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.

Streaming Continues to Surge as Short-Form Video Reshapes Consumer Habits

In a June 2025 post to the FSF Blog, I noted that streaming video had achieved a remarkable milestone: for the first time, it surpassed cable and broadcast television combined, capturing 44.8 percent of total viewing in May 2025. That trend continues. According to Nielsen's January edition of The Gauge™, streaming video's viewing share reached 47.5 percent in December 2025, setting yet another record. Perhaps even more impressive is the fact that, on two separate occasions, it represented over half of daily video consumption.

But the story of shifting consumer preferences extends beyond the longstanding streaming-versus-traditional-distribution-platforms narrative. An equally significant transformation is underway as social-media platforms – TikTok, YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels, and so on – increasingly capture consumer attention with short-form content, particularly among younger demographics.

According to a Digiday article citing a report by GCI (subscription required), global consumers on average spend a tremendous amount of time each week watching short-form video content on social-media platforms: six hours and 39 minutes. In fact, the amount of time global consumers spend accessing such content significantly exceeds the amount of time they view streaming video: 5 hours. This represents a fundamental realignment in how people – especially younger generations – consume video.

These twin trends carry significant implications for communications policy. Indeed, the (1) ongoing ascendance of streaming video over legacy distribution platforms, and (2) explosive growth of short-form video underscore what I and others affiliated with the Free State Foundation long have argued: that the video marketplace is intensely competitive and consumer-driven. Consequently, legacy regulations born of a bygone era interfere with marketplace mechanics and artificially constrain competition-fueled growth in consumer welfare.

This reality is particularly relevant in the context of the FCC's ongoing review of the proposed transaction between Charter Communications, Inc. and Cox Enterprises, Inc., currently on day 101 (out of 180) according to the Commission's informal timeline. As the Free State Foundation noted in its comments, the combination of these geographically distinct distribution platforms appears likely to benefit video subscribers, in particular the Cox customers who would gain access to Charter's packages bundled with popular streaming options (HBO Max, Disney+, Paramount+, and ESPN Unlimited, among others).

NCTA Is Right On: "Must Carry" Must Go

For a very long time, Free State Foundation scholars have opposed the calls for the FCC to require that cable and satellite operators must carry broadcast channels in the ATSC 3.0 according to the government's dictate rather than the market's response to consumer demand. See, for example, Free State Foundation Adjunct Senior Fellow Michael O'Rielly's FSF Perspectives, "Let's Strongly Reject NextGen TV Mandates."

 

In this regard, I was pleased to see NCTA's comments filed with the FCC on January 20 contending that such a "must carry" government mandate is unconstitutional as a First Amendment violation. As NCTA puts it: "The Commission should also reject any calls to grant must-carry rights to 3.0 signals. In today’s video marketplace, must carry requirements are no longer supportable under the First and Fifth Amendments. Extending must carry requirements to 3.0 signals would only exacerbate these constitutional infirmities."

 

Right on.

 

Indeed, Free State Foundation scholars have been arguing that the FCC's "must carry" mandates violate the First Amendment since shortly after FSF was founded in June 2006. In that very same month, in "Taking the Constitutional Oath Seriously at the FCC," I wrote this:

 

"In 1994 in the Turner case, a sharply divided Supreme Court (5-4) barely upheld against a First Amendment challenge must-carry provisions that required cable operators to carry one signal of local broadcast stations. There is no evidence that, nor could there be in today's substantially changed communications environment, that the failure to carry multiple signals of local broadcasters will diminish the availability of local programming. And under Turner that is the test that must be met, with substantial and convincing evidence, to pass constitutional muster."

In 2010, FSF scholars penned several pieces arguing that continuing "must carry" mandates violate the First Amendment. This excerpt is from a blog posted in February 2010 by FSF's Seth Cooper titled, "Will the Supreme Court Decide 'Must Carry' Must Go?"

"The current state of video competition renders the 1990s rationale for must-carry obsolete. Only a person who has spent the last decade or so living deep inside a cave with no video reception capabilities whatsoever could be excused for not understanding that the video marketplace has undergone drastic change since the 1990s. Significantly, direct broadcast satellite has proven a strong source of competition with cable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently acknowledged this in its August 2009 decision in Comcast v. FCC, striking down the FCC's cable subscribership caps. As I related in a prior blog post ("D.C. Circuit: Vindicating Video Competition"), that court expressly recognized the increasingly competitive and dynamic marketplace for video:

[T]he record is replete with evidence of ever increasing competition among video providers: Satellite and fiber optic video providers have entered the market and grown in market share since the Congress passed the 1992 Act, and particularly in recent years. Cable operators, therefore, no longer have the bottleneck power over programming that concerned the Congress in 1992. Second, over the same period there has been a dramatic increase both in the number of cable networks and in the programming available to subscribers.

In fact, the D.C. Circuit observed that "satellite television companies, which were bit players in the early '90s, now serve one-third of all subscribers." DBS subscribership growth over the last decade marks a dramatic change in the competitive video marketplace."

Of course, 2010 was way before the rise of dozens of popular Internet streamers. Nevertheless, we contended that the video marketplace already had changed so much that the notion of cable operators having "bottleneck power" was obsolete. It bears repeating what we said over 15 years ago: "Only a person who has spent the last decade or so living deep inside a cave with no video reception capabilities whatsoever could be excused for not understanding that the video marketplace has undergone drastic change since the 1990s."

Again, I'm pleased NCTA has included a First Amendment argument in its opposition to suggestions that the government should mandate carriage of broadcast channels in the ATSC 3.0. It's way past time for "must carry" to be confined to the constitutional dustbin in which First Amendment violations reside!

 

FSF: Off to a Fast Start in 2026!

 Believe it or not, we're already heading into the end of January 2026. I find it hard to believe regardless of what the calendar tells me!

 Looked at another way, I'm a bit surprised – well, not really –at what we've already accomplished at the Free State Foundation so far this year.

 

Be sure to check out all the activity – including FSF Adjunct Senior Fellow Michael O'Rielly's first videocast of the new year – in the Constant Contact message you'll be receiving shortly. Here I'll just highlight a few pieces.

 

Free State Foundation Senior Fellow Andrew Long asks and answers, at least preliminarily, "The $21 Billion Question: What Should NTIA's Roth Do With the BEAD Program Surplus?" He points out that NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth, speaking at a Free State Foundation event on December 2, commendably emphasized that the savings produced by the Trump Administration's important reforms to the BEAD program should not be spent "wastefully," should "produce real, measurable value," should "not duplicate investment the private sector is already making," and should not "distort investment or stifle innovation." Those should be considered foundational non-negotiable principles governing any decisions regarding the disbursement of any savings that are not returned to the Treasury for the benefit of taxpayers. Don't be surprised if we have more to say on this topic in the coming weeks and months.

 

One of the nation's priorities should be to act to accelerate the modernization of our communications networks by promptly transitioning to all Internet Protocol networks. Free State Foundation scholars have advocated doing so for many years. Take a look at the comments we submitted on January 20 in the FCC's "Advancing IP Interconnection and Accelerating Network Modernization" proceeding supporting the Commission's proposals in this regard.

 

To the same end – hastening the build-out of advanced communications – please see FSF comments filed on January 15 in the FCC's "Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments" proceeding. Our comments advocate various actions that would eliminate costly and unnecessary state and local barriers to deployment. The comments explain why these actions are essential to maintaining our nation's leadership in deploying and using 5G (and beyond) broadband wireless services.

 

And if you're still in a New Year's mood, or just have the contemplative disposition, and wish to ponder how we Americans should think about our nation – and ourselves as citizens – during this year celebrating our 250^th birthday, I invite you to read my essay, "Let's Make 2026 About 'We the People'" published on January 1 by the Washington Times. Here's the way I closed: "In times like the present, when America's citizenry seems to be bitterly divided, a resolve to engage in deep reflection regarding what it means to be part of "We the People" – as each of us is – would be a worthwhile resolution for the new year. Deep reflection is another worthwhile resolution for the 250th celebration of the American experiment in democracy." That remains my sentiment.

 

And, finally, speaking of anniversaries, this June marks the Free State Foundation's 20^th anniversary. Having started from "scratch," just me and my laptop, I'm very proud of what we accomplished in those two decades to support free markets, free speech, property rights, and the rule of law. More about that throughout our anniversary year. For now, I'll just say we couldn't have done it without your support and friendship. For that, I'll remain forever grateful!

Senate Hearing Should Consider Replacing the Public Interest Standard

By Randolph May

On December 17, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is holding an FCC oversight hearing. Conducted properly, oversight hearings can be valuable tools in assisting legislators, and the public too, in understanding an agency's work – what an agency is doing, and why. And, sometimes, an oversight hearing can lead to the subsequent introduction of legislation to reform the agency's enabling statute.

That should be the case regarding the Communications Act – specifically legislation replacing the public interest standard.

But it's a good bet that some Democrats on the committee, perhaps all of them, will use most of their allotted time to lambaste FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, especially regarding his remarks in "l'affaire Jimmy Kimmel." Without rehearsing all the details here, you'll recall that Chairman Carr issued what was reasonably taken to be a threat that, unless Kimmel's show was taken off the air, the broadcast station owners airing it would suffer adverse consequences. After all, by virtue of the licenses the FCC issues requiring that broadcasters operate consistent with the "public interest," the agency exercises substantial power over their operations. And if broadcasters wish to transfer or assign their licenses to another entity, the FCC first must find the transaction is in the "public interest."

At the time of Chairman Carr's remarks regarding Jimmy Kimmel, I said that, regardless of whether they rose to an actual violation of the First Amendment, and despite what I considered to be Kimmel's factually inaccurate and insensitive monologue regarding Charlie Kirk's assassination, I didn't like what appeared to be Carr's threats directed at the broadcasters. I stand by that.

But when the Democrats and those on the Left get in high dudgeon railing at Carr at the hearing or otherwise, the theatre is a bit too contrived. For over the long history of the FCC, it's been Democrats in Congress, and those sitting on the FCC, who have been most persistent and insistent in wielding the FCC's public interest authority to dictate or influence broadcast content. I recited some of the historical evidence here. And, significantly, it was a Democrat-controlled FCC that employed the "Fairness Doctrine," with its requirement that broadcasters present balanced coverage of issues of public importance, as a content regulation sword. Most notably, the Fairness Doctrine was invoked, successfully, to silence conservative broadcasters. See Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC – which now is ripe for history's constitutional dustbin.

 

Moreover, with the current focus on the FCC's "news distortion" rule – a prohibition grounded in the FCC's public interest authority – it's worth recalling the April 2018 letter to then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai signed by twelve Senate Democrats. That letter urged the FCC to consider sanctioning Sinclair Broadcasting Group, including revoking its broadcast licenses and preventing it from acquiring others, allegedly on the basis that Sinclair stations engaged in "news distortion" inconsistent with its public interest obligations. (Some of the twelve Senators who signed that April 2018 letter likely will participate in the December 17 oversight hearing.)

Nevertheless, my purpose today is not to tote up a scorecard demonstrating that one side of the aisle or the other, either political or philosophical, has abused the public interest standard more than the other side. That's backward-looking and likely counterproductive. Rather, consistent with the legislative purpose of an oversight hearing, I want to suggest – as I have many times previously –a more productive way forward.

The Commerce Committee Senators, led by their able, reformist-minded Chairman Ted Cruz, should use the oversight hearing, at least in part, to begin a serious discussion about replacing the FCC's public interest standard, upon which the agency's program content regulation, including its news distortion rule, is grounded. It should be replaced with some form of consumer welfare standard more attuned to the current competitive environment and technological dynamism of the marketplace. To the extent there are special considerations, such as maintaining the availability of communications relating to public health and public safety, or universal service, they can be delineated and dealt with discretely.

As I recounted recently in this recent FSF Perspectives, The Public Interest Standard: The Historical Legislative Context, "for almost two decades now, Free State Foundation scholars have been advocating that any meaningful updating of the Communications Act must include replacement of the public interest standard with one oriented towards a proper assessment of consumer welfare and marketplace competition." You can find links to that advocacy in that paper. And throughout the FCC's website you can find numerous papers each year documenting the dramatic changes, driven by relentless technological innovation, that have occurred in the media and telecommunications marketplace in the last several decades.

The long and short of it is that these conspicuous marketplace changes have rendered obsolete the original anti-monopoly and "scarcity" rationale that was the principal impetus for inclusion of the public standard in the Communications Act of 1934, which itself merely incorporated the standard from even earlier legislation.

The public interest standard, malleable and ambiguous as it is, has been a ready means for expanding the FCC's authority in the hands of those commissioners who wish to use it for that purpose. And, more particularly, for those who wish to use it in this way, it has been the means by which the agency has restricted speech, or preferred some speech over other speech, by regulating program content or threatening to do so. All under the claim of furthering the "public interest."

As far back as 2001, I argued in a law review article that the public interest standard is so indeterminate that it constitutes an unconstitutionally unintelligible delegation of legislative authority. The Supreme Court has yet to agree, but I suspect that Chairman Cruz might be sympathetic to the argument. Justice Felix Frankfurter, a New Deal acolyte, proved my point over six decades earlier in the landmark FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co. (1940) case when he declared that the public interest standard "is as concrete as the complicated factors for judgment in such a field of delegated authority permit."

Read Justice Frankfurter's elucidation again. I challenge you to tell me what it means.

In other words, the public interest standard is standardless. And this means it is inconsistent with the rule of law and invites abuse. The Senate Commerce Committee should begin to consider replacing it with some form of consumer welfare standard fit for the Digital Age.

FSF Announces the Appointment of Joseph V. Kennedy as Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow

Free State Foundation President Randolph May announced on December 4, 2025, that Joseph V. Kennedy, an accomplished economist and lawyer with deep public policy expertise and experience, is joining FSF on a full-time basis as Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow, effective January 1. 

Previously, Mr. Kennedy served as Senior Principal Economist at the MITRE Corporation. Prior to that, he served as a Senior Fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Mr. Kennedy’s former positions include serving as a Senior Officer at The Pew Charitable Trusts; Chief Economist for the U.S. Department of Commerce; Senior Economist for the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee; and General Counsel for the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He is also an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University.
 
Dr. Kennedy received his Ph.D. in Economics from George Washington University, his M.S. in Agricultural and Applied Economics from the University of Minnesota, and his J.D. from the University of Minnesota. He received his B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University. Mr. Kennedy has written two books and more than 70 articles. He has provided legal and economic advice to members of Congress, Cabinet secretaries, and top business executives. Much of this advice has been directed at public policies involving technology, competitiveness, and the social contract.
 
In announcing Dr. Kennedy’s appointment, Mr. May stated: “I am very excited that Joe Kennedy is joining the Free State Foundation as Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow. With his outstanding academic background in both economics and law, and his real-world professional experience in both disciplines, Joe will play a major role in leading FSF’s law and policy work in the communications, Internet, intellectual property, and other related fields. FSF already is widely acknowledged for its thought leadership in these areas, and in his senior position, Joe will further enhance our leadership position.”
 
Upon accepting FSF’s offer, Mr. Kennedy stated: “I am thrilled to be joining an institution that is so highly regarded for the quality and impact of its free market-oriented work. My goal is to use my decades of expertise and experience in law and economics to help make FSF even stronger and even more respected than it already is and to help expand its work into related fields. I look forward to the challenge ahead.”

Traveling Backwards in Time: The Public Knowledge Petition to Deny the Charter – Cox Transaction

 by Randolph May

As predictable as the sun rising tomorrow morning, Public Knowledge and like-minded organizations have filed a petition to deny the proposed acquisition of Cox Communications by Charter Communications. The pro-regulatory groups contend that, if approved, the combination "would reshape the American broadband landscape" and "would create unchecked gatekeeper power over Internet distribution."

Unchecked gatekeeper power? Reshape the American broadband landscape? 

Public Knowledge and the co-signers must have pushed the wrong button in a time-travel machine, for they are surely looking backwards regarding the current state of the communications and media environment. In the process, they may have set a new low bar for extreme hyperbole.

We'll have more to say about the Public Knowledge petition and the FCC's consideration of the Charter – Cox transaction going forward. For the moment, I refer you to the comments submitted by the Free State Foundation and this Free State Foundation Perspectives authored by Daniel Lyons, a member of FSF's Board of Academic Advisors. They completely refute any notion that a combined Charter – Cox would possess any "gatekeeping" power over Internet distribution. And they demonstrate how dramatically the communications and media landscape already has been "reshaped" by vigorous competition among cable, fiber, satellite, fixed wireless, wireless, and hybrid facilities-based platforms – and continues to be reshaped, even as I write.

 

If approved by the Commission, the combination of Charter and Cox, "each now struggling with the challenge of competing in multiple maturing markets," as Daniel Lyons put it, will have an opportunity to survive and provide further competition in an already competitive intermodal marketplace.

Oh, while in the time-travel machine looking backwards, please recall the notorious AOL – Time Warner merger. Some of the very same signers of the petition to deny Charter – Cox petitioned to deny the AOL – Time Warner combination. The rhetoric – extreme hyperbole, you could say – regarding the supposed harms to consumers were that merger to be approved by the FCC was over-the-top.

The petition to deny the AOL – Time Warner merger described the "dangerous new dimension" being added to "the emerging structure of the cable TV/broadband Internet industry…." Among the "findings" cited in their petition: "The merger would allow two enormous firms to dominate the markets for broadband and narrowband Internet services, cable television, and other entertainment services, which could leave consumers with higher prices, fewer choices, and the stifling of free expression on the Internet." The petition claimed that the new "media giant" would "be able to quickly capture the new product market for interactive TV."

Well, the FCC approved the AOL – Time Warner merger…and you know how that combination worked out. We've seen this movie – I mean petition to deny! – before. Talk of "gatekeeper power" may have been slightly relevant in the early 2000s. Now it's downright frivolous.

It's time for Public Knowledge and the other like-minded groups to stop looking backwards through the looking glass and acknowledge the current marketplace reality.

A Toast to the Constitution

We are now well into the observance of America's 250^th birthday celebration marked by the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Though our Constitution was not signed by the framers in Philadelphia until September 17, 1787, and ratified by the required nine states until May 1790, it, rightfully, is central to our birthday commemoration.

 

Here, between Veterans Day and Thanksgiving, and in the spirit of our nation's year-long celebration, I want to offer a toast to the Constitution. While there's not a time when toasting the Constitution would not be in order, it seems especially fitting to do so between those two special national holidays.

 

This toast is not my own, but a truly noteworthy and memorable one offered by my good friend Leonard Leo, the Co-Chairman of the Federalist Society, at the Society's recent 2025 National Lawyers Convention.

 

But first a bit of historical backdrop.

 

During Lafayette's 1824 farewell tour of America, he visited both Monticello and Montpelier, the homes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. During one notable celebration commemorating his return to America, Lafayette, Jefferson, and Madison were all present for an elegant dinner held at the nearby Orange Court House. At the dinner, Madison praised Lafayette, and thirteen ceremonial toasts were made, including one honoring Madison himself, already known as the "Father of the Constitution."

 

Madison’s toast praised Lafayette’s devotion to the principles of the American Revolution, and he also offered his own "toast to the Constitution."

 

Now, here is Leonard Leo's "Toast to the Constitution" delivered at the Federalist Society's Antonin Scalia Memorial Dinner on November 6, 2025.

 

"May it endure as a source of awe and joy, reminding us of how fortunate we are to live in this great country.

 

May it endure as a source of wisdom and understanding, instructing us about the relationship between the dignity and worth of a person and the limits on government power.

 

May it endure as a source of self-restraint and prudence, admonishing both our leaders to respect the limits of authority and the voters to demand that respect.

 

May it endure as an example of what can be achieved when leaders unite the virtues of wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance.

 

And may it endure as a charter of self-government that binds the American people together in the mutual pursuit of that which is good and just."

 

Leonard Leo's toast is surely worthy of committing to memory as we celebrate America's 250 Birthday!

CTIA Joins Growing Chorus Opposing Military Spectrum Veto

In a November 13 letter to congressional leadership, CTIA President & CEO Ajit Pai warned that Section 1564 of the version of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed the Senate imposes an "unnecessary" restriction on NTIA's ability to migrate existing military spectrum users into the 3.1-3.45 GHz and 7-8 GHz bands – and thereby free up spectrum in other bands to be auctioned by the FCC for commercial use.

The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which called for the auction of 800 MHz of spectrum (and reinstated the FCC's spectrum auction authority through the end of September 2034), explicitly prohibits the auction of spectrum in the aforementioned bands.

Section 1564, which was added to the NDAA by Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, would go a step further and "[p]rohibit[] any modifications to DoD systems in key spectrum bands without joint certification from the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" (emphasis added).

Mr. Pai is not the first to object to the inclusion of Section 1564 in the NDAA.

In a September 10 post to the FSF Blog, Free State Foundation President Randolph May (1) pointed out that the White House in a Statement of Administration Policy objected to Section 1564 because it "would hinder the President's executive authority," (2) agreed that "Congress cannot properly restrict a president's executive authority by handing over final decision-making authority to his subordinates," and (3) urged Senator Fischer to withdraw the provision.

Some additional examples:

• On October 16, Citizens Against Government Waste's Deborah Collier wrote that, should the Senate version prevail, "the Pentagon will be given the absolute authority to veto the sale or shared use of DOD-controlled spectrum, jeopardizing the ability of the U.S. to remain the global leader in telecommunications and stymie the FCC's ability to auction more spectrum for wireless communications."

• At a Punchbowl News event on October 9, House Commerce Committee Chairman Richard Hudson (R-NC) expressed similar reservations, stating that "I don't think we need to give any kind of veto authority to the Pentagon. I think that could be counterproductive."

• At NTIA's 2025 Spectrum Policy Symposium in September, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, reportedly cautioned that "[p]ractically speaking, this means NTIA would not even be able to move other federal operators to these bands – which it will have to do to clear the spectrum pipeline – unless first receiving approval from the sovereigns at the Joint Chiefs."

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. 

USTelecom Report: Broadband Investment Continues to Rise Rapidly

USTelecom – The Broadband Association is out with its annual report on investment in communications infrastructure by U.S. broadband providers. For 2024, the report documents that America's broadband providers invested $89.6 billion in new infrastructure. This brings the total capital expenditure investment in broadband facilities since 1996 to more than $2.2 trillion.

That's a huge amount of capex for 2024 and since 1996. As far as I know, no one has seriously questioned the validity of USTelecom's annual investment reports.

It's not news that it is very expensive – very capital intensive – to meet America's expanding need for fast, reliable, and secure broadband networks. That's what the USTelecom reports have documented over the last three decades. Certainly, America's broadband networks will be essential to enabling and facilitating the burgeoning use of AI. America's economic security will depend on it.

Of course, there is an important policy context that undergirds any discussion of the role of broadband – and continued broadband investment – in America's economy. Given the competitive environment that exist today, there certainly is no need for adoption of any heavy-handed regulatory mandates such as the now eliminated "Net Neutrality" regulations. They stifle investment and innovation, rather than promoting it.

And there is a need to remove permitting and other impediments, especially at the state and local level, that unduly delay infrastructure projects and render their costs unreasonable.

Carr Updates Congress on Broadband Interagency Coordination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

*     *     *

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

Wireless Taxes Are Way Too High

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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