Talkie's Preemption Petition Looks Persuasive - Part II

On March 12, I posted a blog titled, "Talkie's Preemption Petition Looks Persuasive." As I explained, in its petition Talkie asks the FCC 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. The county's purported justification for obstructing Talkie's proposed broadband service is that it would be delivered over multi-use (that is, comingled) facilities.

 

In my March 12 post, I concluded:

 

This is just one of 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.

 

While I hope that the Marylanders who might be served by Talkie proposed broadband service will not be denied that service because of improper actions by local officials, I'm also interested, of course, in the principle at stake in this particular preemption spat and other similar ones. That's why, in the above excerpt, I referred to "many instances" involving tactics similar to those confronted by Talkie in Maryland.

I'm pleased to see that INCOMPAS, representing a broad coalition of competitive communications providers and broadband builders, has submitted comments to the FCC supporting Talkie's preemption petition. INCOMPAS reports that its members "regularly

encounter discriminatory zoning requirements, excessive fees, sequential permitting processes, and de facto moratoria that significantly hinder broadband deployment."

 

INCOMPAS states that "the Commission has consistently preempted fees and requirements that disrupt deployment of advanced services over commingled facilities. The County’s opposition asks the Commission to retreat from that settled position, and INCOMPAS urges the Commission to decline to do so." Therefore, according to INCOMPAS, "the outcome of this proceeding will affect every INCOMPAS member deploying modern multi-use networks."

 

It is this potentially broader impact of the Commission's disposition of Talkie's preemption petition –aside from concern regarding the immediate impact on those residents who might benefit from having available Talkie's services – that prompted me to highlight Talkie's petition in the first place. Absent affirmative Commission action on Talkie's petition pursuant to Section 253 of the Communications Act, the ability to deliver broadband services over multi-use infrastructure could be put in jeopardy.

 

If that is the case, the full realization of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's much-needed "Build America" agenda, which is necessarily dependent on rapid deployment of broadband infrastructure, could be adversely impacted. It still looks to me like Talkie has presented a persuasive case that should be given close attention by the Commission in a timely fashion.

 

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.

 

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.

Internet Prices for Highest Speeds May Be Up, But So Is Quality for All Plans

Is the price of Internet service rising or falling? Benton Senior Fellow John Horrigan recently tried to answer this question in a recent analysis for the Benton Institute using the FCC’s Urban Rate Survey (URS). His analysis builds on a prior piece by USTelecom. The answer is important because significant real increases in the cost of broadband may delay its benefits and serve as an argument for greater federal involvement. In brief, the price of most connections has fallen significantly since 2020. However, subscribers are choosing to spend more on faster plans.

 

Horrigan concluded that “[b]roadband service offerings at the highest speeds are expensive, growing in prevalence, and driving up average broadband prices.” Average price across all broadband plan offerings grew 4.8 percent in real terms. However, he also found that the rise is mainly due to increased demand for high-speed connections (2 Gbps or higher), not general inflation. The portion of high-speed plans in the URS sample rose from 9% to 16%. As the number of high-speed plans increases, they form a larger percentage of the URS survey. This in turn raises the average price for all plans, even if the price of every specific plan remains the same.

The chart below gives the average change in the price of different plans between 2020 and 2025 for different equipment and speeds. Higher than 2 Gbps is measured from 2021.

 Change in Real Broadband Prices from 2020 to 2025

Speed or Technology	% Change
Technology
Cable	-13.8
Fiber	+40.1
DSL	-9.3
Fixed Wireless	-50.7
Speed
Below 100 Mbps	-15.0
100-1000 Mbps	-28.9
1000-2000 Mbps	-15.3
Greater than 2000 Mbps	-25.3

Consumer demand has likely driven most of the increase in fiber. Horrigan also found that the quality of Internet plans is increasing. The most obvious improvement has been in data speeds. However, increases in the variety of content and reliability also matter. As the quality of broadband increases, consumers are willing to pay more.

The survey does point to a possible price ceiling in which low-income users are unable to pay higher prices even when better quality is considered. The decline in offerings of the lowest-cost plans may hurt low-income households. However, many Internet providers have special offerings for qualified low-income households that offer discounted prices. For example, Xfinity Essentials provides affordable home Internet for qualifying households ($14.95 per month for up to 75 Mbps, or $29.95 per month for up to 100 Mbps) — as well as low-cost computers, free WiFi hotspots, and free Internet training. CTIA points out that the industry has participated in programs like Lifeline, the Emergency Broadband Benefit and Emergency Connectivity Fund, and the Affordable Connectivity Program.

Draft Bill Would Reclaim BEAD Program Nondeployment Funds

Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) reportedly has drafted legislation that would direct the states to return funds from the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program not specifically used for broadband deployment – a savings estimated to be as high as $20 billion.

The "Recovering Excess Communications Appropriations while Protecting Telecommunications Upgrades, Reinvestment, and Expansion Act" (the RECAPTURE Act), which as of this writing has not yet been introduced, would amend the statute that created the BEAD Program – the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) – to clarify that each state shall "deposit in the general fund of the Treasury, for the sole purpose of deficit reduction," funds beyond those "designated for a specific purpose in the final proposal" approved by NTIA – that is to say, in the wake of the "Benefit of the Bargain" revisions, nondeployment funds.

In "How to 'Spend' Unused BEAD Funding," an October Perspectives from FSF Scholars, former FCC Commissioner and current Free State Foundation Adjunct Senior Fellow Michael O'Rielly – while acknowledging that some state use of BEAD Program funds for non-deployment purposes is "contemplated in the infrastructure law" – recommended two alternative approaches:

• One, given that the national debt is massive and growing rapidly, nondeployment funds should be returned to the U.S. Treasury: "[w]ith the nation facing such widely acknowledged financial difficulties, the thinking by many experts is that this money needs to be reclaimed."

• Two, in light of past grant-recipient performance, at least some of that money should be set aside "to account for the simple fact that not all broadband builds will happen as planned…. [E]xperience suggests that a reserve funding stream could be useful to handle this inevitability."

It is worth noting that others, including Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), have argued that the IIJA allows states to retain any such remaining money. As Senator Wicker wrote in September:

[T]he Trump administration has changed the way these broadband funds will be spent. Because of this, many states' proposals will come in under budget. These states could actually end up with leftover funds from the 2021 broadband legislation. In that law, Congress was clear: States can use this remaining grant money. That policy rewards those who wisely stewarded their deployment funds.

Senator Ernst's draft legislation, should it ultimately become law, would provide a definitive response to this potentially open question.

Relatedly, Senator Ernst announced on November 7 that she is introducing the "Returning Unspent COVID Funds Act," a bill that would "claw back more than $65 billion in unspent COVID funds and return the money to taxpayers." That legislation would target subsidy programs created by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, among others.

NTIA's Roth Targets Net Neutrality, Duplicate Funding

In remarks delivered at the Hudson Institute on October 28, NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth announced implementation changes to the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program regarding two topics of substantial concern for Free State Foundation scholars: (1) the imposition of so-called "net neutrality" obligations, and (2) the possibility of overlapping federal subsidies.

With respect to the former, Roth clarified that state-level net neutrality statutes represent a form of rate regulation inconsistent with statutory language found in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act – "[n]othing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service" – and therefore may not be applied to BEAD Program subgrantees, not just in subsidized areas, but statewide:

State-level net neutrality rules—itself a form of rate regulation—create a patchwork of conflicting regulations that raise compliance costs and deter investment…. To protect the BEAD investment, we are clarifying that BEAD providers must be protected throughout their service area in a state, while the provider is still within its BEAD period of performance. Specifically, any state receiving BEAD funds must exempt BEAD providers throughout their state footprint, from broadband-specific economic regulations, such as price regulation and net neutrality.

Regarding the latter, Roth announced a straightforward solution to the duplicate-funding risk I have highlighted on many occasions, most recently in "The Failure's in the Footnote: Agencies Must Improve Broadband Expenditure Coordination Efforts," a January 2025 Perspectives from FSF Scholars:

NTIA will require states to have providers certify in writing that they will not require or take additional federal subsidies—including operational subsidies—to complete or operate their BEAD projects…. BEAD was designed to close broadband gaps once and for all, not create another cycle of dependency. Congress envisioned "future-proof" networks that would stand on their own, not require permanent federal subsidies or future bailouts.

These changes are of a piece with other action Roth has taken to realign the BEAD Program with congressional intent, as well as ongoing efforts to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

Video of Roth's remarks can be found here.

Ookla: "Broadband" Availability Expanding Rapidly

According to an Ookla report (registration required) released on October 27, the availability of high-speed Internet access that satisfies the FCC's definition of "broadband" grew dramatically during the first half of this year.

Ookla, which operates the Speedtest® website, reported that the number of states in which most of its users enjoy speeds that meet or exceed the minimum benchmarks established by the FCC – 100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream – nearly doubled between January and June of 2025. It also found that parity between urban and rural areas increased substantially during that time.

Specifically, Ookla's testing data revealed that the number of states in which at least 60 percent of users have access to "broadband" jumped from 23 (including the District of Columbia) as of year-end 2024 to 39 by the end of June 2025. In five of those states – Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, North Dakota, and Rhode Island –over 70 percent of its users receive "broadband."

In only three largely rural states do less than half of Speedtest® users report "broadband" service: Wyoming (48.26 percent), Montana (41.09 percent), and Alaska (38.42 percent).

In addition, the gap between the speeds provided to urban and rural users narrowed in 33 states during the first six months of this year – nearly double the number of states (17) in which that disparity increased. 

Roth's NTIA Takes Early Aim at Rate Regulation

On July 30, 2025, Arielle Roth officially assumed the role of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, a position that includes serving as Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Days later, NTIA released updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. Notably, the revised FAQs underscore a significant policy shift from the Biden Administration's approach, one that aligns with Congress's explicit prohibition against broadband rate regulation.

This latest version of the FAQs builds on the BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice (BEAD RPN) that was released in early June. The BEAD RPN made numerous substantive changes to the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) that the Biden Administration NTIA issued in May 2022, including several addressing the low-cost service option (LCSO) requirement for BEAD Program grant recipients.

Under the NOFO, NTIA imposed prescriptive price and service terms for the LCSO. These included effective mandates on the maximum monthly rate, restrictions that, in substance, amounted to prohibited rate regulation.

The RPN eliminated those requirements: "BEAD subgrantees must still comply with the statutory provision to offer at least one LCSO, but NTIA hereby prohibits [states] from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer." The updated FAQ expounds upon this point:

The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.

In addition, the FAQ notes that, "[p]er the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN."

This, of course, is a sharp departure from the Biden Administration's deeply flawed approach. As I described in a February 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Virginia Flags NTIA's Impermissible Pressure to Regulate Broadband Rates," NTIA sought to compel Virginia to "specify an exact price or formula" for the LCSO.

That demand directly conflicted with Section 60102(h)(5)(D) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which states that "[n]othing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service."

By making explicit that neither NTIA nor a state may dictate broadband rates, the RPN and the updated FAQs realign BEAD Program implementation with the letter of the law. In doing so, they empower grant recipients to develop sustainable offerings. They also foster competition, innovation, and continued private investment (to the tune of $2.2 trillion and counting).

Released in the first few days of Roth's tenure as NTIA Administrator, these updated FAQs are a welcome indicator that, going forward, the BEAD Program will hew far more closely to congressional intent.

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.

GAO Flags Broadband Funding Coordination Concerns

Last month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the state of federal broadband funding interagency coordination. Not for the first time, it flagged breakdowns in process that could lead to duplication, waste, fraud, and abuse.

Publicly released on April 28, "Broadband Programs: Agencies Need to Further Improve Their Data Quality and Coordination Efforts," identifies two concerns:

1. The FCC's failure to evaluate and document the accuracy of the service availability data underlying its National Broadband Map, which "adds both to the risk that agencies leveraging these data cannot effectively target funding to areas that lack high-speed internet and to users' existing concerns about the data's reliability."
   
   
2. The need for the FCC, NTIA, and the Departments of Agriculture and Treasury to define with sufficient clarity their coordination processes to "better position the agencies to sustain their collaboration, manage fragmented federal broadband efforts, and ensure that the considerable federal broadband funding is spent efficiently and effectively."

Regarding the National Broadband Map, the Report states that:

FCC officials described its processes for data validations, verifications, audits, and enforcement referrals as a new workstream that continues to be informed by fresh rounds of data, citing this as the reason why FCC had not yet formally evaluated or finalized formal operating procedures for these processes. However, without evaluating the effectiveness of its validations, verifications, audits, and referrals processes, FCC cannot know the extent to which these processes are sufficient to ensure the accuracy of the data in the National Broadband Map.

With respect to interagency coordination, the Report identifies three shortcomings: (1) no clear shared definition as to what the "covered data" that the agencies have agreed to share actually entails; (2) delays in the submission of data to be included in the FCC's Broadband Funding Map, a separate map that I described in a May 2023 Perspectives from FSF Scholars; and (3) the fact that "officials … have not established a formal process to de-duplicate their funding prior to making decisions about projects to fund."

To address these concerns, the Report presents 14 recommendations for executive action.

As you may recall, the GAO assessed broadband funding interagency coordination efforts once before, in May 2022. As I noted in a contemporaneous post to the Free State Foundation's blog, "Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide" identified "at least 133 funding programs that could support increased broadband access" under the purview of 15 different agencies and warned that "[t]his patchwork of programs could lead to wasteful duplication of funding and effort."

House Commerce, Commerce Department Commence BEAD Reforms

Multiple efforts are underway to reform the beleaguered $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program.

Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology – and Keynoter at the Free State Foundation's upcoming Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference – recently introduced legislation designed to "eliminate the burdensome Biden regulations so that we can get money out the door and shovels into the ground as soon as possible."

In his Opening Statement before "Fixing Biden's Broadband Blunder," a hearing held on March 5, 2025, Chairman Hudson unveiled the Streamlining Program Efficiency and Expanding Deployment (SPEED) for BEAD Act. In the accompanying Press Release, he pointed out that "not a cent of the BEAD funds have been put towards actual deployment for even one household. This is unacceptable. Our rural communities need to be fully connected, and this legislation will do that."

Specifically, the SPEED for BEAD Act would:

• Clarify that BEAD Program money is to be used for two purposes: broadband deployment and workforce development. Consistent with that refined focus, the bill would replace the word "Equity" with the word "Expansion" in the program's title.

• Expressly require the return to the U.S. Treasury of unused funds.

• Prohibit the consideration, when awarding grants, of the following: prevailing wages, project labor agreements, union workforces, collective bargaining, local hiring, commitments to union neutrality, labor peace agreements, workforce composition (or the reporting thereof), climate change, the regulation of network management practices (including data caps), open access requirements, and certain letter of credit requirements.

• Provide applicants greater flexibility with respect to service area.

• Expand the definition of "reliable broadband service," consistent with the principle of technological neutrality, to include "any broadband service that meets the performance criteria … without regard to the type of technology by which such service is provided."

• Expound upon the existing ban on the regulation of rates (see below).

Regarding rate regulation, the bill makes clear that neither NTIA nor the states may:

[R]egulate, set, or otherwise mandate the rates charged for broadband service or the methodologies used to calculate such rates, for consumers generally or for any subset of consumers, including through the capping or freezing of such rates, the encouragement of another entity to regulate such rates, or the use of rates as part of an application scoring process.

The SPEED for BEAD Act explicitly would ban any such forms of rate regulation even if approved prior to its enactment or adopted "in conjunction with the requirement to offer a low-cost broadband service option."

The same day, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick issued a Statement announcing that:

Under [his] leadership, the Commerce Department has launched a rigorous review of the BEAD program. The Department is ripping out the Biden Administration's pointless requirements. It is revamping the BEAD program to take a tech-neutral approach that is rigorously driven by outcomes, so states can provide internet access for the lowest cost. Additionally, the Department is exploring ways to cut government red tape that slows down infrastructure construction.

Since the passage of the legislation that created the BEAD Program, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, in 2021, FSF scholars repeatedly have criticized the Biden Administration for its prioritization of extraneous policy preferences that discouraged proven broadband providers from participating, raised costs, and ground implementation to a standstill.

They include impermissible rate regulation, inappropriate labor- and climate-related mandates, the unjustified promotion of government-owned networks, and a pro-fiber bias that brazenly defied the statute's technologically neutral intent.