Update Below - New Information

NTIA, the federal office administering the largest single investment to expand Internet access across the nation, appears to once again be changing the BEAD program in ways that would only force states to further reduce investment in rural areas.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who oversees the NTIA office, has already introduced delays to the $42.5 billion Internet access expansion program, creating a year-long slow-down at a time when many states could be already connecting homes.

Now, even as the administration claims to be expediting the process, NTIA seems to have added yet another time-consuming wrinkle: a super secret “Best and Final Offer” round imposed on states after submitting final proposals.

Image

A quick reminder of where we are: states were forced to redo all their work in recent weeks to follow new rules aimed at cutting costs by making the program demonstrably worse for hundreds of thousands of families.

Rather than spend money to help get these families access to comparably affordable fiber networks, states now have to push billions toward low-Earth orbit satellite services which offer them far worse connectivity at much higher prices to each subscriber. And yet, NTIA called this process of reducing investment in rural America the “Benefit of the Bargain” round.

Update Below - New Information

NTIA, the federal office administering the largest single investment to expand Internet access across the nation, appears to once again be changing the BEAD program in ways that would only force states to further reduce investment in rural areas.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who oversees the NTIA office, has already introduced delays to the $42.5 billion Internet access expansion program, creating a year-long slow-down at a time when many states could be already connecting homes.

Now, even as the administration claims to be expediting the process, NTIA seems to have added yet another time-consuming wrinkle: a super secret “Best and Final Offer” round imposed on states after submitting final proposals.

Image

A quick reminder of where we are: states were forced to redo all their work in recent weeks to follow new rules aimed at cutting costs by making the program demonstrably worse for hundreds of thousands of families.

Rather than spend money to help get these families access to comparably affordable fiber networks, states now have to push billions toward low-Earth orbit satellite services which offer them far worse connectivity at much higher prices to each subscriber. And yet, NTIA called this process of reducing investment in rural America the “Benefit of the Bargain” round.

Update Below - New Information

NTIA, the federal office administering the largest single investment to expand Internet access across the nation, appears to once again be changing the BEAD program in ways that would only force states to further reduce investment in rural areas.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who oversees the NTIA office, has already introduced delays to the $42.5 billion Internet access expansion program, creating a year-long slow-down at a time when many states could be already connecting homes.

Now, even as the administration claims to be expediting the process, NTIA seems to have added yet another time-consuming wrinkle: a super secret “Best and Final Offer” round imposed on states after submitting final proposals.

Image

A quick reminder of where we are: states were forced to redo all their work in recent weeks to follow new rules aimed at cutting costs by making the program demonstrably worse for hundreds of thousands of families.

Rather than spend money to help get these families access to comparably affordable fiber networks, states now have to push billions toward low-Earth orbit satellite services which offer them far worse connectivity at much higher prices to each subscriber. And yet, NTIA called this process of reducing investment in rural America the “Benefit of the Bargain” round.

Update Below - New Information

NTIA, the federal office administering the largest single investment to expand Internet access across the nation, appears to once again be changing the BEAD program in ways that would only force states to further reduce investment in rural areas.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who oversees the NTIA office, has already introduced delays to the $42.5 billion Internet access expansion program, creating a year-long slow-down at a time when many states could be already connecting homes.

Now, even as the administration claims to be expediting the process, NTIA seems to have added yet another time-consuming wrinkle: a super secret “Best and Final Offer” round imposed on states after submitting final proposals.

Image

A quick reminder of where we are: states were forced to redo all their work in recent weeks to follow new rules aimed at cutting costs by making the program demonstrably worse for hundreds of thousands of families.

Rather than spend money to help get these families access to comparably affordable fiber networks, states now have to push billions toward low-Earth orbit satellite services which offer them far worse connectivity at much higher prices to each subscriber. And yet, NTIA called this process of reducing investment in rural America the “Benefit of the Bargain” round.

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. 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 (Restructuring Policy Notice) 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.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. 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 (Restructuring Policy Notice) 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.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. 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 (Restructuring Policy Notice) 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.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. 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 (Restructuring Policy Notice) 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.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. 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 (Restructuring Policy Notice) 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.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. 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 (Restructuring Policy Notice) 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.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”