In the wake of the Biden Administration’s request for a $6 billion extension of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), some in Congress question the program’s true impact on bringing broadband access to new users. Critics have pointed to a lack of data confirming whether the program’s impressive enrollment figures translate into a meaningful increase in internet access for previously disconnected individuals. Admittedly, the data was sparse until now. As policymakers consider the future of the ACP program, my new analysis of program enrollment and broadband adoption data demonstrates that the program effectively meets its primary mission: closing the digital divide. ACP enrollment rates have been robust since the program’s inception at the beginning of 2022. Through October of 2023, 21.5 million households have enrolled in the program, which means that approximately 18% of US households with broadband subscriptions rely on the subsidy. ACP sign-ups have been particularly strong in places where poverty rates are high, and are notably the same in urban and rural areas. Enrollment is also higher than expected in areas with households headed by Black people and Latinos, and in places with high unemployment. Overall, ACP enrollment is growing in the places and among the people that the program targets, and not only that, but it is also helping people who did not previously have access to get online. In other words, the answer to the question of whether the ACP is closing the digital divide is a clear yes. This makes maintaining the ACP more crucial than ever. Subscription vulnerability – the challenge of maintaining broadband subscriptions for low-income households – will endure. That means the need for service subsidies will, too. Thus far, the Affordable Connectivity Program has shown itself to be an effective tool for helping people get and stay online.

The big ISPs certainly have their knickers in a knot over the adoption of digital discrimination rules by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC was required to adopt some version of digital discrimination rules by language included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The IIJA says that the FCC needs to prevent discrimination based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin. The ISPs wanted discrimination to be defined as intentional discrimination where an ISP purposefully decides not to serve somebody. The FCC adopted the intentional discrimination definition, but also adopted what it calls disparate market impacts, which means the agency can consider discrimination that is obvious in the market without having to prove an ISP’s intent. The big ISPs are particularly distraught over the idea of the FCC monitoring digital discrimination since it is coupled with a likely vote to reintroduce Title II regulation of broadband. They are worried that the combination of the two sets of regulations will mean they won’t be free to do anything they like in the market. That’s what regulation is supposed to do. A handful of large ISPs have near-monopoly power in the broadband market, and the job of regulators is to balance that power by making sure that the general public still gets a fair shake. You’ll not hear the big ISPs talking about that.

On October 6, 2023, Rep Tim Walberg (R-MI) wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel to express concerns that she "misled the public and [was] not truthful" in Congressional testimony and has proposed broadband rate regulation. In her November 14 reply to Rep Walberg, Chairwoman Rosenworcel said, "I have no interest in pursuing regulation of broadband rates." She included a paragraph from the net neutrality/Title II proposal which reads:

We propose to forbear from all provisions of Title II that would permit [FCC] regulation of [broadband internet access service] BIAS rates. We believe that [FCC] rate regulation is unnecessary because the tailored approach we adopt here will enable the [FCC] to promote broadband deployment and competition, and because we will be able to rely on sections 201 and 202 to address non-rate related issues. Therefore, while we do not propose to forbear from sections 201 and 202 of the Act as a general matter, we ‘do not and cannot envision adopting new ex ante rate regulation’ or ex post rate regulation of BIAS, and we therefore propose to forbear from applying sections 201 and 202 to BIAS insofar as they would support adoption of rate regulations for BIAS. We seek comment on this proposal

More than three years after pandemic shutdowns forced employers and employees to shift toward remote work if they could, it seems that for a portion of working Californians, remote and hybrid work is here to stay. According to the November 2023 Public Policy Institute of California Statewide Survey, 14 percent of Californians say they work remotely all of the time, 21 percent are working in a mix of some work from home and some outside the home at the workplace, and 61 percent say they are working exclusively in person at the workplace. These shares have not changed much since November 2021—about 18 months into the pandemic. Today, two in three Californians who work remotely at least part of the time say they started working at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While it is impossible to say whether or not organizations and employers will change their remote and hybrid work policies in the future, current levels of flexibility probably contribute to many Californians’ positive opinions about their jobs.

A new analysis from New Street Research revealed that the telecommunications industry collectively increased fiber locations by 1.8 million in the third quarter of 2023, with “most of the increase driven by AT&T.” A broadband trends report from analyst Jonathan Chaplin highlighted that over the past year, AT&T has passed 2.2 million new consumer locations with fiber, although he wrote that pace is “slightly below expectations based on management guidance.” AT&T added 1.1 million fiber subscribers during the past year. Despite its growth in fiber locations, AT&T's fiber subscriber adds were slightly below its pace in 2022 and 2019. Verizon's fiber penetration has remained relatively stable at 42 percent for the last two years, with growth slowing in the last six quarters. Verizon continues to build fiber at 400-500k locations per year, focusing on markets with DSL infrastructure that could be upgraded. As for other fiber players, Frontier Communications's fiber net adds have accelerated alongside the expansion of its fiber passings, adding approximately 0.3 million fiber subscribers over the past year. In contrast, Lumen has witnessed a deceleration in fiber net adds, despite increasing fiber locations.