WASHINGTON, August 25, 2021 – The House’s decision to delay passage of the $65 billion spending on broadband included in the infrastructure bill means that final action will wait until Congress returns from its summer break and comes back again for scheduled votes beginning September 20.
Fiber and wireless providers remain optimistic about infrastructure investments in future networks, even as a top lawmaker on Wednesday voiced lingering concerns about spectrum-related provisions in the Senate-passed bill.
On Tuesday, the House passed a budget resolution on a separate $3.5 trillion spending package that is only supported by Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put on hold – until September 27 – a commitment to vote on the $1.2 trillion infrastructure package, which enjoys bipartisan support.
For more on this topic, attend Broadband Breakfast Live Online (FREE to attend live online) on Wednesday, September 1, 2021, at 12 Noon ET – “What’s Next for Broadband Infrastructure Legislation?“
The particulars of the broadband segment of the infrastructure measure that passed the Senate on August 10 have been reported, but not yet fully digested. The bill include grants for service providers that provide broadband at 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 20 Mbps upload.
Upload speeds a center of discussion
That in itself would be a significant bump up from the current federal definition of “broadband” as being 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up.
But some broadband enthusiasts wanted Congress to push for the symmetrical speeds that some Democratic lawmakers have asked for. Symmetrical speeds, in which the up speed is equal to the down speed, are generally seen to favor fiber deployment.
Still, the final measure that passed the Senate decreed that anything under 100 Mbps down would be categorized as “underserved.”
Fiber Broadband Association CEO Gary Bolton put a positive spin on the 100 Mbps x 20 Mbps standard in the Senate-passed infrastructure measure – even as he had originally argued for 100 Mbps x 100 Mbps.
“The bill acknowledges today’s definition of broadband is outdated,” Bolton told Broadband Breakfast. “This bill plus what is happening in the market will hasten the move to symmetrical networks at 100 Mbps and higher.”
Bolton made similar comments more than a year ago in an Expert Opinion piece in Broadband Breakfast in which he stressed the importance of fiber for resilient symmetrical networks.
Symmetrical speeds have become au curant in recent Washington committee hearings. Officials with the Rural Broadband Association NTCA said at a May Senate hearing that higher speeds, and symmetrical speeds, are synonymous with networks built to last.
Previously overlooked upload speeds have now taken center stage during the pandemic. That’s because significantly higher upload speeds are required for users to display themselves for remote work, school and health care.
And that’s not even including the spur in demand for additional web sites and services that require high-speed video uploads.
The 100 Mbps speed threshold isn’t without controversy
Former Federal Communications Commissioner Michael O’Rielly said in March that setting an upload speed of 100 Mbps, “does not reflect reality,” and would lead to more companies building higher-capacity networks in places where there were already lower-capacity networks.
He called that kind of broadband construction wasteful.
Some who represent different segments of the broadband industry also support a more gradual approach to building out broadband in rural areas. These industry players take the attitude that connectivity now at a lower speed is better than no connectivity at all.
Jonathan Adelstein, CEO of the Wireless Infrastructure Association and the former administrator of the Rural Utilities Service, told Broadband Breakfast that his organization worked closely with “key members of Congress to ensure that wireless was included.
“Initial proposals for 100 x 100 symmetrical speeds were actually intended to cut out wireless,” Adelstein wrote. “So we were pleased that Congress ultimately agreed to speeds that wireless can meet.”
Adelstein, who headed the Agriculture Department’s RUS under the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the Obama administration, previously said that “all broadband technologies are needed.”
“We will work with Congress, the Administration, and the states on successfully implementing this program to make sure wireless plays a key role,” he said.
Fiber industry officials also touting lower latency
The $1.2-trillion infrastructure bill, H.R.3684, also includes a requirement to lower latency – the time for a device to communicate with the network – to “allow reasonably foreseeable, real-time, interactive applications,” the text says.
Those applications can include remote conferencing and surveillance, in the case of critical infrastructure.
“We believe that the bill includes the right incentives to build out future proof networks that are scalable, reliable, and with sufficient capacity to last a generation,” said Bolton of the Fiber Broadband Association.
There are “good arguments to take the bipartisan Senate bill and also arguments for strengthening the bill with improved build out requirements” when the House reviews it in September.
“What is most important is to get this bill across the goal line as advancing broadband is a national imperative for jobs, remote healthcare, online education and digital equity,” Bolton said.
Sticking points for House lawmakers on spectrum and other topics
Putting aside the debates over fiber and wireless and broadband speeds, some members of Congress this week voiced concerns with the decisions made by the other body in the Senate-passed infrastructure measure.
Michael Doyle, D-Pennsylvania, and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, told Broadband Breakfast in an email that, “While bipartisan packages are rarely perfect, this bill prioritizes the build-out of future-proof networks and puts us on the path to connecting all Americans to broadband.”
“I plan on supporting these provisions,” he said. “Of concern, however, are provisions relating to spectrum that depart from the traditional process, and we plan to take a look at that.”
Among the spectrum rules outlined in the bill is a requirement that the Office of Management and Budget transfer $50 million from the Spectrum Relocation Fund to the Defense Department for the “purpose of research and development, engineering studies, economic analysis, activities with respect to systems, or other planning activities.”
The affected spectrum in this case would be the 3.1 to 3.45 GigaHertz (GHz) band, a key mid-band series of radio frequencies that includes some federal users.
The bill includes a stipulation that the Commerce Secretary identify other frequencies for federal use.
At a House Rules Committee meeting this week, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington, who serves as the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce committee and who previously said the committee is among the most bipartisan on issues including telecom, said: “Regarding the bill before us today, while there are some aspects I can agree with, it unfortunately falls woefully short in lifting the major barriers that have made major infrastructure projects expensive and, in many cases, impossible.”
She noted that the bill generally does not provision investments in a “more targeted way,” which she said could see “much of the funds authorized and appropriated by this bill…go to waste.”
She specified that “burdensome federal regulations and unnecessary permitting requirements” for closing the digital divide, for example, make it “expensive, slow, and difficult to deploy and upgrade broadband.”
Rodgers also said the bill “does not target funds for deployment to fully unserved parts of America based off the Congressionally-mandated FCC broadband maps. This bill risks wasting billions of dollars in taxpayer money without truly closing the digital divide, leaving rural Americans further behind in the digital economy.”
General support from most in industry and government
When the bill passed the Senate earlier this month, it drew supporters who said it moved the ball forward for much-needed funding to close the digital divide and represented a breakthrough in a divided environment.
“The bipartisan infrastructure legislation demonstrates that policymakers can find common ground on issues that are important for America’s future, including the need to get all Americans connected to robust and reliable broadband service, said Michael Powell, president of the cable industry group NCTA, the Internet and Television Association.
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said, after the Senate’s passing of the bill, that “[a]mong the historic investments included in the bill is more than $48 billion in funding for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to fund state and local investments to help reach 100% access to affordable, high-speed broadband service.”
The Commerce Department will have a significant purse for a grant program that will provide funding to states to expand broadband in unserved and underserved areas.
Additional broadband components
The bill also requires fund recipients to provide no less than one low-cost broadband service option, a proposal which would be submitted for approval.
The grants must also be used to build out the networks no later than four years after the entity is given the grant, with some exceptions, and the recipient must submit a final report about the funds’ use after it’s been expended.
The bill includes other provisions that focus on access to information for consumers so they can see eligibility for federal and state broadband subsidies and low-income plans, including the creation of a federal website for that purpose.
The FCC will also be required to submit a report on the future of the Universal Service Fund, the program that supports broadband buildouts using telecoms’ voice revenues. The program has been called unsustainable because voice revenues have been declining over time and critics have proposed different funding avenues, including general broadband revenues.
In a May op-ed published in Newsweek, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr proposed big technology companies contribute to the fund because they benefit from the ecosystem.
Workforce needed for implementation
Among other minor provisions, Adelstein referenced something that Congress should look into regarding future 5G networks: The need for a trained workforce for broadband and wireless buildouts.
“Congress should look to invest in workforce training and apprenticeship in the next reconciliation bill,” said Adelstein.
The $3.5-tillion budget that the House passed Tuesday will initiate a reconciliation plan that might address some of these issues.
“With a historic amount of money to be distributed soon for broadband deployment, we need to make sure we have a large enough and properly trained workforce to build out broadband networks and 5G networks,” Adelstein said. “Building a 5G ready workforce is crucial to efficiently spending taxpayer money and to winning the race to 5G.”
Infrastructure Bill Brings New Focus on Decision Making at Community Level
Funneling of infrastructure funds through states differs from Obama-era broadband programs.
WASHINGTON, January 24, 2022 – Community broadband advocates say the ability for local governments to decide what can be done with broadband money from the recently-enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is the best way to manage federal funds for broadband expansion efforts.
During a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event on Wednesday, leaders at community broadband advocacy group Institute for Local Self-Reliance said this sets up a local community-based approach to connectivity, bypassing some of the issues with the Federal Communications Commission’s limited broadband maps.
Sean Gonsalves, a senior reporter, editor and researcher at the ILSR, said that local communities are the best source of information on where within their boundaries there are connectivity issues – far surpassing the knowledge of the FCC’s maps.
The infrastructure legislation, which became law in November, will provide a minimum of $100 million to each of the states to use toward broadband expansion. The states that have applied for American Rescue Plan money now have heaps of cash to work with fully connected their boundaries with high-speed internet.
Christopher Mitchell, director of the ILSR, said Wednesday that for many states the law “may solve almost all their rural broadband problems.”
Local approaches may also make it easier to hold accountable officials who do not effectively spend IIJA funds, Mitchell said, adding that was one component of the law that was missing from the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.
Broadband Breakfast Editor and Publisher Drew Clark stated that the law’s structure of funneling money through states is noteworthy, as the notion of responsibility for individual states to enforce policy has long been a “conservative talking point.”
The panel noted that like RDOF, the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program from Barack Obama’s presidency also differed from the IIJA in that it did not rely on individual states to dispense funds.
Mitchell attributes these differences in the IIJA in part to general trends toward decentralization in policy.
Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. You can watch the January 19, 2022, event on this page. You can also PARTICIPATE in the current Broadband Breakfast Live Online event. REGISTER HERE.
Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 12 Noon ET — The Community Broadband Network Approach to Infrastructure Funding
Community broadband networks will play a crucial role in the implementation of the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act, particularly the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program, and the Digital Equity Act. This vital session of Broadband Breakfast Live Online will bring our friends from MuniNetworks.org, the Community Broadband Networks Initiative of the Institute for Local Self Reliance, to discuss the issues, trends and concerns they are following. What open questions remain about the IIJA rules? How do the Treasury Department’s rules on the State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds program interact with the IIJA program? What concerns should community networks have about the next stages of federal funding in their states?
Panelists for this Broadband Breakfast Live Online session:
- DeAnne Cuellar, Community Broadband Outreach Team Lead, ILSR’s Community Broadband Network Initiative
- Sean Gonsalves, Senior Reporter, Editor and Researcher, ILSR’s Community Broadband Network Initiative
- Ry Marcattilio-McCracken, Senior Researcher, ILSR’s Community Broadband Network Initiative
- Christopher Mitchell, Director, ILSR’s Community Broadband Network Initiative
- Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast
Please note: Our event on “State Broadband Officials and the Broadband Infrastructure Surge” has been moved to February 16, 2022.
- Christopher Mitchell: Treasury Department Rescue Plan Act Rules Improve Broadband Funding, Broadband Breakfast, January 13, 2022
DeAnne Cuellar is a tech equity advocate and communications strategist from San Antonio, Texas. She served as Mayor Ron Nirenberg’s digital inclusion appointee to the City of San Antonio’s Innovation & Technology Committee, resulting in several policy and funding priorities to close the digital divide. As a social impact entrepreneur, she co-founded several cross-sector nonprofit initiatives, advocating for justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion for historically underrepresented communities.
Sean Gonsalves is a longtime former reporter, columnist, and news editor with the Cape Cod Times. He is also a former nationally syndicated columnist in 22 newspapers, including the Oakland Tribune, Kansas City Star and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. His work has also appeared in the Boston Globe, USA Today, the Washington Post and the International Herald-Tribune. Sean joined the Institute for Local Self Reliance staff in October 2020 as a senior reporter, editor and researcher for ILSR’s Community Broadband Network Initiative.
Ry Marcattilio-McCracken is Senior Researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Community Broadband Networks Initiative. He is interested in the democratizing power of technology, systems engineering, and the history of science, technology, and medicine. Previously, Ry worked as an Adjunct Professor of American History in Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Minnesota. Ry holds a Ph.D. in American History from Oklahoma State University.
Christopher Mitchell is the Director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis. Mitchell, a leading national expert on community networks, Internet access, and local broadband policies, built MuniNetworks.org, the comprehensive online clearinghouse of information about local government policies to improve Internet access. Its interactive community broadband network map tracks more than 600 such networks. He also hosts audio and video shows online, including Community Broadband Bits and Connect This!, and Public Knowledge presented Christopher with its Internet Protocol award in 2021, which honors those who have made significant contributions to Internet policy.
Drew Clark is the Editor and Publisher of BroadbandBreakfast.com and a nationally-respected telecommunications attorney. Drew brings experts and practitioners together to advance the benefits provided by broadband. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, he served as head of a State Broadband Initiative, the Partnership for a Connected Illinois. He is also the President of the Rural Telecommunications Congress.
As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.
Christopher Mitchell: Brendan Carr is Wrong on the Treasury Department’s Broadband Rules
The Federal Communications Commission has no excuse for why the agency finished with the same bad data it started with.
With all due respect to Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr, his reaction to the Rescue Plan Act’s State and Local Fiscal Relief Fund (SLFRF) spending rules is way off base. As I wrote last week, the rules for broadband infrastructure spending are a good model for pushing down decision-making to the local level where people actually have the information to make informed decisions. (Doug Dawson recently also responded to Commissioner Carr’s statement, offering a response with some overlap of the points below.)
See Christopher Mitchell, Treasury Department Rescue Plan Act Rules Improve Broadband Funding, Broadband Breakfast, January 13, 2022
The Final Rule from the Treasury Department gives broad discretion to local and state governments that choose to spend some of the SLFRF (SLurF-uRF) funds on broadband infrastructure. The earlier draft of rules made it more complicated for networks built to address urban affordability challenges.
However, in coming out against the rules, FCC Commissioner Carr is giving voice to the anger of the big cable and telephone monopolies that cities can, after collecting evidence of need, make broadband investments even in areas where those companies may be selling services already. Commissioner Carr may also be frustrated that he has been reduced to chirping from the sidelines on this issue because the previous FCC, under his party’s leadership, so badly bungled broadband subsidies in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) that Congress decide NTIA should administer these funds and have the state distribute them.
Nonetheless, the issues that Commissioner Carr raised are common talking points inside the Beltway and we feel that they need to be addressed.
The failure of the FCC to assemble an accurate data collection is many years in the making. No single presidential administration can take the full blame for it, but each of them could have corrected it.
President Joe Biden’s FCC is not yet fully assembled because of delays in appointment and in Senate confirmation, but it would not be reasonable to lay blame on the current FCC for the failures discussed below. That said, it is not clear that we are on a course for having better maps and data that will resolve these problems anytime soon.
Commissioner Carr’s Criticism
Commissioner Carr jumps immediately into the rural vs urban frame, suggesting that the Biden Administration could leave rural families behind by allowing local governments to invest in broadband in areas where an existing provider may already claim to offer service. Outlawing this practice – which he and others close to the largest cable and telephone companies call “overbuilding” – has been a major point for Republican FCC Commissioners.
- Rather than directing those dollars to the rural and other communities without any Internet infrastructure today, the Administration gives the green light for recipients to spend those funds on overbuilding existing, high-speed networks in communities that already have multiple broadband providers. This would only deepen the digital divide in this country.
Pardon me? Logically, it is not clear what exactly Commissioner Carr is griping about here. Using Maryland as an example, if Baltimore is allowed to spend some of its funds to ensure unconnected families in public housing have high-quality Internet access, it is not clear that rural Garrett County in the western part of the state is harmed. Local governments do not receive different amounts of funds based on whether they spend it on broadband or other allowable expenses.
See Christopher Mitchell and other from the Institute for Local Self Reliance in the Broadband Breakfast Live Online for Wednesday, January 19, 2022 — The Community Broadband Network Approach to Infrastructure Funding
States could be the issue. Perhaps Commissioner Carr is concerned that Maryland will use some of its SLFRF money for broadband and it will spend too much in urban areas rather than rural regions. That would be an historical anomaly, even though there are far more people living in urban areas than in rural areas who are not on the Internet. And yet, nearly all state and federal dollars have gone to rural areas for infrastructure improvements, with very little being spent to help the low-income families left behind in urban areas. There is no history of states prioritizing urban investments over rural.
Bad Data, Srsly?
What I found really galling though was this bit:
- It gets worse. The Treasury rules allow these billions of dollars to be spent based on bad data. It does this by authorizing recipients to determine whether an area lacks access to high-speed Internet service by relying on informal interviews and reports—however inaccurate those may be—rather than the broadband maps that the federal government has been funding and standing up
It is 2022. The FCC announced three weeks ago that it did not have a timeline for better maps. Many of us have complained for more than 10 years about the misleading and inaccurate collection of claims that the FCC advances as its understanding of where broadband exists in the United States.
Commissioner Carr has been an FCC Commissioner for more than four years, nearly all of that time when his agency was run by a Republican. For part of that time, the Republicans controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. They have no excuse for why his party’s FCC finished with the same bad data processes it started with. No one was defending the FCC data or maps during those years, but the FCC did not bother to begin collecting new data.
Now Commissioner Carr claims that “parts of this country” have broadband services at speeds near 100 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up. OK, Commissioner. Where? Do you have a secret list? No, these are talking points to obscure the fact that Commissioner Carr and his agency has utterly failed to track precisely what “parts of this country” actually has access to broadband.
Will I agree that most, perhaps 80 percent, of the country has access to 100 by 20 Mbps? Yes. But that doesn’t matter if no one can agree which homes are well-served. And it opens up a whole other set of questions that Carr neatly sidesteps, which is that contemporary broadband service goes beyond the academic question of whether an ISP provides that service most of the time at some price. If the price isn’t affordable, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Or as we like to say, if it’s not affordable, it’s not accessible. And, if the service is not very reliable, then there is a problem that must be addressed.
This is why the final rule is both necessary and good: because it allows communities the flexibility they need to address not just the gaps in infrastructure, but reliability and affordability as well. But of course Commissioner Carr should know that we do not have this information at the federal level, because I’m quite sure he opposes collecting pricing and other information. Despite the many instances in which providers have lied to the Commission in presenting the areas they offer service, Carr objects per se to local evidence gathered via interviews to understand where broadband actually is.
A Prediction: This Is Not A Problem
It is remarkable to see the amount of performative horror Commissioner Carr expresses at the prospect of a city like Baltimore using some of the Rescue Plan dollars to ensure its families in public housing are on the Internet, even if a cable provider could theoretically sell them Internet access for $75/month, or provide a subsidized service if they jump through all the right hoops. Compare that to the silence from the Commissioner when it became clear that the largest telephone companies took billions of dollars in broadband subsidies and might have forgotten to upgrade their services.
The SLFRF Treasury Rules give the appropriate amount of deference to local and state leaders to act in an utter void of information about what is available to each home. Commissioner Carr is deeply worried – because the largest cable and telephone companies are deeply worried – that some places will use these dollars to build networks that are unneeded or would create too much competition for the existing companies.
My prediction is that communities will not do this. Of course it’s not zero: a cardinal rule of dealing with large numbers of humans is that there are always outliers. But of the cities that allocate some of their SLFRF dollars to broadband infrastructure, they will overwhelmingly focus on areas where there are real affordability and reliability challenges from existing services. The reality is that very few of these investments will result in any material losses to existing ISPs, but the monopoly providers know that even modestly opening the door to locally built and operated infrastructure driven by community-driven solutions could open the floodgates to the competition they fear so much.
Commissioner Carr has spent years as one of a very small number of people that could correct the abject failure of the FCC to collect useful information about broadband deployments. The rest of us have had to move on and figure out how to work in the absence of data. The best option is to allow for local decision-making where they can collect evidence and act. And most importantly, they will have to take responsibility for their actions and lack of action in ways that FCC Commissioners often do not.
Editor’s Note: This piece was authored by Christopher Mitchell, director of the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community Broadband Network Initiative. His work focuses on helping communities ensure that the telecommunications networks upon which they depend are accountable to the community. He was honored as one of the 2012 Top 25 in Public Sector Technology by Government Technology, which honors the top “Doers, Drivers, and Dreamers” in the nation each year. This piece was originally published on MuniNetworks.org on January 20, 2022, and is reprinted with permission.
Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to firstname.lastname@example.org. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.
Preparing Collaboration Model, Data Collection Suggested Before Infrastructure Money Flows
With infrastructure bill, there is no longer a shortage of funds for states to expand their broadband infrastructure, consultants said.
WASHINGTON, January 20, 2022 – While billions in federal dollars from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act are still many months away, work can be done to tie-up some loose ends, including figuring out internet speed criteria and best partnerships for broadband builds, said a consultant Wednesday.
Heather Gold, founder and CEO of broadband consulting firm HBG Strategies, noted on a Broadband Bunch webinar that the $65 billion for broadband from the infrastructure bill won’t be available until next year. But she noted that infrastructure money and existing American Rescue Plan Act funding means states are no longer financially limited in their efforts to expand broadband.
That means internet service providers and states need to be thinking about how to manage this pool of funds, according to Joanne Hovis, president of engineering and consulting firm CTC Technology and Energy.
Hovis said local service providers can get ahead by choosing the right collaboration model for broadband builds. That includes partnerships with electric cooperatives, which can own wood poles on which telecoms attach their equipment, or a partnership with the local government, such as that being done in Vermont.
Hovis also encouraged data collection efforts to make broadband service prices publicly available and easily accessible knowledge, and advocated for competitive bidding processes for broadband grants that result in benefits for as many service providers as possible.
- Vague Social Media Laws Create Fear in the Middle East. Can Encryption Tools Help?
- With State Plan and Federal Funds, California in Good Position to Close Digital Divide
- AT&T Speeds Tiers, Wisconsin Governor on Broadband Assistance, Broadband as Public Utility
- Biden Encourages House to Pass Technology Innovation Funding Bill
- Federal Communications Commission Implements Rules for Affordable Connectivity Program
- FTC Mum on Microsoft-Activision Deal, Proposes Review of Merger Guidelines
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Broadband Roundup4 months ago
Cox’s Wireless Deal with Verizon Dies, Apple Appeals Epic Games Case, AT&T’s Fiber Investment
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
AT&T Hurricane Survey, FCC Announces $1.1B from Emergency Connectivity Fund, Comcast’s Utah Plans
Broadband Roundup4 months ago
Facebook Changes and Second Whistleblower, Comcast’s Spam Call Feature, AT&T Picks Ericsson for 5G
Broadband Roundup4 months ago
O’Rielly ‘Perplexed’ By Delay in Rosenworcel Decision, China Mobile Domesticating Contracts, AT&T Partners with Frontier
Expert Opinion4 months ago
Mike Harris: Investing in Open Access Fiber Optics is Investing in the Future
Spectrum3 months ago
More Experts Weigh In On Possibility 12 GHz Band Can Be Shared with 5G Services
Artificial Intelligence1 month ago
Henry Kissinger: AI Will Prompt Consideration of What it Means to Be Human
Funding4 months ago
Pandemic and Funding Programs Increasing Investments in Broadband and M&A, Conference Hears