PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The following is a statement from the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation (Corporation) regarding the lawsuit filed by Cox Communications (Cox):
“Cox’s lawsuit is both misleading and unsupported by facts.
The $108.7 million in federal funds allocated to Rhode Island through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program is a transformative opportunity designed to close the digital divide in our state by ensuring every resident has access to affordable, reliable, high-speed internet.
The State of Rhode Island was awarded these funds only after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) approved the state’s Initial Proposal. It is a proposal built on fairness, transparency, and a commitment to maximizing the impact of this historic federal investment.
And yet, our state’s leading provider, Cox, declined to engage in the robust, months-long public planning process on how the Corporation would deploy Rhode Island’s BEAD funds. Cox did not submit public comments on the design of the BEAD program, did not raise concerns at public Broadband Advisory Council meetings (where they are the sole provider represented), and declined to share its network map information during the 90-day Rhode Island Broadband Map Challenge Process. Our planning process was open and participatory, and Cox did not participate.
Let’s be clear about what’s behind Cox’s lawsuit: It is an attempt to prevent the investment of $108.7 million dollars in broadband infrastructure in Rhode Island, likely because it realizes that some, or even all, of that money may be awarded through a competitive process to other internet service providers.
While Cox claims to care about those who cannot afford internet, it fails to mention that, under federal rules, this $108.7 million cannot be used, at this time, as Cox would prefer—to directly subsidize its customers’ bills. Instead, these BEAD dollars are first-and-foremost dedicated to improving Rhode Island’s broadband infrastructure and service. And, contrary to Cox’s assertions, parts of the state are indeed unserved or underserved, including areas that Cox claims are affluent. Whether an area is affluent or not has no bearing on the type of broadband service that is —or is not—available in that area.”
###
