News & Events

by Dave Garb, Legislative Committee Chair

League Session:

How Your Town Can Access Federal Broadband Improvement Funds

Federal Broadband improvement money is now being distributed to municipalities. To apply, towns must supply maps of underserved or unserved areas. Once these maps are established, towns may apply for the funds needed to bring broadband to all.

At the 2024 League of Municipalities Conference, JAG co-hosted (along with the League) a session on this important issue to let New Jersey’s municipalities know how they can access these funds. The panel included Gerard Lederer, Attorney at Law from Best, Best & Krieger LLP; Valarry Bullard, Director, Broadband Office NJ BPU; Joseph Rivera, Manager of Broadband Access, NJ BPU; and Robert Boyle, President and CEO of Planet Networks. The session was moderated by Brian Wahler, Mayor of Piscataway.

Mr. Lederer started off by calming concerns people currently have on if New Jersey is already behind. Mr. Lederer related “Are we behind in giving out the broadband money compared to other states. And the answer is absolutely not. You’re exactly on track and in fact New Jersey has been a little bit at the front of the pack.  Every time the announcement is made from the NTIA (which is part of the Department of Commerce) the folks the people giving the money out, they have to approve each of the plans first. There was a preliminary plan and then there was a five year plan and on each of those, New Jersey was at the front.”

He stated that “we’re in the middle of the challenge process now.” The challenge process began when the federal government created this whole procedure. They knew that both the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration), and then each individual state would establish the programs, but they wanted to make sure that local governments voices were not lost in that process. Mayor Brian Wahler worked with NJ Congressman Frank Pallone to ensure that states were part of the challenge process.

So states get the money, but they are vulnerable to a challenge from local governments and public interest groups, if in fact the plan doesn’t address all unserved, underserved or traditionally left behind communities.

So New Jersey is in the process of that right now. But, what if the map and the program don’t match what’s happening in your community? It’s not their fault. It’s ours because we didn’t make the case! If you used any of your ARPA money at all and left some of it unspent, it’s will be lost! It all must be obligated and you must use it by the deadline: 12/31/24.

The BEAD program is the infrastructure program. Its $42.45 billion and $263.7 million are coming to New Jersey now. That ratio doesn’t sound right, but New Jersey in a lot of ways is being punished for having done its job correctly. This number was based upon the number of unserved locations that were found in each state and New Jersey has significantly fewer than most states.

“New Jersey is a fairly well connected state where we have just about 7% of our households that actually do not have access to devices,” added Valarry Bullard, Director, Broadband Office NJ BPU. “That means that when it comes to the technology and access, we are equally connected and we know that’s not the case.”

Ms. Bullard continued “Beyond that need infrastructure wise, we can get creative. We can do some non-deployment activities, making sure we’re focusing on workforce development on education. There are objectives that are needed to make sure everyone’s connected. Let’s make sure that people have devices and they have the digital skills. Because if you don’t know how to use a computer, while we can focus on teaching you that, it doesn’t help if you don’t actually have one. Or you can have a computer, but it doesn’t help if the infrastructure is not there.”

The FCC gives you the map and tells you how much funding you have. But then they come back and determine where that funding can be spent at the local level. The process was started, and the messages went out to make sure everyone’s aware of just how this program is going to work. Understanding that you have the ties to your communities, nonprofits, and utilities to help identify and spread that word.

So we’re in this process now. All responses need to be submitted by 12/31/24 and then we have our final determination. It’s not until this entire process is done in February that we will have our final map.

Next, Joseph Rivera, Manager of Broadband Access, NJ BPU, remarked that “We want to make sure that digital equity means a goal of every resident having the confidence and competence to harness the power of the Internet devices and digitally accessible services. Digital equity can help New Jersey bridge economic and achievement disparities among all residents and enabling them to lead fulfilling lives with dignity. What we’re planning to do is help people access affordable, high speed Internet and give people efficient, effective digital experiences with confidence and competence in accessing devices.”

We’re doing a lot of things to ensure that we’ve reach out to different agencies and see where their needs are, where they’re covering populations, how they’re affecting the covered populations that they represent. But we also want to do this community of practice. Mr. Rivera continued by commenting on how they are going to put more committees together. They want to make the state websites more accessible and visit more towns because they want to hear from everyone.

President and CEO of Planet Networks, Robert Boyle rounded out the session by suggesting how municipalities, providers and community organizations can help this process. “So, one of the things that we need to do with this big money is to make sure that it is spent in areas where it’s needed, where people are underserved. First thing is providing access to New Jersey broadband offices, the BEAD challenge portal and registering using register.broadband.nj.gov. Remember, they don’t know every street in your municipality and they don’t specifically know which areas are served and which areas are unserved they only have, a general idea from the FCC’s database.

You may need to challenge the addresses that show an area is already served, that are not actually being served. This allows the Broadband Office to allocate funds to provide service at that address. Also, you must challenge addresses that show as underserved, but are actually served. You don’t want money to go into things where there’s already service instead using that money in the places where they really need it.”

To reiterate, the onus is now at the state and governments levels. the goal is to ensure everyone is accounting for not just where those needs are, but also to ensure that the faces behind these funds are being carefully considered and know where to get help.  We have until 12/31/24 to make this happen! JAG (Jersey Access Group) is an organization that advocates, promotes, and preserves the right to media production, distribution, civic engagement, and education in support of diverse community voices, through Public, Educational and Government access facilities and other forms of media. JAG continues to help its communities stay informed about these infrastructure projects.

by Dave Garb, Legislative Committee Chair

Here is an additional update to the threat of HR 3557. A couple weeks ago, the bi-partisan national organizations of local government officials National League of Cities (NLC), the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), the National Association of Counties (NACo) and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) sent a letter to House leadership reiterating their opposition to HR 3557 the American Broadband Deployment Act. This was a response to the recent Industry Trade Association letter sent to House leadership by NCTA, CTIA, US Telecom, WIA, NTCA and INCOMPAS and others.

From NATOA on HR 3557:

*Opposition Letter to HR 3557* NACo, NLC, the USCM and NATOA oppose the heavy-handed federal overreach into local land use, permitting, and franchise negotiation decisions in HR 3557, which represents:

• An unprecedented and dangerous usurpation of local governments’ authority to manage public rights-of-way and land use
• Favors cable, wireless and telecommunications providers
• Waives historic preservation (NHPA) and environmental (NEPA) rules

H.R. 3557 runs counter to the recommendations from the new multi-stakeholders Benton Foundation and Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law and Policy white paper: “Permitting Success: Closing the Digital Divide through Local Broadband Permitting,” which recognizes that the main issue for smaller communities is a lack of staff and resources, particularly in that jurisdictions that will get most of the BEAD funding. Further, the Permitting Success white paper reflects the acknowledgement by the industry and other stakeholders that local permitting is important to protect public safety and the diverse values of communities. In addition, the FCC’s Communications Equity and Diversity Council model rules for states and local governments recognized similar values and the need for local involvement (like franchising) to be sure deployment is equitable. H.R. 3557 is at odds with those recommendations.

From ACM on HR 3557:

HR 3557 allows for corporations to be able to modify franchise agreements at will and to be in public rights of way in perpetuity, if they so choose, to help promote broadband deployment in America. Obviously, something that is not in the interest of local communities and not in the interests of community media operations across the United States.

Many of our members wrote letters to the House and Senate leadership about the concerns of local preemption happening as a result of that bill. This is something we’ll keep monitoring, but we want to ensure you knew that we don’t have to worry about that until December at the earliest.

JAG urges all of our members in the House of Representatives to ensure that Public Educational and Government (PEG) Access media organizations like ours (and others throughout the United States) will continue to serve local residents by continuing to not include language from HR 3557 (American Broadband Deployment Act) in any resolutions this fall.

HR 3557 is not a bi-partisan effort and was passed out of committee with no testimony from local and state governments, which represent legitimate interests of residents and cable and broadband consumers throughout the country. The Bill’s promoters talk of clearing “regulatory underbrush” to ensure that broadband is extended to all areas of the country. And yet, that “underbrush” ensures the rights of all communities—rural, suburban or urban—are respected when negotiating with corporate interests, and that communities with little power have a place at the bargaining table and a voice in the media.

From ACM on the Closed Captioning Registry:

The FCC has closed comments on the notice of further rule making petition that the ACM brought forward regarding the closed captioning registry and the request they had to have a waiver for public access producers in the United States not registering with the federal government about their captioning exemption status.

Mike Wassenaar, president of the ACM is happy to report that he has gotten some supportive comments from our friends at NATOA, as well as from other local governments across the United States, and we will hopefully hear soon about the FCC’s actions.

The sort of the information necessary for individual channels to actually give their points of contact in the registered database in case their consumer complaints for those of you are not familiar with the 2016 ruling that promulgated our concerns.

The FCC says that all television channels actually should have a point of contact listed for any consumer complaints about closed captioning and the point of contact also should be able to tell an individual at the FCC what the exemption status is for the FCC’s captioning rules.

The FCC has a set of closed captioning rules that are separate from the Department of Justice requirements under ADA and those rules by and large state that I think most public, educational and government television operations in the United States are exempt because of one of a number of different factual conditions.

One of them is the amount of revenue received. You have to make more than $3,000,000 per channel to not be exempt from captioning requirements. This is actually a rule that was set way back in 1998, so it’s our analysis that most peg channels in the United States are probably exempt by of the FCC’s captioning conditions.

We’ll need to actually get points of contact for any channel that is on a cable operation in United States to be with the FCC in case consumer complaints come forward. So I think that process will get rolling in 2025 and we’ll provide you information as it moves forward. It’s probably in everybody’s best interest that consumers know if you’re exempt from captioning rules, and they know who to talk to in case there’s a question.

by Dave Garb, Legislative Committee Chair

Because of its importance, I am going to bring up an article that we commented on last month. It is about the FCC’s Docket No. 05-231 *Closed Captioning of Video Programming Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. Petition for Rulemaking*.

From NATOA:

Docket No. 05-231, will be of great importance to PEG operators. This proposal would exempt certain video programming providers from its closed captioning registration and certification requirements if they provide programming to public, educational, and governmental access channels (PEG) or to non-broadcast networks for distribution by a cable operator or other MVPD if the PEG channels or the network are exempt from or have certified compliance with the captioning rules.

Nearly 8 years ago, the Alliance for Community Media filed a petition in this matter requesting that the closed captioning registration and certification requirements be waived for program producers that provide programs exclusively over PEG channels. At that time, NATOA and a number of communities and access organizations supported ACM’s petition.

ACM Rationale in 2016: Although PEG programming is not categorically exempt from captioning, ACM states that the vast majority of PEG channels fall within one or more of the Commission’s closed captioning exemption categories, e.g., because the channel produces annual revenue less than $3,000,000. Therefore, ACM reasons, requiring PEG programmers to register and certify would be “needless” if they are exclusively distributing programs on channels that are exempt from captioning under the Commission’s rules. According to ACM, more than 1.2 million volunteers and more than 250,000 community groups provide PEG programming in local communities across the United States. These include “ordinary citizens and organizations—Cub Scouts, gospel choirs, political candidates, and community groups of every possible type.” Requiring each PEG program producer to register and certify compliance for its video programming on channels that are themselves exempt, ACM argues, would impose a significant and unnecessary burden on such programmers and needlessly clutter the Commission’s registration system.

The FCC published a Final Rule in the Federal Register on August 23, 2016 that imposed new reporting requirements on public, educational and governmental access programming with respect to the closed captioning of video programming on television. These obligations included:

(1) New requirements to certify compliance with or exemption from the FCC’s closed captioning rules;

(2) Introduction of a “burden-shifting” model for the resolution of complaints about closed captioning; and

(3) Introduction of a new “Video Programmer Registration” system in which PEG access stations will have to provide contact information into the FCC’s website.

The Alliance for Community Media, the national association of PEG programmers and stations, filed a Petition for Waiver from the new reporting rules for all PEG access programmers. The waiver sought for video programming producers would exempt programmers that are not PEG access stations from both the compliance certification and the registration requirement. The petition for waiver didn’t seek to change compliance certification and registration requirements for PEG stations so much as it is seeking an exemption for those who produce.

You can read the recent Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Closed Captioning of Video Programming Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Petition, CG Docket No#: 05-231, at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-80A1.pdf.

If anyone in the PEG community wishes to make their voices heard on this matter, we have a deadline of October 1, 2024 to comment on Docket No. 05-231

*What will this exactly mean to PEG if this decision passes is still to be determined. There is still the DOJ’s ruling from this past April that states we all will need to be captioning in the very near future.  So be ready for a flood of possibilities.*

In the meantime, at the JAG conference this past May, we held a session on the DOJ’s ruling Titled: *ADA Compliance-Updates on the DOJ Rulings and Closed Captioning for Municipal Websites and PEG Channels*. It relates what we must start preparing for in the very near future. 

Either way it turns out, start budgeting for it now!

I would also like to bring up another important story that JAG has been following for over a year.  It has to do with the threat from HR3557.

From ACM:

Bill HR3557 is misnamed and promotes the ability of corporations to break or alter agreements to provide cable and broadband in communities like ours. These cable agreements lie at the heart of our ability to receive funding in order to operate community television channels, teach production and communication skills, and create original content that represents the diversity and interests of our community.

Recently the wireless and cable industries have called on the House leadership to include the language under the guise of our national economic prosperity as well as its future broadband growth.

However, inclusion of HR3557 in any funding bills would fundamentally alter the power of our local communities to negotiate with corporations and would threaten the future of the over 1,600 organizations throughout the US that operate Public Educational and Government (PEG) access channels.

JAG urges all of our members in the House of Representatives to ensure that Public Educational and Government (PEG) Access media organizations like ours and others throughout the United States will continue to serve local residents by not including language from HR3557 (American Broadband Deployment Act) in any funding resolutions this fall.

HR 3557 is not a bi-partisan effort and was passed out of Committee with no testimony from local and state governments, which represent legitimate interests of residents and cable and broadband consumers throughout the country. The Bill’s promoters talk of clearing “regulatory underbrush” to ensure that broadband is extended to all areas of the country. And yet, that “underbrush” ensures the rights of all communities – rural, suburban or urban – are respected when negotiating with corporate interests, and that communities with little power have a place at the bargaining table, and a voice in the media.

Opposition to HR3557 Video from JAG

JAG knows that our New Jersey Representatives appreciate the work that our organizations do to promote democracy, transparency, and culture at the local level. We can only do this community media work because of the rights that HR 3557 is attempting to eliminate.JAG (Jersey Access Group) constantly advocates, analyzes and addresses emerging issues in areas such as: local government communications and internet policy. JAG promotes, and preserves the right to media production, distribution, civic engagement and education in support of diverse community voices, through public, educational and government access facilities and other forms of media.