ted cruz

Ted Cruz can’t get all Republicans to back his fight against state AI laws

AI, Policy, ted cruz / Shannon Garcia / June 25, 2025

Cruz plan moves ahead but was reportedly watered down amid Republican opposition.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) presides over a subcommittee hearing on June 3, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images | Chip Somodevilla

A Republican proposal to penalize states that regulate artificial intelligence can move forward without requiring approval from 60 senators, the Senate parliamentarian decided on Saturday. But the moratorium on state AI laws did not have unanimous Republican support and has reportedly been watered down in an effort to push it toward passage.

In early June, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed enforcing a 10-year moratorium on AI regulation by making states ineligible for broadband funding if they try to impose any limits on development of artificial intelligence. While the House previously approved a version of the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” with an outright 10-year ban on state AI regulation, Cruz took a different approach because of the Senate rule that limits inclusion of “extraneous matter” in budget reconciliation legislation.

Under the Senate’s Byrd rule, a senator can object to a potentially extraneous budget provision. A motion to waive the Byrd rule requires a vote of 60 percent of the Senate.

As originally drafted, Cruz’s backdoor ban on state AI laws would have made it impossible for states to receive money from the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program if they try to regulate AI. He tied the provision into the budget bill by proposing an extra $500 million for the broadband-deployment grant program and expanding its purpose to also subsidize construction and deployment of infrastructure for artificial intelligence systems.

Punchbowl News reported today that Cruz made changes in order to gain more Republican support and comply with Senate procedural rules. Cruz was quoted as saying that under his current version, states that regulate AI would only be shut out of the $500 million AI fund.

This would seem to protect states’ access to the $42 billion broadband deployment fund that will offer subsidies to ISPs that expand access to Internet service. Losing that funding would be a major blow to states that have spent the last couple of years developing plans to connect more of their residents to modern broadband. The latest Senate bill text was not available today. We contacted Cruz’s office and will update this article if we get a response.

A spokesperson for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) told Ars today that Cruz’s latest version could still prevent states from getting broadband funding. The text has “a backdoor to apply new AI requirements to the entire $42.45 billion program, not just the new $500 million,” Cantwell’s representative said.

Plan has opponents from both parties

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that several parts of the Republican budget bill are subject to the Byrd rule and its 60-vote requirement, but Cruz’s AI proposal wasn’t one of them. A press release from Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) noted that “the parliamentarian’s advice is based on whether a provision is appropriate for reconciliation and conforms to the limitations of the Byrd rule; it is not a judgement on the relative merits of a particular policy.”

Surviving the parliamentarian review doesn’t guarantee passage. A Bloomberg article said the parliamentarian’s decision is “a win for tech companies pushing to stall and override dozens of AI safety laws across the country,” but that the “provision will likely still be challenged on the Senate floor, where stripping the provision would need just a simple majority. Some Republicans in both the House and Senate have pushed back on the AI provision.”

Republicans have a 53–47 edge in the Senate. Cantwell and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) teamed up for a press conference last week in which they spoke out against the proposed moratorium on state regulation.

Cantwell said that 24 states last year started “regulating AI in some way, and they have adopted these laws that fill a gap while we are waiting for federal action. Now Congress is threatening these laws, which will leave hundreds of millions of Americans vulnerable to AI harm by abolishing those state law protections.”

Blackburn said she agreed with Cantwell that the AI regulation proposal “is not the type of thing that we put into reconciliation bills.” Blackburn added that lawmakers “are working to move forward with legislation at the federal level, but we do not need a moratorium that would prohibit our states from stepping up and protecting citizens in their state.”

Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) have also criticized the idea of stopping states from regulating AI.

Cruz accused states of “strangling AI”

Cruz argued that his proposal stops states “from strangling AI deployment with EU-style regulation.” Under his first proposal, no BEAD funds were to be given to any state or territory that enforces “any law or regulation… limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce.”

The Cantwell/Blackburn press conference also included Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat; and Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican. Brown said that “Washington has a law that prohibits deep fakes being used against political candidates by mimicking their appearance and their speech,” another “that prohibits sharing fabricated sexual images without consent and provides for penalties for those who possess and distribute such images,” and a third “that prohibits the knowing distribution of forged digital likenesses that can be used to harm or defraud people.”

“All of those laws, in my reading, would be invalid if this was to pass through Congress, and each of those laws are prohibiting and protecting people here in our state,” Brown said.

Skrmetti said that if the Senate proposal becomes law “there would be arguments out there for the big tech companies that the moratorium does, in fact, preclude any enforcement of any consumer protection laws if there’s an AI component to the product that we’re looking at.”

Other Republican plans fail Byrd rule test

Senate Democrats said they are pleased that the parliamentarian ruled that several other parts of the bill are subject to the Byrd rule. “We continue to see Republicans’ blatant disregard for the rules of reconciliation when drafting this bill… Democrats plan to challenge every part of this bill that hurts working families and violates this process,” Merkley said.

Merkley’s press release said the provisions that are subject to a 60-vote threshold include one that “limits certain grant funding for ‘sanctuary cities,’ and where the Attorney General disagrees with states’ and localities’ immigration enforcement,” and another that “gives state and local officials the authority to arrest any noncitizen suspected of being in the US unlawfully.”

The Byrd rule also applies to a section that “limits the ability of federal courts to issue preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders against the federal government by requiring litigants to post a potentially enormous bond,” and another that “limits when the federal government can enter into or enforce settlement agreements that provide for payments to third parties to fully compensate victims, remedy harm, and punish and deter future violations,” Merkley’s office said.

The office of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said yesterday that the provision requiring litigants to post bonds has been struck from the legislation. “This Senate Republican provision, which was even worse than the similar House-passed version, required a plaintiff seeking an emergency court order, preliminary injunction, or a temporary restraining order against the Trump Administration or the federal government to pay a costly bond up front—essentially making the justice system pay-to-play,” Schumer’s office said.

Schumer said that “if enacted, this would have been one of the most brazen power grabs we’ve seen in American history—an attempt to let a future President Trump ignore court orders with impunity, putting him above the law.”

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Ted Cruz can’t get all Republicans to back his fight against state AI laws Read More »

Companies may soon pay a fee for their rockets to share the skies with airplanes

FAA, federal budget, Space, ted cruz / Beth Washington / June 15, 2025

Some space companies aren’t necessarily against this idea, but SpaceX hasn’t spoken.

Starship soars through the stratosphere. Credit: Stephen Clark/Ars Technica

The Federal Aviation Administration may soon levy fees on companies seeking launch and reentry licenses, a new tack in the push to give the agency the resources it needs to keep up with the rapidly growing commercial space industry.

The text of a budget reconciliation bill released by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) last week calls for the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, known as AST, to begin charging licensing fees to space companies next year. The fees would phase in over eight years, after which the FAA would adjust them to keep pace with inflation. The money would go into a trust fund to help pay for the operating costs of the FAA’s commercial space office.

The bill released by Cruz’s office last week covers federal agencies under the oversight of the Senate Commerce Committee, which he chairs. These agencies include the FAA and NASA. Ars recently covered Cruz’s proposals for NASA to keep the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and Gateway lunar space station alive, while the Trump administration aims to cancel Gateway and end the SLS and Orion programs after two crew missions to the Moon.

The Trump administration’s fiscal year 2026 budget request, released last month, proposes $42 million for the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, a fraction of the agency’s overall budget request of $22 billion. The FAA’s commercial space office received an almost identical funding level in 2024 and 2025. Accounting for inflation, this is effectively a budget cut for AST. The office’s budget increased from $27.6 million to more than $42 million between 2021 and 2024, when companies like SpaceX began complaining the FAA was not equipped to keep up with the fast-moving commercial launch industry.

The FAA licensed 11 commercial launch and reentry operations in 2015, when AST’s budget was $16.6 million. Last year, the number of space operations increased to 164, and the US industry is on track to conduct more than 200 commercial launches and reentries in 2025. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket is doing most of these launches.

While the FAA’s commercial space office receives more federal funding today, the budget hasn’t grown to keep up with the cadence of commercial spaceflight. SpaceX officials urged the FAA to double its licensing staff in 2023 after the company experienced delays in securing launch licenses.

In the background, a Falcon 9 rocket climbs away from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. Another Falcon 9 stands on its launch pad at neighboring Kennedy Space Center awaiting its opportunity to fly.

Adding it up

Cruz’s section of the Senate reconciliation bill calls for the FAA to charge commercial space companies per pound of payload mass, beginning with 25 cents per pound in 2026 and increasing to $1.50 per pound in 2033. Subsequent fee rates would change based on inflation. The overall fee per launch or entry would be capped at $30,000 in 2026, increasing to $200,000 in 2033, and then adjusted to keep pace with inflation.

The Trump administration has not weighed in on Cruz’s proposed fee schedule, but Trump’s nominee for the next FAA administrator, Bryan Bedford, agreed with the need for launch and reentry licensing fees in a Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday. Most of the hearing’s question-and-answer session focused on the safety of commercial air travel, but there was a notable exchange on the topic of commercial spaceflight.

Cruz said the rising number of space launches will “add considerable strain to the airspace system” in the United States. Airlines and their passengers pay FAA-mandated fees for each flight segment, and private owners pay the FAA a fee to register their aircraft. The FAA also charges overflight fees to aircraft traveling through US airspace, even if they don’t take off or land in the United States.

“Nearly every user of the National Airspace System pays something back into the system to help cover their operational costs, yet under current law, space launch companies do not, and there is no mechanism for them to pay even if they wish to,” Cruz said. “As commercial spaceflight expands rapidly, so does its impact on the FAA’s ability to operate the National Airspace System. This proposal accounts for that.”

When asked if he agreed, Trump’s FAA nominee suggested he did. Bedford, president and CEO of Republic Airways, is poised to take the helm of the federal aviation regulator if he passes Senate confirmation.

Bryan Bedford is seen prior to his nomination hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee to lead the Federal Aviation Administration on June 11, 2025. Credit: Craig Hudson For The Washington Post via Getty Images

The FAA clears airspace of commercial and private air traffic along the flight corridors of rockets as they launch into space, and around the paths of spacecraft as they return to Earth. The agency is primarily charged with ensuring commercial rockets don’t endanger the public. The National Airspace System (NAS) consists of 29 million square miles of airspace over land and oceans. The FAA says more than 45,000 flights and 2.9 million airline passengers travel through the airspace every day.

Bedford said he didn’t want to speak on specific policy proposals before the Trump administration announces an official position on the matter.

“But I’ll confirm you’re exactly right,” Bedford told Cruz. “Passengers and airlines themselves pay significant taxes. … Those taxes are designed to modernize our NAS. One of the things that is absolutely critical in modernization is making sure we design the NAS so it can accommodate an increased cadence in space launch, so I certainly support where you’re going with that.”

SpaceX would be the company most affected by the proposed licensing fees. The majority of SpaceX’s missions launch the company’s own Starlink broadband satellites aboard Falcon 9 rockets. Most of those launches carry around 17 metric tons (about 37,500 pounds) of usable payload mass.

A quick calculation shows that SpaceX would pay a fee of roughly $9,400 for an average Starlink launch on a Falcon 9 rocket next year if Cruz’s legislation is signed into law. SpaceX launched 89 dedicated Starlink missions last year. That would add up to more than $800,000 in annual fees going into the FAA’s coffers under Cruz’s licensing scheme. Once you account for all of SpaceX’s other commercial launches, this number would likely exceed $1 million.

Assuming Falcon 9s continue to launch Starlink satellites in 2033, the fees would rise to approximately $56,000 per launch. SpaceX may have switched over all Starlink missions to its giant new Starship rocket by then, in which case the company will likely reach the FAA’s proposed fee cap of $200,000 per launch. SpaceX hopes to launch Starships at lower cost than it currently launches the Falcon 9 rocket, so this proposal would see SpaceX pay a significantly larger fraction of its per-mission costs in the form of FAA fees.

Industry reaction

A senior transportation official in the Biden administration voiced tentative support in 2023 for a fee scheme similar to the one under consideration by the Senate. Michael Huerta, a former FAA administrator during the Obama administration and the first Trump administration, told NPR last year that he supports the idea.

“You have this group of new users that are paying nothing into the system that are an increasing share of the operations,” Huerta said. “I truly believe the current structure isn’t sustainable.”

The Commercial Spaceflight Federation, an industry advocacy group that includes SpaceX and Blue Origin among its membership, signaled last year it was against the idea of creating launch and reentry fees, or taxes, as some industry officials call them. Commercial launch and reentry companies have been excluded from FAA fees to remove regulatory burdens and help the industry grow. The federation told NPR last year that because the commercial space industry requires access to US airspace much less often than the aviation industry, it would not yet be appropriate to have space companies pay into an FAA trust fund.

SpaceX did not respond to questions from Ars on the matter. United Launch Alliance would likely be on the hook to become the second-largest payer of FAA fees, at least over the next couple of years, with numerous missions in its backlog to launch massive stacks of Internet satellites for Amazon’s Project Kuiper network from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida.

A ULA spokesperson told Ars the company is still reviewing and assessing the Senate Commerce Committee’s proposal. “In general, we are supportive of fees that are affordable, do not disadvantage US companies against their foreign counterparts, are fair, equitable, and are used to directly improve the shared infrastructure at the Cape and other spaceports,” the spokesperson said.

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

Companies may soon pay a fee for their rockets to share the skies with airplanes Read More »

Ted Cruz bill: States that regulate AI will be cut out of $42B broadband fund

AI, broadband, Policy, ted cruz / Mike M. / June 7, 2025

BEAD changes: No fiber preference, no low-cost mandate

The BEAD program is separately undergoing an overhaul because Republicans don’t like how it was administered by Democrats. The Biden administration spent about three years developing rules and procedures for BEAD and then evaluating plans submitted by each US state and territory, but the Trump administration has delayed grants while it rewrites the rules.

While Biden’s Commerce Department decided to prioritize the building of fiber networks, Republicans have pushed for a “tech-neutral approach” that would benefit cable companies, fixed wireless providers, and Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite service.

Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick previewed changes in March, and today he announced more details of the overhaul that will eliminate the fiber preference and various requirements imposed on states. One notable but unsurprising change is that the Trump administration won’t let states require grant recipients to offer low-cost Internet plans at specific rates to people with low incomes.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) “will refuse to accept any low-cost service option proposed in a [state or territory’s] Final Proposal that attempts to impose a specific rate level (i.e., dollar amount),” the Trump administration said. Instead, ISPs receiving subsidies will be able to continue offering “their existing, market driven low-cost plans to meet the statutory low-cost requirement.”

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society criticized the overhaul, saying that the Trump administration is investing in the cheapest broadband infrastructure instead of the best. “Fiber-based broadband networks will last longer, provide better, more reliable service, and scale to meet communities’ ever-growing connectivity needs,” the advocacy group said. “NTIA’s new guidance is shortsighted and will undermine economic development in rural America for decades to come.”

The Trump administration’s overhaul drew praise from cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, whose members will find it easier to obtain subsidies. “We welcome changes to the BEAD program that will make the program more efficient and eliminate onerous requirements, which add unnecessary costs that impede broadband deployment efforts,” NCTA said. “These updates are welcome improvements that will make it easier for providers to build faster, especially in hard-to-reach communities, without being bogged down by red tape.”

Ted Cruz bill: States that regulate AI will be cut out of $42B broadband fund Read More »

Senator Ted Cruz is trying to block Wi-Fi hotspots for schoolchildren

Policy, ted cruz, wi-fi hotspots / Beth Washington / January 28, 2025

Ted Cruz vs. Wi-Fi hotspots

Cruz: Hotspot lending could “censor kids’ exposure to conservative viewpoints.”

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams

US Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is trying to block a plan to distribute Wi-Fi hotspots to schoolchildren, claiming it will lead to unsupervised Internet usage, endanger kids, and possibly restrict kids’ exposure to conservative viewpoints. “The government shouldn’t be complicit in harming students or impeding parents’ ability to decide what their kids see by subsidizing unsupervised access to inappropriate content,” Cruz said.

Cruz, chairman of the Commerce Committee, yesterday announced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that would nullify the hotspot rule issued by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC voted to adopt the rule in July 2024 under then-Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, saying it was needed to help kids without reliable Internet access complete their homework.

Cruz’s press release said the FCC action “violates federal law, creates major risks for kids’ online safety, [and] harms parental rights.” While Rosenworcel said last year that the hotspot lending could be implemented under the Universal Service Fund’s existing budget, Cruz alleged that it “will increase taxes on working families.”

“As adopted, the Biden administration’s Wi-Fi Hotspot Order unlawfully expanded the Universal Service Fund (USF) to subsidize Wi-Fi hotspots for off-campus use by schoolchildren, despite the Communications Act clearly limiting the Commission’s USF authority to ‘classrooms,'” Cruz’s announcement said. “This partisan order, strongly opposed by then-Commissioner Brendan Carr and Commissioner Nathan Simington, represents an overreach of the FCC’s mandate and poses serious risk to children’s online safety and parental rights.”

Cruz’s press release said that “unlike in a classroom or study hall, off-premises hotspot use is not typically supervised, inviting exposure to inappropriate content, including social media.” Cruz’s office alleged that the FCC program shifts control of Internet access from parents to schools and thus “heightens the risk of censoring kids’ exposure to conservative viewpoints.”

The Cruz resolution to nullify the FCC rule was co-sponsored by Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), John Curtis (R-Utah), Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.).

The FCC’s plan

Under the CRA, Congress can reverse recent agency actions. The exact deadline isn’t always clear, but the Congressional Research Service estimated “that Biden Administration rules submitted to the House or Senate on or after August 1, 2024” are likely to be subject to the CRA during the first few months of 2025. The FCC hotspot rule was submitted to Congress in August.

The FCC rule expands E-Rate, a Universal Service Fund program that helps schools and libraries obtain affordable broadband. The hotspot order would let schools and libraries use E-Rate funding for “lending programs to loan Wi-Fi hotspots and services that can be used off-premises to the students, school staff, and library patrons with the greatest need,” the FCC says.

The FCC’s hotspot order said “technology has become an integral part of the modern classroom,” and that “neither Congress nor the Commission has defined the term ‘classroom’ or placed any explicit location restrictions on schools or libraries.”

“We conclude that funding Wi-Fi hotspots and services for off-premises use will help enhance access for school classrooms and libraries to the broadband connectivity necessary to facilitate digital learning for students and school staff, as well as library services for library patrons who lack broadband access when they are away from school or library premises,” the FCC order said.

Off-premises use can help “the student who has no way of accessing their homework to prepare for the next day’s classroom lesson, or the school staff member who is unable to engage in parent-teacher meetings or professional trainings that take place after the school day ends, or the library patron who needs to attend a virtual job interview or perform bona fide research after their library’s operating hours,” the FCC said.

The FCC order continued:

Thus, we conclude that by permitting support for the purchase of Wi-Fi hotspots and Internet wireless services that can be used off-premises and by allowing schools and libraries to use this technology to connect the individuals with the greatest need to the resources required to fully participate in classroom assignments and in accessing library services, we will thereby extend the digital reach of schools and libraries for educational purposes and allow schools, teachers, and libraries to adopt and use technology-based tools and supports that require Internet access at home. For these reasons, we conclude that the action adopted today is within the scope of our statutory directive under section 254(h)(2)(A) of the Communications Act to enhance access to advanced telecommunications and information services for school classrooms and libraries.

The FCC order said it would be up to schools and libraries “to make determinations about acceptable use in their communities.” Schools and libraries seeking funding would be “subject to the requirements under the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which requires local educational agencies and libraries to establish specific technical protections before allowing network access,” the FCC said. They also must certify on an FCC form that they have updated and publicly posted acceptable use policies and may be required to provide the policies and evidence of where they are posted to the FCC.

Hotspots were distributed during pandemic

The FCC previously distributed Wi-Fi hotspots and other Internet access technology through the $7.171 billion Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF), which was authorized by Congress in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. But Congress rescinded the program’s remaining funding of $1.768 billion last year.

The Rosenworcel FCC responded by adapting E-Rate to include hotspot lending. Overall E-Rate funding is based on demand and capped at $4.94 billion per year. Actual spending for E-Rate in 2023 was $2.48 billion. E-Rate and other Universal Service Fund programs are paid for through fees imposed on phone companies, which generally pass that cost on to consumers with a “Universal Service” charge on telephone bills.

Carr, who is now FCC chairman, said in his July 2024 dissent that only Congress can decide whether to revive the hotspot lending. “Now that the ECF program has expired, its future is up to Congress,” he said. “The legislative branch retains the power to decide whether to continue funding this Wi-Fi loaner program—or not. But Congress has made clear that the FCC’s authority to fund this initiative is over.”

With the previous temporary program, Congress ensured that Universal Service Fund money wouldn’t be spent on the Wi-Fi hotspots and that “the program would sunset when the COVID-19 emergency ended,” Carr said. But the replacement program doesn’t have the “guardrails” imposed by Congress, he argued.

“The FCC includes no limit on the amount of ratepayer dollars that can be expended in aggregate over the course of years, no limit on the locations at which the hotpots can be used, no sunset date on the program, and no protection against this program increasing consumers’ monthly bills,” Carr said.

Even if Congress doesn’t act on Cruz’s resolution, Carr could start a new FCC proceeding to reverse the previous decision. Carr has said he plans to take actions “to reverse the last administration’s costly regulatory overreach.”

Ex-chair said plan didn’t require budget increase

Rosenworcel said the temporary program “demonstrated what a modern library and school can do to help a community learn without limits and keep connected.”

“Today we have a choice,” she said at the time. “We can go back to those days when people sat in parking lots to get a signal to get online and students struggling with the homework gap hung around fast food places just to get the Internet access they needed to do their schoolwork. Or we can go forward and build a digital future that works for everyone.”

She argued that the FCC has authority because the law “directs the agency to update the definition of universal service, which includes E-Rate, so that it evolves over time,” and “Congress specifically directed the Commission to designate additional services in this program as needed for schools and libraries.”

Cruz’s press release said the FCC “order imposes no overall limit on the amount of federal dollars that can be expended on the hotspots, lacks mean-testing to target children who may not have Internet at home, and allows for duplication of service in areas where the federal government is already subsidizing broadband. As a result, the order could strain the USF while increasing the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse.”

However, Rosenworcel said the program would work “within the existing E-Rate budget” and thus “does not require new universal service funds nor does it come at the cost of the support E-Rate provides to connectivity in schools and libraries.” Addressing the budget, the FCC order pointed out that E-Rate demand has fallen short of the program’s funding cap for many years.

While there wouldn’t be mandatory mean-testing, the FCC program would rely on schools and libraries to determine who should be given access to hotspots. “In establishing a budgeted approach to the lending program mechanism, we expect that the limited number of available Wi-Fi hotspots will more naturally be targeted to students, school staff, or library patrons with the most need,” the FCC order said.

Senator Ted Cruz is trying to block Wi-Fi hotspots for schoolchildren Read More »

Ted Cruz wants to overhaul $42B broadband program, nix low-cost requirement

access, and Deployment program, Broadband Equity, Policy, ted cruz / Shannon Garcia / November 22, 2024

Emboldened by Donald Trump’s election win, Republicans are seeking big changes to a $42.45 billion broadband deployment program. Their plan could delay distribution of government funding and remove or relax a requirement that ISPs accepting subsidies must offer low-cost Internet plans.

US Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today issued a press release titled, “Sen. Cruz Warns Biden-Harris NTIA: Big Changes Ahead for Multi-Billion-Dollar Broadband Boondoggle.” Cruz, who will soon be chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, is angry about how the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has implemented the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program that was created by Congress in November 2021.

The NTIA announced this week that it has approved the funding plans submitted by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five US territories, which are slated to receive federal money and dole it out to broadband providers for network expansions. Texas was the last state to gain approval in what the NTIA called “a major milestone on the road to connecting everyone in America to affordable, reliable high-speed Internet service.”

Republicans including Cruz and incoming Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr have criticized the NTIA for not distributing the money faster. But Cruz’s promise of a revamp creates uncertainty about the distribution of funds. Cruz sent a letter yesterday to NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson in which he asked the agency to halt the program rollout until Trump takes over. Cruz also accused the NTIA of “technology bias” because the agency decided that fiber networks should be prioritized over other types of technology.

Cruz: Stop what you’re doing

“It is incumbent on you to bear these upcoming changes in mind during this transition term,” Cruz wrote. “I therefore urge the NTIA to pause unlawful, extraneous BEAD activities and avoid locking states into in [sic] any final actions until you provide a detailed, transparent response to my original inquiry and take immediate, measurable steps to address these issues.”

Ted Cruz wants to overhaul $42B broadband program, nix low-cost requirement Read More »

Ted Cruz wants to stop the FCC from updating data-breach notification rules

data breach, federal communications commission, Policy, ted cruz / Shannon Garcia / December 12, 2023

Sen. Ted Cruz speaks at a Senate committee hearing while holding up three fingers. — Enlarge / Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, November 30, 2023.

Getty Images | Bill Clark

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and other Republican senators are fighting a Federal Communications Commission plan to impose new data-breach notification requirements on telecom providers. In a letter sent to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel today, the senators claim the pending FCC action would violate a congressional order.

The letter was sent by Cruz, Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). They say the proposed data-breach notification rules are preempted by an action Congress took in 2017 to kill an assortment of privacy and security rules issued by the FCC.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) was used in 2017 by Congress and then-President Donald Trump to throw out rules that would have required home Internet and mobile broadband providers to get consumers’ opt-in consent before using, sharing, or selling Web browsing history, app usage history, and other private information.

The invalidated FCC rules also included data-breach notification requirements that are similar to those the current FCC now plans to impose. The FCC already enforces data-breach notification requirements, but the pending proposal would expand the scope of those rules.

Rosenworcel’s data-breach proposal is scheduled for a vote at tomorrow’s commission meeting, and it may ultimately be up to the courts to decide whether it violates the 2017 congressional resolution. The Republican senators urged the FCC to rescind the draft plan and remove it from the meeting agenda.

Cruz also protested a recent FCC vote to enforce rules that prohibit discrimination in access to broadband services, calling it “government-mandated affirmative action and race-based pricing.”

Republicans: FCC plan “clearly unlawful”

When an agency-issued rule is nullified by a Congressional Review Act resolution, that rule “may not be reissued in substantially the same form” without authorization from Congress. The key legal question seems to be whether the FCC can re-implement one portion of the nullified rules as long as it doesn’t bring back the entire privacy order.

Cruz and fellow Republicans say that Rosenworcel’s plan would “resurrect a portion of the 2016 Broadband Privacy Order pertaining to data security.”

“This is clearly unlawful: the FCC’s proposed rules in the Report and Order are clearly ‘substantially similar’ to the nullified 2016 rules,” they wrote. “Specifically, the requirements in the Report and Order governing notification to the FCC, law enforcement, and consumers, as well as the recordkeeping requirements with respect to breaches and notifications, are substantially similar to the notification and recordkeeping requirements disapproved by Congress.”

The FCC proposal anticipates this argument but says the agency believes it can re-implement part of the Obama-era privacy order:

We conclude that it would be erroneous to construe the resolution of disapproval as applying to anything other than all of the rule revisions, as a whole, adopted as part of the 2016 Privacy Order. That resolution had the effect of nullifying each and every provision of the 2016 Privacy Order—each part being, under the APA [Administrative Procedure Act], “a rule”—but not “the rule” specified in the resolution of disapproval. By its terms, the CRA does not prohibit the adoption of a rule that is merely substantially similar to a limited portion of the disapproved rule or one that is the same as individual pieces of the disapproved rule.

Thus, according to the FCC proposal, the resolution “does not prohibit the Commission from revising its breach notification rules in ways that are similar to, or even the same as, some of the revisions that were adopted in the 2016 Privacy Order, unless the revisions adopted are the same, in substance, as the 2016 Privacy Order as a whole.”

Ted Cruz wants to stop the FCC from updating data-breach notification rules Read More »