PLAN for Broadband Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]
ID: W000437
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
March 12, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
Floor Action
📍 Current Status
Next: The full Senate will vote on whether to pass the bill.
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another brilliant example of congressional incompetence, masquerading as a solution to the "digital divide." The PLAN for Broadband Act (S 323) is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak, designed to create the illusion of progress while perpetuating the same tired, ineffective policies.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated goal is to develop a National Strategy to Synchronize Federal Broadband Programs. In reality, it's an exercise in CYA (Cover Your Agency) politics, aimed at creating a veneer of coordination among various federal agencies while maintaining the status quo.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to develop a National Strategy within one year. This strategy must:
1. Support better management of Federal broadband programs (read: more bureaucratic red tape). 2. Synchronize interagency coordination among covered agencies (because, apparently, they can't even get this right on their own). 3. Streamline the permitting process for broadband infrastructure installation on federal property (a minor tweak to an existing problem).
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
1. Federal agencies (FCC, USDA, NTIA, etc.) will continue to squabble over turf and funding. 2. Telecommunications companies will likely benefit from the streamlined permitting process, but won't be held accountable for actual progress in expanding broadband access. 3. State and local governments will be forced to play along with the federal strategy, despite having their own (often more effective) initiatives.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It:
1. Fails to address the root causes of the digital divide, such as lack of funding and inadequate infrastructure. 2. Creates more bureaucratic hurdles for small ISPs and community networks trying to provide affordable broadband access. 3. Perpetuates the myth that "coordination" is a substitute for actual policy change.
In short, this bill is a textbook example of legislative theater, designed to placate special interests while maintaining the illusion of progress. It's a waste of time, money, and resources – but hey, at least it'll create some nice-sounding press releases.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]
ID: L000570
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]
ID: W000800
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 28 nodes and 31 connections
Total contributions: $698,000
Top Donors - Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The PLAN for Broadband Act strongly aligns with the Project 2025 policy objective of adopting a national coordinating strategy to ensure a coordinated approach to federal broadband initiatives, and its focus on improving program management and reducing waste also resonates with the policy's emphasis on eliminating government-funded overbuilding and promoting efficiency."
— 856 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Administration gave the green light for recipients to spend those funds to overbuild existing high-speed networks in communities that already have multiple broadband providers. A new Administration should eliminate government-funded overbuilding of existing networks. l Adopt a national coordinating strategy. Hundreds of billions of infrastructure dollars have been appropriated by Congress or budgeted by agencies over the past couple of years that can be used to end the digital divide. Yet, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by a national strategy”; instead, “[f]ederal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies,” risking overbuilding as well as wasteful duplication.26 Many of these programs remain plagued by inefficiency, further contributing to waste of limited taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the federal government is failing to put appropriate guardrails in place to govern the expenditure of billions in broadband funds. This is the regulatory equivalent of turning the spigot on full blast and then walking away from the hose. There is a worrisome lack of adequate tracking, measurement, and accountability standards governing all of this broadband spending. As a result, we are likely to see headline levels of waste, fraud, and abuse. A new Administration needs to bring fresh oversight to this spending and put a national strategy in place to ensure that the federal government adopts a coordinated approach to its various broadband initiatives. Similarly, the next Administration should ask the FCC to launch a review of its existing broadband programs, including the different components of the USF, with the goal of avoiding duplication, improving efficiency of existing programs, and saving taxpayer money. l Correct the FCC’s regulatory trajectory and encourage competition to improve connectivity. The FCC is a New Deal–era agency. Its history of regulation tends to reflect the view that the federal government should impose heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt recommended that Congress create the FCC in February 1934 for the purposes of establishing “a single Government agency charged with broad authority” over the field of communications.27 Congress subsequently established the FCC through the Communications Act of 1934. Congress has passed a number of additional statutes—some broad, some — 857 — Federal Communications Commission narrow—that pertain to the FCC’s authority, including most significantly the Telecommunications Act of 1996,28 which opened up markets for greater competition and largely deregulated industry segments. Technological change in the connectivity sector is occurring rapidly. We are now seeing an unprecedented level of convergence, innovation, and competition in the market for connectivity. On the one hand, traditional cable providers like Charter are now offering mobile wireless services to consumers in direct competition with traditional wireless companies like Verizon. On the other hand, a new generation of low-earth orbit satellite services like StarLink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper stand to offer high- speed home broadband in competition with legacy providers. Furthermore, broadcasters are offering high-speed downloads directly to consumers over spectrum that previously provided only TV service. These rapidly evolving market conditions counsel in favor of eliminating many of the heavy-handed FCC regulations that were adopted in an era when every technology operated in a silo. These include many of the FCC’s media ownership rules, which can have the effect of restricting investment and competition because those regulations assume a far more limited set of competitors for advertising dollars than exist today, as well as its universal service requirements. Ultimately, FCC reliance on competition and innovation is vital if the agency is to deliver optimal outcomes for the American public. The FCC should engage in a serious top-to-bottom review of its regulations and take steps to rescind any that are overly cumbersome or outdated. The Commission should focus its efforts on creating a market-friendly regulatory environment that fosters innovation and competition from a wide range of actors, including cable-based, broadband-based, and satellite- based Internet providers. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume. While this chapter identifies certain issues on which the contributors did not all agree, the author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.