FCC's Hot Spot Order Takes Money From Projects Already Approved for Funding
The American Library Association is disappointed that the FCC’s order canceling the Biden-era internet hot spots program cuts grants for FY 2025 applicants, said Megan Janicki, the group’s deputy director for strategic initiatives. FCC items eliminating that program, as well as one that provided Wi-Fi connections for students on school buses, passed Tuesday in a pair of 2-1 votes (see 2509300051), with dissents by Commissioner Anna Gomez.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
After approval, the items were released by the FCC, giving Wi-Fi advocates their first detailed view of what was entailed. Unlike other meeting items, drafts weren’t posted ahead of time, since they were circulated for electronic votes and were added late in the process to last week’s meeting agenda.
“We’re dismayed that this will apply to current FY25 applicants” who already signed contracts with service providers, Janicki told us Friday. “Things were already in motion for libraries and schools who had applied for the program.” Requesting funding for services and equipment on the E-rate eligible services list isn’t “politically charged or controversial,” she said. E-rate has been “a reliable funding source for many years, and this repeal damages trust in government institutions and leadership.”
Janicki said she spoke with officials from the Brown County Public Library in Ohio about plans to "address budget challenges in the wake of the repeal.” The library “will continue the hot spot lending program, even without E-rate funding, which means that they are choosing to not fund other resources and services,” she said. “They are planning to reduce expenditures on books and other print materials, audio and video, and supplies for programming,” Janicki said. The need in Brown County “for reliable, consistent internet service is too great to stop the program."
Joey Wender, executive director of the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, said his group is pleased that the school bus declaratory ruling makes clear that the FCC will honor funding commitments from 2024. That’s an issue SHLB raised with the agency, he said.
The hot spots order revisits the earlier order based on objections raised by Maurine and Matthew Molak, a Texas couple who challenged both Wi-Fi actions at the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court. Their son David died by suicide at age 16 after he was cyberbullied, and the Molaks opposed giving students unsupervised access to the internet (see 2409230024).
“SHLB asserts that the Molak Petition should be dismissed because it does not raise new issues that were not already addressed by the Commission in the Hotspots Order, fails to address a material error, and its consideration is not in the public interest,” the FCC order said. “However, we find that consideration of the arguments in the Molak Petition is in the public interest and permitted by section 405 of the Communications Act and section 1.429 of our rules.”
The school bus Wi-Fi declaratory ruling also cites objections by the Molaks and a legal challenge they filed in the 5th Circuit, as well as objections raised by Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. “We find that the prior Commission actions are based on an insufficient record and analysis, and resulted in an interpretation that was not the best reading of section 254 of the Communications Act,” the ruling said.
“Contrary to the Commission’s 2023 interpretation, we find that the best reading of section 254 of the Communications Act is that the use and provision of Wi-Fi on school buses satisfies neither the ‘educational purpose test in section 254(h)(1)(B), nor the ‘classroom’ test under section 254(h)(2)(A),” the ruling said. It slams the previous FCC for not seeking comment on the program nor conducting “a thorough cost and benefit analysis.”