In case you missed it, earlier this month President Biden signed an executive order that aims to promote competition in the U.S. economy. The order includes 72 initiatives, directing a dozen different federal agencies to promote competition in key sectors. 

The White House published a fact sheet to explain what the EO aims to do. [Read the full factsheet is here]. It begins by pointing out how a "lack of competition drives up prices for consumers," which is why "families are paying higher prices for necessities—things like prescription drugs, hearing aids, and Internet service."

It goes on to say that the order will, among other things, "save Americans money on their Internet bills by banning excessive early termination fees, requiring clear disclosure of plan costs to facilitate comparison shopping, and ending landlord exclusivity arrangements that stick tenants with only a single Internet option."

As you might imagine, we are particularly interested in the section on “Internet Service,” which you can read below:

Internet Service

The Order tackles four issues that limit competition, raise prices, and reduce choices for Internet service.

In the Order, the President encourages the FCC to:

• Prevent ISPs from making deals with landlords that limit tenants’ choices.

Lack of competition among broadband providers: More than 200 million U.S. residents live in an area with only one or two reliable high-speed Internet providers, leading to prices as much as five times higher in these markets than in markets with more options. A related problem is landlords and internet service providers entering...

In the American Rescue Plan Act, Congress and the Biden Administration included a multi-billion dollar appropriation to help expand high-speed Internet access. This guide offers an overview of the different funding opportunities for communities interested in expanding broadband services. As application deadlines vary in some cases and other money must be spent within certain time frames, it is critical for states, municipalities, community organizations, and Tribal governments to start planning initiatives now. 

It’s also worth emphasizing that 18 states still put localities at a disadvantage when it comes to spending anticipated funding effectively by preserving laws that interfere with community investment in broadband infrastructure. Much of this money could also be funneled for other purposes due to a lack of good plans and community engagement. 

The amount of funding flowing into communities is unprecedented. Localities should prepare to spend funds on needed, futureproof infrastructure. This is an historic, once-in-a-lifetime investment in Internet infrastructure and communities who develop a clear, actionable plan and are as ready as possible once the money starts flowing will prosper.

Directory

If you’re a homeowner looking for assistance paying your Internet bill…look to the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program or Homeowner’s Assistance Fund. 

If you’re an HBCU or Minority-serving institution looking to expand Internet access to your students, or if you’re a minority business enterprise or nonprofit organization in the surrounding community...look to the Connecting Minority Communities Pilot Program.

if you’re a Tribal government, Tribal organization, or Tribal college or university, including native Hawaiian organizations, education programs and native corporations…look to the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program.

If you’re a city interested in partaking in a public-private partnership…look to the Promote Broadband Expansion Grant Program. 

If you’re a school or library whose main concern is obtaining remote Internet access devices...look to the Emergency Connectivity Fund.

Federal Aid Directly To States, Counties, Localities and Territories

Out of the $1.9 trillion in fiscal relief provided by the...

We spend significant time and energy here covering the regressive impacts of state broadband policies which preempt local communities from creating competition and choice as well as connecting the unconnected by building their own networks. Most recently, we wrote about the FCC’s new 5G rules regarding locally owned and regulated utility poles, and the proliferation of small cell sites as mobile providers race to deploy tens of thousands of antennas as part of network infrastructure improvements. Its effects are already being seen in Milwaukee, where fee caps, shorter timing windows, and rights of way exemptions are having negative effects. 

But state preemption is a versatile legislative tool that extends well beyond broadband access, and a new report explores not only its increasingly common use but the negative impacts on communities in many instances across the nation.

This is the topic tackled by The Local Power and Politics Review, a joint project by ChangeLab Solutions and the Local Solutions Support Center. Its first annual report, released in November, brings together more than a dozen experts and advocates across an array of fields to address how “[i]nstead of rising above the fray, many state leaders have embraced negativity, taking aim at progressive localities, local leaders, policies, and programs by weaponizing preemption legislation and other means of control.”

The first issue [pdf] offers a “comprehensive look at the wide reach of state preemption in communities across our nation and the effects of that state interference on people’s health, social, and economic well-being” across a host of arenas, including “public health, civil rights and discrimination, environment policy, emerging technologies,...

After a month-long vote, last week the membership of the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative voted to add broadband to the cooperative's charter by an overwhelming margin. 88% voted yes to the measure.