by Dave Garb, Legislative Committee Chair

In November, President-Elect Donald Trump selected current FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to become the next chairman of the board.

In addition to telecom issues, Carr outlined plans to reinterpret Section 230, the law that protects internet platforms from liability for their users’ posts. “While there has been much discussion about whether or not the scope of Section 230 is appropriate, what everyone agrees on is that the authority lies with Congress, not the FCC.”

From Washington Policy Center: Based on Carr’s past and current statements, a large change in the direction of the FCC should be expected. Here are a few key possibilities:

On Net Neutrality: Carr was part of the initial repeal of the net neutrality rules in 2017 and has continued to denounce their reinstatement. “As I’ve argued in the past, the FCC would be wise to avoid reinstating these rules as they overstep the scope of the FCC and create worse outcomes compared to areas that have similar regulations in effect.”

On Digital Divide: Carr has criticized the BEAD program and advocated for federal agencies to auction off spectrum bands for 5G to private actors. This will also likely shift FCC priorities to making pathways for rural areas to take advantage of wider-range, cost-effective approaches like Starlink in favor of spending more to connect fiber networks to these areas.

Big Tech: Alphabet (Google) and Meta (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) have come under scrutiny over political content censorship and de-prioritization. Can Carr thread the needle to protect First Amendment expression without breaking the balance that allows platforms to create desirable spaces? We will see.

National Security: Carr’ stated skepticism over TikTok and other Chinese technology indicates that he will be a proponent to continue the TikTok ban policy, despite free speech concerns. This would be at odds with President-elect Trump’s campaign promise, so it’s yet to be seen if this will be strongly pursued or not.

DEI: The FCC’s latest budget request set diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility as the second highest priority in regard to digital communication and services. Carr has explicitly stated this will no longer be a priority for the commission. His advocacy for bridging the digital divide indicates that digital accessibility will still be a focus, but is much more likely to be strategically pursued by cost, reach, and need, rather than external factors such as race or “social stigma.”

Current FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel congratulated Commissioner Carr by saying: 

“I want to congratulate Commissioner Carr on the announcement by the President-elect that he will serve as the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. From his time here, I am confident that Commissioner Carr is familiar with the staff, the responsibilities of this new role, and the importance of continued U.S. leadership in communications.”

In another statement, Rosenworcel announces her departure from the FCC: “Serving at the Federal Communications Commission has been the honor of a lifetime, especially my tenure as Chair and as the first woman in history to be confirmed to lead this agency. I want to thank President Biden for entrusting me with the responsibility to guide the FCC during a time when communications technology is a part of every aspect of civic and commercial life. Taking the oath of office on the street outside of the agency during the height of the pandemic, when so much of our day-to-day moved online, made clear how important the work of the FCC is and how essential it is for us to build a digital future that works for everyone. “I am proud to have served at the FCC alongside some of the hardest working and dedicated public servants I have ever known. Together, we accomplished seemingly impossible feats like setting up the largest broadband affordability program in history—which led to us connecting more than 23 million households to high-speed internet, connecting more than 17 million students caught in the homework gap to hotspots and other devices as learning moved online, putting national security and public safety matters with communications front and center before the agency, and launching the first-ever Space Bureau to support United States leadership in the new Space Age.”

Also in November, JAG’s Treasurer & Legislative Committee Vice Chair., Linda Besink, was contacted by the New Jersey Center for Nonprofits. They had an urgent request asking everyone to Oppose H.R. 9495.

H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, would empower the U.S. Treasury Secretary to unilaterally designate 501(c) organizations as “terrorist supporting organizations” and revoke their tax-exempt status with minimal due process. It would allow the Secretary to bring such accusations without disclosing the evidence behind them and would place the burden of proof on the organization to disprove the allegations.

The Legislative Committee became very curious about this Act. First because we never heard of H.R. 9495 until we were contacted, and secondly, because what this actually would mean to 501 (c) organizations. We reached out to our partners at NATOA and the ACM who both said this has nothing really to do with us and is not its purpose. 

Mike Wassenaar, President of the Alliance for Community Media (ACM), further elaborated by saying: “I think the issue relates to non-profits involved with protest – particularly pro-Palestinian protests. The only possible issue I can think that would relate to your members would be giving airtime to organizations identified by such legislation. It’s meant to squelch anti-Israeli rhetoric. The most important thing you can do for this or any other type of speech legislation would be to make sure your policies regarding non-partisan speech are updated and if you are running public access channels, to make sure you are communicating your role as a civic communicator devoted to free speech principles. Also, if it passes, I have no doubt it will be challenged by groups such as the ACLU and Independent Sector. If that comes to pass, we would let you know.” On November 21st, by a vote of 219-184, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 9495. It is now in the hands of the U.S. Senate.

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.