gimmicks – have on their own established a competitively driven replacement for the defunct Affordable Connectivity Program.”

The second article describes plans from a number of technologies and companies, including Charter, Optimum, and Comcast. Providers for the most part have done away with extra costs including equipment rental, junk fees, and automatic price increases. Instead, companies are offering price freezes, in some cases for life. There is no reason that these guarantees could not be standard practice in the next few years.

Companies compete using a number of technologies including cable, fixed wireless, fiber overbuilders, and satellite. On average Americans pay $78 a month for broadband. Surprisingly, 63% of adults are paying $195 more for Internet this year than they were last year. This may be because users are relatively price insensitive once they find an acceptable plan, the expiration of promotional prices, or they are purchasing higher speeds. Still, the article lists several ways for users to lower their cost, such as buying the modem and router, negotiating with their current supplier, choosing a slower plan, and switching providers.

All this goes to show that, like any competitive market, buyers and sellers continually negotiate for a better deal. The difference is that, with the help of a lot of innovation and private investment, the broadband market promises further benefits to consumers. Once quality is held constant, broadband prices are clearly falling, so much so that users are buying more of it.

 

Consumer Choice in Sports Proves that Video Competition Abounds

On February 25, the FCC's Media Bureau released a public notice seeking comment on "current and emerging trends in the distribution of live sports programming." With a particular focus on football, the item longs for a bygone era – and, what's more, views it through rose-colored glasses. Indeed, it seems to presuppose a time when football fans had free access to every game played. In other words, gridiron glory days that never existed.

Setting to the side, at least for the moment, the significant legal authority questions posed by the notice, I submit that, rather than a basis for concern, the current state of live sports carriage demonstrates that video programming distribution is highly competitive; that consumers derive substantial benefits, including expanded viewing options, as a result; and that any impact on legacy business models is an inevitable and necessary consequence of the welcome transition to a broader marketplace defined by abundant choice.

As the notice recalls, "[f]or decades, Americans have enjoyed turning on their television sets and quickly finding the games they wanted to watch for free on an over-the-air broadcast." Let us not forget, however, that a primary driver of that simplicity was a lack of choice. Consumers typically had access, via broadcast network affiliated local television stations, to a half dozen (give or take) NFL games on Sunday as well as Monday Night Football.

Until the launch of the NFL Sunday Ticket subscription service in 1994, that essentially was the whole picture.

Today, however, consumers can choose from a healthy roster of viewing options. That includes, of course, local broadcasters, which continue to offer a comparable number of games and can be received in a wide range of ways: for free using an over-the-air antenna; by subscribing to a traditional, facilities-based multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD) platform (that is, cable, direct broadcast satellite , and telco TV); and, more recently, with a subscription to a virtual MVPD such as YouTube TV, which also is the current home of the NFL Sunday Ticket.

In addition, the existence of numerous, competing video distribution platforms – including cable channels like ESPN (which has carried Monday Night Football games for the past two decades) and streaming services such as Amazon Prime (Thursday Night Football), Peacock (Sunday Night Football), and Netflix (Christmas Day) – creates additional opportunities for consumers to view games. Thursday Night Football games on Amazon Prime, as one example, represent an additive option. Similarly, NFL Sunday Ticket and NFL Red Zone provide diehard pigskin fans new couch-based opportunities that did not exist in the halcyon days of old.

This brings me to an important point. Commenters frequently make apples-to-oranges comparisons between the single-digit game schedules offered when local broadcasters were the only game in town and what it might cost today to view every game – nearly 300 in total, including the playoffs.

The notice itself, citing a CBS News article, states that "[i]n 2025, NFL games aired on 10 different services, which, according to some estimates, could cost a consumer over $1,500 to watch all games." That article in turn references a USA Today story for a total of $651 (although the latter in fact calculates a price somewhere between $811 and $833, figures seemingly inflated by double charges for ESPN, which already is included in the YouTube TV base plan); the $1,500 figure comes from an unsourced X post that appears to overstate the price of NFL Sunday Ticket + YouTube TV and similarly double charges for ESPN. Aside from the unrealistic assumption that more than a very few people – or perhaps anyone at all – would want to watch every single game or be able to do so, it's clear that the price figures cited are likely inflated. 

*    *    *

As I have documented in a multiyear series of Perspectives from FSF Scholars and posts to the Free State Foundation blog – including one just a few weeks ago – consumers are migrating steadily away from the "Big Bundle" traditionally offered by traditional MVPDs to a self-selected collection of streaming options. In that highly competitive environment, numerous distributors are choosing to offer live sporting events, in addition to the original and licensed content that they carry, to win and retain customers. That competition-fueled decisionmaking benefits consumers through lower costs and greater choice. It therefore should be celebrated, even as it unavoidably disrupts existing revenue models.

The Proposed Railway Safety Act Is Highly Problematic

Yesterday's lead editorial in the Washington Post, "Legislators Think They're Making Trains Safer. They're Not," is spot on. It explains why it would be wrong for Congress to adopt the highly problematic Railway Safey Act as it now stands. And it shows how seemingly well-intentioned "feel good" regulatory measures not only may not resolve the issues they supposedly are intended to address, but rather actually may depress overall consumer welfare and suppress economic efficiencies.

 

The Railway Safety Act was first introduced in 2023 after the East Palestine, Ohio, train accident that led to chemicals being vented and burned. Not surprisingly, there was serious environmental damage due to the escaping chemicals. Perhaps it is also not surprising that legislators felt compelled to react by "doing something."

But, as the Post editorial explains, the bill that the Trump administration is now endorsing is not the proper response. Without addressing any rail safety issues that are rationally related to the causes of the train derailment, the bill would add costly unrelated mandates that, as the Post puts it, "would drive costs higher and slow innovation." Several of the proposed new regulatory mandates, such as requiring the use of certified mechanics and government-directed train crew sizes, respond to union demands. In the meantime, Norfolk Southern already has addressed all four recommendations made to it by NTSB's after-accident report, while federal government has yet to implement any of the ten recommendations made to it.

 

There are lessons here that go beyond getting any proposed rail safety legislation right, although that is obviously important. Of utmost importance, as the Post says, "[r]egualtion should be based on evidence, especially when it could be costly." And it's important for the government not to issue new mandates that are not related in a rational way to addressing the issues supposedly at hand.

 

And, finally, as the editorial points out, by several measures, "including the rates of derailments and employee injuries, 2025 was the safest year on record." It makes sense for the Trump administration to reconsider its support for the Railway Safety Act as it now stands.

Commission to Vote on IP Transition Item at March Open Meeting

In a March 4 blog post, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced that at its March 26 open meeting the Commission will vote on a draft notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) "that builds on our prior efforts to streamline copper retirement and reduce outdated regulatory burdens that force providers to maintain aging networks instead of investing in modern, high‑speed ones." In a news release released the same day, he highlighted the fact that "[t]his FCC decision will free up billions of dollars in private capital so that Americans in communities across the country can go from old and slow copper lines to modern, high-speed ones."

Among other things, the draft item would eliminate filing requirements; simplify the technology transitions discontinuance application process; and provide carriers with blanket authority to grandfather legacy services delivered via copper wire. It also would preempt state and local requirements that "have the effect of continuing to require carriers to provide legacy voice services" even after the Commission has authorized them to stop doing so.

In a companion proceeding that remains pending, the Commission proposed to exercise its Section 10 forbearance authority and relieve incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) from a statutory obligation to offer interconnection via legacy time-division multiplexing (TDM) equipment. Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I filed supportive comments in response to that NPRM, emphasizing that "[t]his is yet another key regulatory reform proposal that is crucial to advancing the implementation of the FCC's 'Build America' program by spurring the deployment and use of advanced broadband IP networks."

PRESS RELEASE: FSF Applauds FCC Proposal to Accelerate Network Modernization Inbox

Regarding FCC Chairman Carr’s announcement that the Commission will vote later this month on a proposal to accelerate network modernization, Free State Foundation President Randolph May issued the following statement:

“I applaud FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s announcement that the Commission will vote on its proposal to accelerate the transition to fully modernized, high speed broadband networks. Adoption of the plan to eliminate outdated and costly analog-age regulations in order to speed the transition away from legacy copper wire networks is essential to securing America’s economic prosperity and innovative environment. By aligning the FCC's rules with what the digital age demands, this important deregulatory step will enhance overall consumer welfare and incentivize investment in advanced high-speed networks. At the same time, the proposal contains necessary consumer protection and public safety safeguards.”

The comments filed with the FCC on January 20 by FSF President Randolph May and Senior Fellow Andrew Long advocating adoption of the rulemaking proposal are here. 

House Orders Study on How to Speed Approvals to Access Federal Land to Build Out Broadband Networks.

Over the past year there has been a growing emphasis on expanding public access to broadband services. Although actual progress is slow, planning and evaluation seems to have gained momentum. One aspect of this is a growing focus on the amount of time it takes government agencies at all levels to approve the use of federal lands to install broadband systems. Fortunately, some progress was recently made.

On March 3 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5419 by a unanimous voice vote. The Enhancing Administrative Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act was originally introduced by Rep. Tom Kean (R-NJ). It requires the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to study whether there are any programmatic or administrative barriers to the timely review of requests to access federal land to deploy broadband. The study will also identify whether regulatory reforms could improve efficiency with respect to reviewing requests and try to identify processes for prioritizing the review of requests. Within one year the Departments shall issue a report summarizing the results of the study. It should also include a plan for providing the staffing necessary to ensure timely review of broadband land use authorizations in the future.

 A 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office found that between 2018 and 2022 the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service lacked sufficiently reliable data to determine whether they were meeting the statutory requirement of 270 days to process applications to use federal land to extend broadband coverage.

Permitting delays, for whatever reasons, add directly to the cost of deploying broadband projects. Thus, any actions to shorten approval times have a significant effect on economic growth. Such actions by Congress are welcome and show that, even in an atmosphere of strong partisan dialogue, it is still possible to find bipartisan support for policies that improve American life.

Bipartisan Bill Would Impose Time Limits on the FCC’s Approval Process

On February 26 Representatives August Pfluger (R-TX) and Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) introduced legislation to increase transparency and accountability in the FCC’s review of spectrum license transfers. The legislation is especially appropriate because the FCC is currently going through two regulatory processes to speed the state and local permitting process for wired and wireless deployments, respectively. Shortening regulatory delays has lately attracted more attention as a way to increase the deployment of broadband networks. Its importance can be seen by the push to use nondeployment funds in the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program to improve the permitting process.

The Keep It Moving Act (H.R. 7742) makes two major changes. First, it would impose strict time limits on the FCC’s license transfer review process. Second, it would require a full Commission vote to deny any application, ensuring licensing decisions are driven by the views of the Commission rather than its staff.

Under the bill a new Section 417 of the Communications Act of 1934 would place time limits on the Commission’s consideration of applications to transfer control or assignment of any license or lease subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC.

Under the Act, within 15 days of receiving an application the FCC must either tell the applicant that the application is complete or provide the information needed to make it complete. If the applicant submits an amended application, the FCC has five days to determine whether it is complete. If the Commission misses the deadline, the application is deemed to be complete.

 

Once the application is completed, the FCC has seven days to issue a public notice and invite public comment, if appropriate. The decision that an application is incomplete is considered an appealable decision under the FCC rules. If it is decided that the application is complete, the application is deemed to have been complete 15 days after it was submitted or, if the application was amended, 5 days after the last amendment.

The Act requires the Commission to approve an application within 180 days after the public notice. This does not apply if the FCC issues a formal request for additional information or refers the application to the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector, in which case the deadline is extended to one year. In the latter case, the Commission may take an additional 90 days to conduct a secondary assessment. If more information is needed for review, the Commission must issue a request by the earlier of a) 30 days after the end of the public comment period if there was one or b) 120 days after the public notice date. If the Commission decides that a substantial and material question of fact requires a hearing, it then has 15 months from the date of the public notice to issue a final order on the application.

If the FCC does not approve the application within the relevant time period, the applicant may obtain a writ from the appropriate court compelling the Commission to either approve the application or justify its denial in court. In the latter case, the FCC must show by clear and convincing evidence that approval of the application is not in the public interest. If an applicant files a major amendment or waiver request with respect to its application, the Commission may extend its deadline by 30 days.

Applications that are currently pending before the FCC are treated as if the application was filed on the date of enactment for purposes of determining deadlines under the Act. These time requirements do not apply to pro forma transactions that do not require Commission approval in advance of the proposed transfer of control. However, the holder of the pro forma license or other authorization must notify the Commission of the transfer within 30 days of its completion.

The Act also requires more involvement on the part of the Commission itself. While the FCC staff may still approve applications pursuant to existing delegations of authority, denying an application or designating it for a hearing will require a Commission vote.

The legislation should provide much more clarity to license reviews, making it easier and faster to get spectrum into the hands that can use it best. Several industry groups, including the NCTA, CTIA, and the National Association of Broadcasters released statements praising the bill and predicting that it would increase both innovation and deployment of broadband networks.

The FCC Must Concurrently Consider the Impact of Greater Television Station Consolidation on Retransmission Consent Negotiations

On February 18, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told reporters that he supports the proposed acquisition of TEGNA Inc. by Nexstar Media Inc. – and, specifically, that the Commission is "going to be moving forward." Because the combined entity would own stations reaching approximately 80 percent of U.S. households (according to the applicants, 54.5 percent after the UHF discount is applied), approval of this $3.54 billion transaction would require a waiver of, or substantial revisions to, the current 39 percent national television ownership cap (the cap).

However, as Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I argued in comments filed last August regarding potential changes to the cap, it would be inappropriately shortsighted to assess the primary justification asserted by the broadcast industry for regulatory relief – that is, the need for greater scale and scope in order to compete for advertising dollars with national online distribution platforms – in a vacuum.

The reason: it is inevitable that any regulatory relief provided regarding the cap (whether in general or specifically in the context of the instant transaction) intended to level the playing field between broadcasters and Big Tech (Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, and so on) will further skew the already lopsided retransmission consent negotiating positions of broadcasters and facilities-based multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs): cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators.

As DIRECTV, LLC described in great detail in its petition to deny, "[a]mple evidence corroborates Applicants' own statements that the local consolidation proposed here will lead to higher retransmission consent rates." In addition – and echoing the fear recently expressed by Emily Barr, the former CEO of Graham Media Group, which owns multiple television stations in four states, that relief from the cap "is more about driving up stock prices for the few companies that survive consolidation" than it is about greater localism – DIRECTV warned that the transaction "would (notwithstanding Applicants' claims) almost certainly decrease the amount and quality of local news."

Accordingly, when assessing the claimed benefits of the proposed combination of Nexstar and TEGNA, the Commission should simultaneously evaluate – and take steps to mitigate – the impact that substantially larger station groups would have on the already asymmetric, heavily regulated relationships between local television stations and traditional MVPDs. As Mr. May and I wrote:

[I]f the FCC concludes that it should – and can, in a post-Chevron appellate environment – modify the national television ownership cap, at the same time it should (1) urge Congress to modernize the Communications Act, and, in the interim, (2) identify additional ways to eliminate unwarranted rules targeting facilities-based MVPDs.

To that list of remedial measures, at this time, I would add that greater consolidation on the broadcaster side certainly should factor heavily into the agency's consideration of pending, as well as future, transactions involving facilities-based MVPDs. As the Free State Foundation noted in its comments on the proposed combination of Charter Communications, Inc. and Cox Enterprises, Inc. currently before the Commission, "given that the FCC is considering allowing greater concentration in local broadcast television station ownership to facilitate competition vis-à-vis Big Tech platforms with global reach – a one-sided deregulatory step that inevitably would further skew retransmission consent negotiations – it would seem appropriate to afford the applicants similar relief here."

Arielle Roth's Spirited Defense of Free Speech

 On February 25, in an address at the Media Institute, NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth delivered a spirited defense of free speech. Such a defense is always welcome at any time. But now, while America is in the midst of celebrating our 250^th birthday, and while, at the same time, there are threats to free speech around the globe, Administrator Roth's address is especially welcome.

 

To provide a framework for her remarks, Ms. Roth began this way:

"In the 250 years since our founding, technology has repeatedly transformed speech—from the printing press to radio, from the telegraph to the telephone, and from the television to the global internet. 

Every major advancement in communications technology has shifted who holds power over speech. In our current age, that increasingly means that whoever controls communications technology controls the boundaries of free expression. Today, that struggle plays out not only at the edge of the network but deep in the infrastructure layers—in spectrum policy, standards bodies, satellite governance, AI systems, and network architecture. 

That is also why communications policy—especially international communications policy—is now a central battleground for free speech."

And then this:

"The internet is the most powerful engine of free expression ever created. It amplifies individual voices, dismantles gatekeepers, enables journalists to expose corruption, and helps dissidents organize. 

That is no accident. The internet is what it is today because it was built in America under American legal traditions, powered by American ingenuity, and protected by the First Amendment. It rests on principles of openness, decentralization, and a private sector-led model that resists control by any single government or treaty regime."

Having set the stage, the remainder of Ms. Roth's address, with impressive clarity, details some of the threats to free speech from around the world – including from friendly nations that, at times, perversely, justify suppressing speech their governments disfavor in the name of promoting other values or supposed "truths." And she also explains why protection of free speech depends on freedom from government intervention in the various layers or "stacks" of the Internet's architecture.

There's a rich discussion of threats arising from some countries wishing to change the governance model of the ITU in ways that would give the international organization more authority to control speech in individual nations. And a look ahead at technological developments, and policy disputes, in the satellite and wireless areas that will be crucial to maintaining the U.S. global leadership.

I will say no more here, except that it's well worth your time to read Administrator Roth's address in its entirety.

PRESS RELEASE: The FCC Should Not Allow Its Process to Be Abused to Avoid Legitimate Investment-Backed Expectations

Please see the FSF Perspectives published this morning by Free State Foundation President Randolph May regarding the FCC’s review of EchoStar’s proposed spectrum transaction. 

 

Below is the conclusion to the Perspectives:

In sum, I do not contend – and, to my knowledge, no one else contends – that assuming no other legal infirmities, the Commission ultimately should not allow EchoStar to complete assignment of the spectrum licenses at issue to AT&T Mobility and SpaceX. Those entities almost certainly will put the spectrum to productive use. But as long as the Commission's public interest authority continues to exist – if it means anything at all – it surely must mean that parties will not be allowed to use the Commission's processes to engage in shell games in a way that contravenes public policy and the public interest. Using the Commission's transaction review process as a means of escaping contractual obligations that are integral to much needed communications infrastructure build-outs cannot be consistent with the public interest. Commission precedent is clear on this point.

 

Thus, in the context of the review process involving EchoStar's licenses, it is incumbent on the Commission to exercise its authority in a way – through requiring an escrow, surety bond, guarantee, or some other means – that ensures that funds ultimately will be available to satisfy EchoStar's contractual obligations to the tower companies and other infrastructure suppliers. By no means is this important only, or perhaps even primarily, to protect those entities who may be impacted by the outcome of this particular matter. It is important because if the Commission acts in a way that defeats legitimate investment-based expectations created by contracts, as a result of the precedent established, it likely will become more difficult in the future to raise the capital necessary to fund the multi-billion-dollar broadband infrastructure build-outs that are the foundation of the "Build America Agenda."

 

Such a result certainly cannot be consistent with the public interest in securing America's economic prosperity and national security.

 

A PDF of the complete Perspectives is here.

Lower Prices and Better Performance: What More Could You Want?

On Friday, February 13 the Bureau of Labor Statistics published preliminary estimates of the rate of inflation in 2025. The numbers still need to be seasonally adjusted (the price of sleds tanks in the summer). But these give us a preliminary view of what happened to prices.

The increase for all items was 2.4% from January of 2025 to last month. This is still above the Federal Reserve’s target and may delay future interest rates. But not all price changes are the same. In particular, the release shows that telecommunication goods and services, broadly defined, continue to experience slower inflation and even price declines, despite increases in performance.

Price increases for many hardware communication devices rose 1.6%; slower than other sectors of the economy. This includes computers, peripherals and smart-home assistants. Televisions, however, fell by 4.8%, which raises an interesting fact. If you go to purchase a television tomorrow but walk out empty-handed, you can be fairly sure that if you come back in a year, televisions will be cheaper and of better quality. That changes the nature of the market. Consumers are more likely to wait and manufacturers know that in order to stay in business their products need to be cheaper and better over time.

This is especially true for products consisting largely of software rather than hardware. The cost of residential phone service increased by 3.1%, but the price of wireless phone service driven by software fell by 4.3%. Cable, satellite and livestreaming television service prices rose by 2.7%, above the average for all items. Markets that require large investments of costly and difficult to upgrade hardware, as opposed to software, which can be routinely upgraded, have a tougher time responding quickly to new innovations.

The price of Internet service rose by 3.5%, possibly due to a combination of large demand for service (broadband deployment is closely linked to economic growth wherever it occurs) and persistent delays in permitting new buildouts. Interestingly, the price of video purchases, subscriptions and rentals rose 9.1%. This undoubtedly reflects some of the price increase for physical goods such as paper, metal, and plastic. But since each of these sources generates an enormous amount of content each year, it might also reflect the fact that consumers are willing to pay more for content they find more desirable.

Finally, the price of smart phones, one of the most sophisticated and ubiquitous products in the economy, fell by 10.6%. Spreading access to the full potential of this technology by increasing the power of its microchips and software, increasing the speed of broadband deployment, and generating apps focused on markets that matter, such as health, education, advanced manufacturing, and logistics, should have a huge potential for further improvements on both price and performance.

Senate BEAD Hearing Addresses Questions About Future Performance

On February 10^th, the Senate Appropriation Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies held a hearing entitled “A Review of Broadband Deployment Funding at the Department of Commerce.” The sole witness was Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. Although other topics arose, the majority of time was spent on an update of the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program (BEAD). The Free State Foundation has recently written about these same issues addressed at the hearing.

Senator Jerry Moran, Chairman of the Subcommittee, started the hearing with his opening remarks. While he acknowledged that the "Benefit of the Bargain" initiative imposed by the Trump administration had resulted in apparent savings of $21 billion, it still remains the case that no Internet connections have been made and no programs have been completed. States still face hurdles spending BEAD money. Senators also have questions about what will happen to unallocated funds. Senator Moran also alleged that the "Benefit of the Bargain" effort focused on getting the cheapest price rather than the best value.

In their individual questions many Senators expressed significant concern about what will happen to the Fund’s unallocated $21 billion. They clearly favor reallocating it to the states for purposes related to broadband expansion. They did not, however, express a clear preference about how the remaining money should be divided among the states or the purposes for which it should be used. Some worried that the existing allocation would not be enough to achieve the mission of universal coverage.

Secretary Lutnick’s replies addressed some of their concerns. He clearly stated that the funds would not be returned to the Treasury. Rather, the statute authorizing the BEAD program will govern the allocation of remaining funds. However, that statute gives the Department a great deal of freedom regarding their use so long as it is related to the general goal of achieving universal coverage. The Department is actively soliciting ideas and plans to kickoff a listening tour with a town hall on February 11^th. As for the adequacy of the funds, Secretary Lutnick pointed out that, as a condition of getting its grant, each state broadband authority was required to achieve full coverage of its population. As a result, he said no state should run out of money. The Secretary would not commit to spending the money solely on further broadband expansion, however. He did promise that providers, including Starlink, would not be allowed to change their commitment after the fact.

Although some Senators stated their states were having trouble accessing the money, Secretary Lutnick indicated that access should have been granted once the states signed their approved plans. He also said that this process is almost completed and should move quickly from now on.

As for the unallocated money, several possible uses have been suggested. These include efforts to speed the permitting process, the purchase of additional poles to which equipment can be attached, using broadband to increase the use of precision agriculture, and furthering public safety. At the end of the hearing Chairman Moran asked whether the Administration might retroactively condition BEAD spending on states not passing AI laws. A recent Executive Order apparently tasks the Secretary with recommending whether such a condition could be imposed. Secretary Lutnick deferred answering.

Senators are clearly skeptical that the BEAD Program will accomplish extending broadband coverage to everyone. They are also very interested in how the remaining $21 billion will be spent. The Secretary is likely to face more questions unless significant new broadband deployment starts to occur soon or Senators generally approve of how remaining funds are allocated.

FCC Rules on the Comcast/Appalachian Power Dispute: Speeding Decisions, Reducing Costs and Expanding Broadband

Over the last year the FCC has prioritized regulatory reform to speed decision-making and reduce costs associated with broadband deployment. Its February 5^th decision in a private dispute between Comcast Cable Communications and Appalachian Power Company (APCO) furthers these goals by promising to resolve legal issues faster. Specifically, its decision in the Comcast dispute indicates that, where possible, the Commission will use its adjudicatory powers to resolve disputes as early as possible, allowing deployment to proceed. Even parties that lose a particular case should welcome this reform as it saves them time and money from a pursuing a losing cause.

The dispute centered around Comcast’s use of utility poles owned by APCO. Existing laws generally allow broadband providers to place their equipment on poles owned by others. In return, pole owners have a right to be compensated for any necessary costs. Agreement on how to apply this general rule to specific cases can be contentious, however. In this case APCO argued that Comcast should pay the full cost of replacing poles that would have needed replacement anyway. Apparently, third parties had damaged some of the poles. Even though these poles would have to be replaced anyway, APCO insisted Comcast pay the full cost. Comcast argued it should only have to pay for costs that benefited it.

The Commission’s order was significant because it used new powers, proposed by the Free State Foundation, to reach its decision. Specifically, the FCC used an "accelerated docket" process meant to speed up broadband expansion. It also used a Rapid Broadband Assessment Team (RBAT) of FCC personnel which was formed in 2023 to “expedite the resolution of pole attachment disputes.” The RBAT determined the facts upon which the Commission made its judgement. In brief, the Commission unanimously ruled that Comcast was not responsible for bearing the burden of paying the costs that were caused by a third-party. Comcast was only responsible to the extent that it benefited from any pole replacement.

I applaud this for two reasons. The first concerns the substance of the Commission’s decision. Comcast should not bear responsibility beyond the marginal cost of its installations. To require more would unnecessarily increase the cost of broadband deployment which the Commission is supposed to further. In fact, since Comcast is undertaking this project as part of the federal Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program, the additional costs would be partially funded by taxpayers. The decision also increases the ability of market forces to influence the final cost borne by each party.

The second reason is the use of an expedited process to resolve the dispute. The Commission was able to render its decision within 60 days of Comcast’s complaint. The presence of an experienced and neutral decision-maker promises to significantly reduce the cost of resolving future FCC pole attachment disputes. Finally, by providing parties with greater certainty about how it will rule, the FCC can encourage settlements. That should benefit everyone.