ACP Backers Eye Cantwell's Revival of Spectrum Bill, Plan for Broadband Act Alternative
Telecom lobbyists are closely watching whether Senate backers of the Spectrum and National Security Act (S-4207) can secure a hoped-for September markup of the measure given recent efforts to move the Proper Leadership to Align Networks for Broadband Act (S-2238) as an alternative vehicle for funding the FCC’s lapsed affordable connectivity program (see 2408150039). The Senate Commerce Committee in July adopted amendments to S-2238 that attached funding for ACP and the FCC’s Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (see 2407310048). Several observers pointed to a proxy fight about spectrum issues during Senate Commerce’s consideration of S-2238 as evidence negotiations on S-4207 are likely to remain fraught.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
S-4207 lead sponsor and Senate Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told us before the start of the August recess she doesn’t think GOP rancor over the panel’s adoption of an amendment to S-2238 that would give $7 billion to ACP for FY 2024 will hurt what she saw as revived prospects for her spectrum bill. S-4207 proposes using future spectrum auction revenue to fund ACP, rip and replace and other priorities. Cantwell said after Senate Commerce’s July 31 meeting she wanted to prevent consideration of S-2238 from becoming “a big proxy fight on so many of the spectrum issues” that led the panel to postpone consideration of S-4207 four times during May and June (see 2406170066).
The S-2238 debate “just shows the complexity” of spectrum issues involved in negotiating a broader package like S-4207, Cantwell said in an interview. “We could have gone an hour debating” a separate amendment during the Senate Commerce meeting that proposes allocating $3.08 billion for rip and replace by authorizing that the FCC reauction 197 returned AWS-3 licenses (see 2403220056). Sens. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., sought confirmation during the meeting that the proposed airwaves sale wouldn’t affect DOD-controlled frequencies. Republicans contended the AWS-3 sales money couldn’t also offset the proposed ACP funding.
Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., is eyeing both the amended S-2238 and S-4207 as options for advancing ACP and rip-and-replace funding. “I’m always optimistic that we can do the right thing” to fully reimburse rip-and-replace participants and resurrect ACP, he told us. “I support” S-4207 because it would “provide significant support for rip and replace and for ACP, amongst other initiatives,” but S-2238 could also be an alternative, given Senate Commerce was able to advance that bill to the floor.
Weighing Options
There's "some concern” that including funding for both initiatives in other legislation could complicate efforts to advance S-4207, Affordable Broadband Campaign Board Chair Greg Guice said in an interview. That bill is more attractive with the ACP and rip-and-replace funding language intact because “having some good public interest objectives as you're trying to move legislation always helps.” Floor activity on S-2238 is unlikely before mid-September, so “there's time for [Cantwell] to demonstrate and address” concerns that S-4207 could remain stalled, Guice said: That was a major reason Senate Commerce members moved to attach the ACP and rip-and-replace money to S-2238.
A September Senate Commerce markup of S-4207 could help Cantwell prevent Senate leaders from shifting to an emphasis on moving S-2238 instead, Guice told us. ACP advocates on and off Capitol Hill “are willing to wait to see if” deliberations during the August recess shift in S-4207’s favor. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., could face growing pressure to move quickly on S-2238 unless there's clear progress on S-4207, lobbyists said. Democratic leaders could view advancing S-2238 as a more attractive option because it would provide them “an opportunity to come back in September and demonstrate a win for low-income families,” one lobbyist said.
“Extending the ACP has become the primary impetus for getting anything done,” said Michael Calabrese, New America Open Technology Institute's Wireless Future Project director. “It would seem an easier path to find a pay-for plan” for it in a vehicle like S-2238 “than it would be to get sufficient agreement … on a broader spectrum bill” like S-4207 given the numerous policy disputes that have hindered negotiations since the beginning of this Congress (see 2406180067).
“A major wild card will be where” Sen. JD Vance of Ohio “stands on that now that he’s the Republicans’ vice presidential nominee,” as opposed to his strong advocacy earlier this year for stopgap ACP funding (see 2408090041), Calabrese told us. Senate leaders could offset the proposed ACP spending in S-2238 by adding language authorizing the FCC to sell licenses on the 12.7-13.25 GHz band, but “that involves bucking” SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. SpaceX was one of the satellite companies that in April opposed including authorization of an upper 12 GHz band sale in S-4207 (see 2405010051).