Travis Hall

Tying the funds to BEAD is less ham-fisted than saying that it is important so that Commerce can update its IT systems, but it remains a policy change with no actual connection to the disbursement of funds.

I think that any rational read of the text against the rule should get the provision thrown out. In the current timeline, I'm not sure I'm good at giving odds on anything.

This is a good point, and not pedantic at all! This makes the necessity to throw this out with the Byrd rule all the more apparent.

The Senate should resoundingly reject this provision and the impossible choice between connectivity and consumer protections it would force upon the states.

The decade-long moratorium on state regulation of AI and automated decision systems, particularly in the absence of *any* substantive regulations being offered at the federal level, will harm consumers, workers, and small businesses.

Holding the connectivity of rural and other unconnected Americans hostage does not change this fact.

Throw the AI Regulations Ban out with the Byrd Bath Water Last Sunday in a surprise move, House Republicans added a provision to the Budget Reconciliation Bill that would place a moratorium on state and local officials enforcing “any law or regulation regula...

For more on that, see my blog about the Byrd rule and the House version. cdt.org/insights/thr...

In doing this, they’re conceding that the House’s moratorium on state AI regulation enforcement is a substantive policy change and not a budgetary item. This remains a fundamental policy change unwed to the Federal budget that should be removed as an extraneous matter.

After years complaining about “political” priorities weighing down BEAD funding, Senate Republicans are apparently proposing to make funding Americans’ Internet connectivity contingent on preventing states from enforcing any regulations on artificial intelligence and automated decision systems.