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."

A Revisionist History of the BEAD Program Ignores Congressional Intent

Today's Policyband (subscription required) included a useful pointed critique of a July 9 Washington Monthly article suggesting a clandestine plot by Republican lawmakers to sabotage from within the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. But there is even more that can be said by way of rebuttal.

The extraneous, partisan policies layered on top of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) by the Biden NTIA were not the issue, authors Paul Glastris and Kainoa Lowman insist. Instead, they make the unsupported claim that "the complexity and delays of the BEAD program and the broader failure of Washington over many years to solve the digital divide is overwhelmingly the result of telecom monopolies whose economic and political power previous administrations unleashed."

Likening NTIA's Notice of Funding Opportunity to an "everything bagel," the piece nevertheless goes to great lengths to assure us that requirements not found in the IIJA – promoting policies relating to labor standards, climate threats, net neutrality, third-party (so-called "open") access, and so on – "were not major time sinks." The real impediment, they suggest, was "incumbents' goal of avoiding competition to their existing infrastructure." The truth, meanwhile, is that lawmakers appropriately took reasonable steps to prevent the use of federal subsidies to overbuild privately financed networks to prevent waste and encourage additional private investment.

In the IIJA, Congress, exercising its authority under Article I of the Constitution's Spending Clause, reached a relatively rare bipartisan compromise. That compromise sought to learn from the mistakes of the past – mistakes that the authors describe at length – and once and for all connect those remaining locations not yet served by privately constructed broadband Internet infrastructure.

According to USTA | The Broadband Association, providers have invested nearly $2.2 trillion in broadband infrastructure since 1996 – including $94.7 billion just in 2023. Largely because of that capital spending, the FCC reported in May that "110 million homes and small businesses (95 percent) have access to a terrestrial fixed service with speeds of 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload (100/20) or greater."

What the authors willfully choose to ignore is that the stated goal of the IIJA was to subsidize the prohibitively high price tag to connect primarily rural locations still "unserved" – not to use taxpayer dollars to compete with these existing, privately funded networks, which of course would disincentivize future investment.

Accordingly, Congress in the IIJA defined "unserved" as without access to speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps and "underserved" as lacking access to speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps; designated the FCC's then-under-development National Broadband Map as the definitive source of location-specific service availability information; established a challenge process to verify that information; and enlisted state-level offices to determine how best to overcome the unique geographic, financial, and other factors encountered within their borders.

To be sure, in practice BEAD Program implementation has left much to be desired. To suggest, however, that measures agreed to by Congress to avoid the wasteful overbuilding of existing broadband infrastructure using taxpayer dollars somehow tell a "story … of how telecom monopolies are behind the failure of government to solve the digital divide" ignores both the substantial role played by Biden NTIA overreach and the well-documented – in the article itself, no less – mistakes of the past.

Instead of engaging with the IIJA's actual text and structure, the authors rely on a convenient – but wrong-headed – narrative to try to deflect accountability away from those truly responsible and onto those that have invested the trillions necessary to connect nearly every location in the U.S.

TAKE IT DOWN Act Passed by Congress, Heads to President's Desk

On April 29, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, by a 409-2 vote, the Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act or the "TAKE IT DOWN Act" (S. 146). The bill, which passed by unanimous voice vote in the Senate on February 13, now goes to President Donald Trump's desk for signature. 

As described in a January 16 press release by the Senate and House bills' sponsors, the TAKE IT DOWN Act “makes it unlawful for a person to knowingly publish [non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII)] on social media and other online platforms. NCII is defined to include realistic, computer-generated pornographic images and videos ["deep forgeries"] that depict identifiable, real people." The bill has separate provisions and corresponding criminal penalties applicable to minors and adults, and it specifies that a victim consenting to the creation of an authentic image does not mean that the victim has consented to its publication.

 

Additionally, the TAKE IT DOWN Act includes a notice-and-takedown provision that requires social media and other public websites or internet services to establish procedures for the removal of NCII in response to a valid request from a victim, within 48 hours. Under the bill, websites also are required to make reasonable efforts to remove copies of the unauthorized images. Websites that make good faith efforts to remove NCII or disable access to it receive immunity from legal claims relating to such removal or disabled access. However, a website’s failure to comply with the notice-and-takedown requirements constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Under the TAKE IT DOW ACT, the FTC has authority to enforce the notice-and-takedown requirements and impose penalties for non-compliance. 

 

The TAKE IT DOWN Act appears to be a commonsense measure, carefully written, and reasonably necessary to address a serious problem that is nationwide in scope. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the bill into law. Credit and congratulations are due to the bill's supporters and its sponsors.

 

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (S.146) is sponsored by Senators Ted Cruz and Amy Klobuchar. Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar and Madeleine Dean are sponsors of the House companion bill (H.R.633). Senator Cruz, who is Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, talked about the TAKE IT DOWN Act during his keynote address at the Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference in Washington D.C. on March 25, 2025: 

NO FAKES Act to Combat "Deepfakes" is Reintroduced in Congress

On April 11, the "Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2025" or "NO FAKES Act" was re-introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 2794) and Senate (S. 1367). The House bill is sponsored by Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar and the Senate bill is sponsored by Sen. Christopher Coons. The NO FAKES Act would bolster individuals' intellectual property rights in their likenesses and voices by recognizing a private right of action against unauthorized and harmful "deepfakes." The bill has bipartisan backing as well as the endorsement of a cross-section of the creative and tech industries. The NO FAKES Act is strong on the merits and the 119th Congress should give it due consideration. 

 

Although generative AI technologies offer potential benefits, they also may be abused. Public displays and dissemination of "deepfake" songs misappropriate the value of recording artists’ voices, damaging the artists economically. Also, generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and services on the Internet allow users to create "deepfake" explicit pictures and videos of individuals.

 

The NO FAKES Act would address those "deepfake" dangers in a targeted way by establishing a national uniform baseline of legal protection for an individual’s likeness and voice from unauthorized digital replicas. If passed by the 119th Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the Act would make civilly liable anyone who knowingly produces a digital replica without the consent of the rights owner. It also would make civilly liable anyone who knowingly publishes, reproduces, displays, distributes, transmits, or makes the digital replica available to the public without the rights owner's consent. Persons harmed under the Act would have a right to seek statutory or actual damages, recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. 

 

Recognizing the potential benefits of authorized digital replicas, the NO FAKES Act provides that individuals would have the right to license their personas for digital replication by third parties. Additionally, the Act is carefully written to address abuses and it includes safeguards for First Amendment-protected free speech and expression using generative AI tech. It bears emphasis that the NO FAKES Act is about private law – personal rights and intellectual property rights; it is not a federal criminal law bill.

 

A more detailed review of the same bill, previously introduced in the 118th Congress, is provided in my August 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "The 'NO FAKES Act' Would Protect Americans' Rights Against Harmful Digital Replicas."

House Passes Bill for 6G Task Force and Report

On April 28, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, by a unanimous voice vote, H.R. 2449 – the "Future Uses of Technology Upholding Reliable and Enhanced Networks Act" or the "Future Networks Act." Sponsored by Rep. Doris Matsui and co-sponsored by Reps. Rick Allen and Tim Walberg, the Future Networks Act, if it were to be passed by Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump, would direct the FCC's Chairman to appoint a "6G Task Force" that would prepare and send to Congress a report on developing standards, uses, and related issues involving future 6G wireless networks. 

Under the bill, the members of the 6G Task Force would include representatives of the communications industry, public interest organizations or academic institutions, and representatives of federal, state, local, and tribal governments. The Future Networks Act requires that, within 180 days of the 6G Task Force being established, the group prepare a draft report on 6G wireless technology. The draft report would be published on the FCC's website and in the Federal Register for public comment Following the public comment period, and within 1 year of the 6G Task Force being established, the group would publish their final report and submit it to House and Senate Committees. 

The development of 6G technologies, standards, and spectrum policies no doubt will be a multi-faceted and complex undertaking. A future 6G report by the type of task force proposed in the Future Networks Act could serve as a valuable storehouse of knowledge for Congress, the FCC, and the Executive Branch and help pave the way for a successful eventual launch of 6G wireless networks. Now that the Future Networks Act has passed the House, the Senate should give the bill due consideration. 

 

In an April 2023 blog post, Free State Foundation President Randolph May identified the restoration of the FCC's authority to conduct competitive bidding spectrum license auctions as essential for future 6G network deployment. However, in the near term, there are many opportunities for expanding 5G networks by repurposing spectrum from government use to private use. Seizing those opportunities depends not only on a replenished spectrum pipeline but revival of the Commission's auction authority. The 119th Congress should restore the FCC’s authority on spectrum license auctions and encourage timely replenishment of the spectrum pipeline. 

House Committee Advances New Bill to Reauthorize and Strengthen NTIA

On April 11, the House Commerce Committee voted to approve the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act of 2025 – HR 2482, a bill introduced on March 31 by Representatives Bob Matsui and Doris Matsui. The bill would reauthorize the NTIA for the first time in over 30 years. Additionally, HR 2482 would elevate the position of NTIA Administrator from a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Commerce Department to a Deputy Under Secretary.  

Elevating the position of NTIA Administrator likely would give the officer more clout in undertaking important agency functions, such as coordinating spectrum use and planning among executive branch agencies. Federal government agencies occupy a significant amount of spectrum. Stronger leadership at NTIA could help further a more effective interagency spectrum coordination process for repurposing some of that spectrum for private commercial use. 

 

As recounted in a blog post from July 31, 2023, the House Commerce Committee passed an earlier version of the NTIA Reauthorization Act during the 118th Congress. The prompt passage of HR 2482 in the 119th Congress indicates that this bi-partisan legislation could become law this year. 

 

Credit is due to Reps. Latta and Matsui for their persistence on the NTIA Reauthorization Act. HR 2482 deserves a timely vote by the House of Representatives.   

House Committee Advances Bill for Vetting Recipients of High-Cost Broadband Subsidies

On April 8, the House Commerce Committee voted 50-1 to pass the Rural Broadband Act of 2025 – HR 2399. The bill would require the FCC to establish a vetting process for future applicants for future high-cost universal service program funding for deployment and supporting broadband Internet access services. The purpose of the vetting process is to ensure that subsidies go to entities that are capable of fulfilling their universal service obligations. 

The Rural Broadband Act has been introduced in prior Congresses. My blog post from February 16, 2023, describes a bit more about the bill as it was introduced in the 118th Congress by Senators Shelley Moore Capito and Amy Klobuchar. 

 

This bi-partisan legislation appears to be a reasonable measure to help prevent money collected from U.S. consumers via surcharges – effectively, "USF Taxes" – being misspent and wasted. The House of Representatives should give HR 2399 an up-or-down vote.

 

Meanwhile, the need for an overhaul of the Universal Service Fund is still pressing. As Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I explained in our August 2023 comments to the Universal Service Reform Working Group: "Reform of the USF subsidy system is urgently needed because the system is outdated and no longer fiscally sustainable." The existing universal service regime was established in a voice-centric 1990s context, with a broader contribution base and much smaller sized fund than today with a dwindled base and a bloated annual distribution amount of $7 billion to $8 billion. As a result, the USF Tax has continued to climb, and the most recent proposed quarterly contribution factor increase will raise the USF Tax to 36.6%.

 

Notably, the constitutionality of the contribution mechanism of the USF was the subject of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on March 26 of this year. Regardless of the Court's verdict on the constitutionality of the USF's contribution system, economic realities require reforms. One possible reform is switching from the USF Tax to appropriations by Congress. Another reform option is expanding the contribution base to major Internet websites that benefit the most from universal broadband connectivity. Those ideas were among the many topics discussed at the Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference – #FSFConf17 – held on March 25, 2025, in Washington D.C. Video of the conference panels, keynote addresses, and keynote conversations are available online.

Bill Would Fill the Gap in Copyright Protections for Music on AMFM Radio

On January 31, Sen. Marsha Blackburn filed the American Music Fairness Act. If it were to become law, the bill would secure full public performance rights in copyright owners' music sound recordings. The bill is backed by a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, including Senators Alex Padilla, Thom Tillis, and Corey Booker. An announcement for the bill states that Rep. Darrell Issa will be introducing companion legislation in the House. In the 119th Congress, both chambers should give the American Music Fairness Act the timely consideration it deserves. 

Copyright law contains a gap in its protection of the property rights of sound recording owners. Currently, terrestrial commercial AM/FM radio stations are allowed to broadcast copyrighted music sound recordings to attract listening audiences and earn money from airing ads around those recorded songs – all without obtaining a license or compensating the recordings' owners. 

 

The American Music Fairness Act would fix the issue. Under the Act, AM/FM stations would be required to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings – just like satellite radio and Internet radio stations pay public performance royalties to sound recording owners. 

 

Importantly, the American Music Fairness Act would set low, set flat royalty rates for smaller stations. For instance, the bill would establish a rate of $10 per year for non-profit and commercial stations that generate less than $100,000 in revenue each year. An annual rate of $500 would apply to stations that generate revenues over $100,000 but less than $1.5 million each year. 

 

Another merit of the Act is that it would enable sound recording owners to receive public performance royalties from foreign radio stations. The U.S.’s lack of full public performance rights has enabled foreign stations to lawfully withhold royalties from American copyright owners. But if the Act becomes law, foreign trade agreement provisions would kick in and compel those stations to finally pay American sound recording owners for the use of their copyrighted property. 

 

Previously, the American Music Fairness Act has been falsely attacked as a tax bill. In reality, the Act is a pro-property rights bill. No intellectually honest person can claim one private party's obligation to pay another private party for the use of private property is a government tax. Copyright royalties are not taxes. (The obvious differences between payments for the right to make copies, publicly display, or publicly perform another's copyrighted property and payments of taxes or fees to the government are addressed in more detail in my blog post from September 2022.) 

 

The American Music Fairness Act was introduced in both the House and Senate in prior Congresses, and the House Judiciary Committee passed it in December 2022. Sen. Blackburn and her colleagues deserve thanks for reintroducing the American Music Fairness Act in the 119th Congress and giving sound recording owners another chance at being fully secured in their rights. Hopefully, the Senate will take up the bill for due deliberation.

 

Additional background on the American Music Fairness Act can be found in my 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings," as well as in my April 2021 Perspectives, "Congress Should Secure Full Copyright Protections for Music Sound Recordings."

Spectrum Pipeline and FCC Auction Bill Introduced in House

In welcome news, on January 23, Rep. Rick Allen W. Allen announced the introduction in the House of Representatives of the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2025. The Act, if it were to become law, would require the NTIA to identify at least 2,500 megahertz (MHz) of mid-band spectrum for reallocation from federal government use to non-federal or shared use in 5 years of the bill's enactment, including at least 1,250 MHz within the next 2 years.  

Additionally, the Act renews the FCC's authority to conduct spectrum license auctions and issue licenses to bid winners. The Commission's authority lapsed in March 2023. Under the Act, the Commission would be required to auction at least 1,250 MHz of spectrum for full-power commercial wireless service within 6 years, and at least 600 MHz of that spectrum must be auctioned within 3 years. 

 

Notably, the Act also requires the FCC to allocate at least 125 MHz of spectrum for unlicensed use, such as WiFi. 

 

At the January 23 hearing on wireless technology held by the House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology, there appeared to be bipartisan unanimity on the conclusion that more spectrum needs to be put into use for licensed and unlicensed use and that the FCC's lapsed spectrum license auction authority should be restored promptly. 

The Commission's 2024 Communications Marketplace Competition Report includes a chart by CTIA that shows the dramatic rise in mobile data traffic, and an unmistakable upward trend that will continue as more and more connected devices go into use and as data usage per subscriber continues to go up: 

Additionally, the 2024 report observes that "[a] large proportion of mobile data traffic is delivered on an unlicensed basis through Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and similar protocols." Furthermore: "Telecom Advisory Services asserts that the economic benefits associated with Wi-Fi in the United States will rapidly grow to $2.4 trillion in 2027, including an estimated $514 billion in consumer benefit, $624 billion in producer surplus, and $1,286 billion in GDP." And "[a]ccording to LightReading, the average Verizon subscriber offloads approximately 78% of their data onto Wi-Fi, for example, while Comcast subscribers offload approximately 94%." For other highlights from the report, see my Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "The FCC's 2024 Communications Marketplace Report: Time for a Broader View of Competing Broadband Services," published January 24, 2025. 

 

Also important is the NERA study published on January 23 that estimates the tremendous economic value created through the allocation of spectrum for licensed use. For more on that, see my January 23 blog post, "Report: Putting Mid-Band Spectrum into Licensed Use Adds Billions to Economy."

 

The Spectrum Pipeline Act that Rep. Allen introduced is a companion to the similarly-titled bill from March 2024 that Senators Ted Cruz and John Thune sponsored. As Free State Foundation President Randolph May stated in a March 11, 2024, Media Advisory regarding the Senate bill from the last Congress: 

No doubt there may be different views regarding the specific dates and amounts identified for reallocation contained in the bill. But there should be widespread agreement that it provides a good basis for moving forward promptly to develop a bipartisan, bicameral plan to address the nation's now-lagging spectrum efforts.

Everything President May said then applies with equal measure to the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2025. Several months later, no substantial progress has been made on the wireless spectrum front. Timely action by Congress is even more important to get the desired result from having more spectrum in use. Rep. Allen deserves credit for filing the bill and undertaking efforts to make that happen. 

Senator Cruz to Intro Resolution to Repeal FCC's Off-Premises Wi-Fi Subsidies

On January 16, Broadband Breakfast reported that Sen. Ted Cruz intends to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval in the Senate to overturn the FCC's July 2024 order granting subsidies for schools and libraries to loan out Wi-Fi hotspots for off-premises use. 

The expected joint resolution of disapproval will be filed under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which provides a fast-track mechanism for Congress to repeal new agency rules. If passed by 119th Congress, the CRA joint resolution would go to the desk of President-elect Donald Trump for signature. Background on the CRA is provided in FSF Board of Academic Advisors' Member Daniel Lyons' June 2018 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "The Congressional Review Act and the Toxic Politics of Net Neutrality."

The FCC's July 2024 order for subsidizing off-premises Wi-Fi is a good candidate for repeal under the CRA. As explained in my August 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "FCC Lacks Authority to Subsidize Wi-Fi Use Away from Schools and Libraries":

Section 254(h) of the Communications Act, on which the Commission relies, authorizes universal service subsidies only to or for "schools," "classrooms," and "libraries." Subsidies for off-premises Wi-Fi use – potentially anywhere in the world – are not included in the statute. The Commission's decision to spend taxpayer dollars without an overall budget cap for off-premises Wi-Fi use is unlawful. 

Thus, a joint resolution of disapproval to repeal the Commission's order is a rule of law measure. 

 

Additionally, Sen. Cruz and others have raised reasonable concerns about the Commission's order causing wasteful taxpayer expenditures and child Internet use in environments without adult supervision. The agency's approved subsidies would come from the E-Rate program, which is funded by universal service surcharges imposed on consumer bills for voice services. 

 

Thanks go to Sen. Cruz for his willingness to take action for government agency accountability, fiscal responsibility, and child safety. 

House Passes Bills to Improve Broadband Infrastructure Siting on Federal Property

On December 16, the U.S. House of Representatives, by voice votes, passed the Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Act (H.R. 3293) and the Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act (H.R. 3343). Both bills are now in the Senate. Although there do not appear to be any companion bills in the House, perhaps the unanimous passage in the House will prompt the final passage of both measures by the end of the 118th Congress or early in the 119th Congress.  

My May 30, 2023, blog post noted the unanimous passage of both bills by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That post summarized H.R. 3293 and H.R. 3343:

The Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Reviews Act [H.R. 3293] would authorize the NTIA to establish an interagency "strike force" to ensure that each Federal land management agency "prioritizes the review of requests for communications use authorizations." The strike force would conduct periodic calls among those agencies and monitor their progress. And within 270 days after the Act becomes law, the NTIA would be required to submit to Congress a report on "the effectiveness of the strike force in ensuring that Federal land management agencies prioritize reviews of requests for communications use authorizations. 

 

The Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act [H.R. 3343] would require the NTIA to submit to Congress a plan for the agency to track requests for communications use authorizations on federal property and provide transparency to applications regarding the status of their applications. 

The FCC has long recognized that slow and cumbersome permitting processes can be a major impediment to market entry for communications services, and broadband Internet service providers frequently identify delays and costs associated with obtaining approvals to construct infrastructure on rights-of-way and government property as an impediment to timely and efficient network deployment. If passed into law, H.R. 3293 and H.R. 3343 could help streamline permit approvals and help prevent avoidable delays for infrastructure construction and major upgrades on federal property. Credit is due to the House for passing the bills. Hopefully, the Senate will give H.R. 3293 and H.R. 3343 prompt consideration.

TMT with Mike O'Rielly - Ep 15: Structural Problems in the ACP

Episode 15 of "TMT with Mike O'Rielly," a videocast that features former FCC Commissioner and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Free State Foundation Michael O'Rielly, was released on December 6. This episode, titled "Structural Problems in the Affordable Connectivity Program," is a conversation between Mr. O'Rielly and guest Ryan Tracy, Co-Writer at Capital Account. Streaming video of the Episode 15 is now available: 

House Passes NDAA With Small Spectrum Provision, But Pipeline Still Empty

On December 11, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 5009, the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 ("NDAA"). Among the massive bill's contents, H.R. 5009 authorizes the FCC to conduct a spectrum license auction for the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-3) bands, with auction proceeds of up to more than $3 billion going to fund the Secure and Trusted Communications Network Reimbursement Program. Also known as "rip-and-replace," the program reimburses small advanced communications service providers for expenses due to the removal, replacement, and disposal of communications equipment provided by Huawei or ZTE. 

Back in 2014, the FCC conducted Auction 97 for AWS-3 licenses, but 197 of those licenses were entangled in administrative processes and litigation. If H.R. 5009 becomes law, it would do good by enabling that valuable spectrum to be put to use. 

 

The AWS-3 spectrum license auction provision in H.R. 5009 appears reasonable and beneficial as far as it goes. But H.R. 5009's AWS-3 provision is a targeted measure involving only a small amount of spectrum. The bill would not address the larger issue of the FCC's lapsed general authority to conduct licensed spectrum auctions and issue licenses. Nor would it address the need for significant amounts of more spectrum to be put into the pipeline for repurposing and auctioning by the Commission to support next-generation commercial wireless services. 

 

In 2025, the 119th Congress needs to make the revival of the FCC's spectrum auction authority a priority and – in coordination with the incoming Trump Administration – hopefully authorize specific bands for repurposing and auction. 

Survey Shows Sharp Increases in Mobile Data, Growth in 5G Home Broadband

On September 10, CTIA released its 2024 Annual Survey. The Survey Highlights report is available online. It shows the strong growth in mobile wireless connections, data usage, cell sites, and 5G Home connections during the year 2023.  

CTIA reported that wireless data traffic in the U.S. grew, as U.S. wireless networks supported 100 trillion MB of traffic last year, up from the nearly 74 trillion MB from the year before. Additionally, nearly 40% of wireless devices were 5G devices, for 216 million total active 5G devices in 2023, and the 558 million total wireless connections were up from 523 million from the year prior. Also, the total number of cell sites in the U.S. grew to 432,469 – up 24% from 2018. This continued growth was supported by annual wireless investment totaling $30 billion in 2023. Regarding 5G Home Broadband – or fixed wireless access (FWA) services – CTIA reported: "Over the past two years, 95% of net new broadband subscribers chose 5G home service—and importantly, 1 out of 5 net 5G home adds were entirely new home broadband subscribers." More stats are contained in the 2024 Annual Survey Highlights.

 

My July 30, 2023, blog post spotlighted CTIA's 2023 Annual Survey Highlights.

 

To fully realize the benefits of 5G connections, more spectrum will need to be available, especially licensed spectrum for commercial wireless uses. In January 2024, Free State Foundation President Randolph May published "Communications Law and Policy Priorities for 2024." One of those priorities is to "Reopen the Spectrum Pipeline and Act to Fill It." As FSF President May explained in a Media Advisory from March of this year, one constructive proposal for doing that is the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024 (S.3909).

 

Also, legislation for streamlining and speeding up permit processes for wireless infrastructure construction would help foster continued growth in wireless services and improve as well as increase connections for Americans. My blog post from August 7 identified one measure worth considering, the Accelerating Broadband Permits Act (S.4281), which is intended to help ensure the timely processing of permits for building new wireless infrastructure on federal lands. 

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."

After Court Ruling on USF's Unconstitutionality, Congress Should Pass Reforms

On August 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order staying the issue of a mandate for its July 24 decision holding that the Universal Service Fund’s (USF) contribution mechanism – or "USF tax" – violated the U.S. Constitution's Article I Legislative Vesting Clause. The stay order anticipates that the FCC will be filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court and that the stay will then be extended until the court final disposition.

The lengthy Fifth Circuit en banc decision in Consumers' Research v. FCC, as well as the concurring and dissenting opinions that were issued, are summarized in my August 5, 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Fifth Circuit Rules USF Contribution Scheme Violates Legislative Vesting Clause."

 

My August 9 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Court Ruling on USF's Unconstitutionality Should Spur Reform in Congress" explained that Congress should not wait for the Supreme Court to act. As I wrote: 

Congress should act promptly to make the USF program fiscally sustainable and constitutionally sound for the broadband era. It should fund the USF via direct appropriations and intelligibly define broadband as a service eligible for support. If needed, Congress should consider requiring major online companies to make USF contributions under principles that limit subsidy amounts. Along with stronger curbs on waste and abuse, such reforms would preserve universal service, eliminate or at least reduce significantly the USF tax on consumers – which now stands at 34.4% – and enable future downsizing of the USF into a primarily voucher-like program supporting low-income consumers.

The Fifth Circuit's stay order avoids any sudden disruption to the USF program. It also provides window of time for Congress to exercise its authority and finally pass reforms that will modernize the USF program. Congress should make the program more efficient in supporting broadband access for those who are most deserving of help and ensure its future financial sustainability.   

Senate Bill Would Ensure Timely Broadband Infrastructure Builds on Federal Land

On July 29, Senators John Thune, Ben Ray Luján, and John Barrasso introduced the Accelerating Broadband Permits Act. The purpose of the bill is to improve executive agencies’ processing of permit applications for the construction of communications facility installations on federal land. Under the MOBILE NOW Act of 2018, executive agencies with supervision over federal lands have 270 days to make decisions on applications for permits to build towers, antennas, cables, or any other infrastructure associated with wireless or wireline services. An April 2024 Government Accountability Office Report found problems with agencies processing those applications within the deadline. The Accelerating Broadband Permits Act is intended to address those problems and help identify instances where the agencies are likely to fail to meet the deadline and ensure timely processing.

The FCC has long recognized that local permitting processes are often a major impediment to timely broadband access. The Accelerating Broadband Permits Act would help alleviate that impediment on federal lands. The Act appears to be worthwhile legislation that could help accelerate network infrastructure deployment to underserved and unserved Americans. Much land in western states is held in trust or owned by the federal government, and federal agencies must fulfill the responsibilities that come with being a trustee or property owner, not to mention comply with the MOBILE NOW Act. 

 

Senators Thune, Luján, and Barrasso deserve credit for bringing forward this bill. Several billion dollars in subsidies are going to be distributed by NTIA to the states under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program to fund new buildouts. The effectiveness of BEAD Program subsidy dollars will depend, to a significant extent, on having workable federal siting policies in place. The 118th Congress should give the Accelerating Broadband Permits Act timely consideration.  

Joint Resolution in Senate Would Repeal FCC's New Title II Order

On July 23, Senator Marsha Blackburn introduced S.J.Res. 103, a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval to overturn the FCC's Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order. Senators Ted Cruz and John Thune are co-sponsors. S.J.Res. 103 was referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. By a 3-2 vote in April of this year, the Commission reclassified broadband Internet access services as "telecommunications services" under Title II of the Communications Act, subjecting advanced broadband networks to public utility regulation.

Earlier this year – as described in a May 28 blog post – Rep. Bob Latta introduced in the 118th Congress H.J.Res. 153, a similar CRA joint resolution of disapproval.

 

Under the CRA, there is a fast-track process for Congress to vote on the repeal of new agency regulations. Helpful background information on the CRA, in the context of broadband regulatory policy, is contained in FSF Board of Academic Advisors Member Daniel Lyons' June 2018 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "The Congressional Review Act and the Toxic Politics of Net Neutrality."

 

Many Perspectives from FSF Scholars papers have been published critiquing the new Title II order's imposition of public utility restrictions on broadband Internet networks. These include my May 21 Perspectives, "The FCC's New Title II Order Allows Harmful Rate Regulation" and my April 22 Perspectives, "Public Safety Rebrand Won't Save the FCC's Internet Regulation Plan From Unlawfulness." The most serious legal defect in the Commission's new Title II order comes under fire in my April 12 Perspectives, "The FCC's Internet Regulation Plan Fails the Major Questions Doctrine." 

American Copyright Owners Deserve Royalties When Radio Stations Use Their Property

 On June 26, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a Hearing titled "Radio, Music, and Copyrights: 100 Years of Inequity for Recording Artists." The hearing featured testimony from witnesses on two competing legislative measures introduced in the 118th Congress: the American Music Fairness Act of 2023 and the Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act.

The American Music Fairness Act – H.R. 791 and S.253 – would finally recognize a public performance right in terrestrial AM/FM radio broadcasts of copyrighted music recordings. If passed into law, the Act would require for-profit AM/FM stations to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings for the use of their intellectual property just like online streaming services do. Smaller commercial AM/FM stations as well as non-profit stations that have less financial resources would qualify for a significantly reduced annual royalty payment of $500, $100, or $10. 

Testimony by country music star Randy Travis and his wife Mary Travis challenge the position of many radio stations that American recording artists don't deserve a public performance right for their sound recordings for radio airplay because radio broadcasts of their music promote sales of physical CDs, merchandise, and tickets. Indeed, in the age of digital streaming services, revenues from CD sales are only a fraction of what they were many years ago, and many recording artists struggle to make a living and pay their crew and other co-workers. Commercial terrestrial AM/FM radio stations profit from playing copyrighted sound recordings. Internet streaming and satellite radio services pay public performance royalties for broadcasting copyrighted sound recordings, and it makes no sense to continue giving terrestrial AM/FM radio services. 

 

At the hearing, SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe testified to the important point about how the American Music Fairness Act would benefit American recording artists and copyright owners by unlocking significant royalties from foreign radio stations. As explained in my March 27 blog post, "Music Revenue Report Should Spur Congress to Secure Copyrights Fully":

Under existing international agreements, 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. Passing the American Music Fairness Act would open up those foreign royalty streams to U.S. copyright owners. Importantly, the legislation is sensitive to the limited financial resources of smaller commercial and non-profit stations by treating them to a low, flat royalty rate. 

The case for the American Music Fairness Act is presented in further detail in my February 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings," and in my August 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Congress Should Secure Full Protections for Music Sound Recordings." 

 

Testimony from National Association of Broadcasters President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt endorsed the Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act – H.ConRes.13 and Sen.Con.Res.5  – a resolution stating that Congress should not impose "any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge" on a local radio station broadcasting sound recordings over the air. But Mr. LeGeyt's testimony, like the Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act, wrongly lumps payment of royalties by a radio station for commercially exploiting someone else's copyrighted property in with fees and taxes paid to the government. NAB's position isn't new, and it doesn't overcome the just claims of the owners of copyrighted property. I addressed the critical distinction between royalties and taxes in my September 2022 blog post, "In Debate Over Radio Royalties, Congress Should Favor Property Rights."

 

The American Music Fairness Act deserves to be advanced by Congress because it is a sound policy rooted in constitutionally recognized property rights principles. The other legislative measure is not.