Microsoft, Google and OpenAI are among the leaders in the US artificial intelligence space that will reportedly commit to certain safeguards for their technology on Friday, following a push from the White House. The companies will voluntarily agree to abide by a number of principles though the agreement will expire when Congress passes legislation to regulate AI, according to Bloomberg.

The Biden administration has placed a focus on making sure that AI companies develop the technology responsibly. Officials want to make sure tech firms can innovate in generative AI in a way that benefits society without negatively impacting the safety, rights and democratic values of the public.

In May, Vice President Kamala Harris met with the CEOs of OpenAI, Microsoft, Alphabet and Anthropic, and told them they had a responsibility to make sure their AI products are safe and secure. Last month, President Joe Biden met with leaders in the field to discuss AI issues.

According to a draft document viewed by Bloomberg, the tech firms are set to agree to eight suggested measures concerning safety, security and social responsibility. Those include:

• Letting independent experts test models for bad behavior 

• Investing in cybersecurity

• Emboldening third parties to discover security vulnerabilities

• Flagging societal risks including biases and inappropriate uses

• Focusing on research into the societal risks of AI

• Sharing trust and safety information with other companies and the government 

• Watermarking audio and visual content to help make it clear that content is AI-generated

• Using the state-of-the-art AI systems known as frontier models to tackle society’s greatest problems

The fact that this is a voluntary agreement underscores the difficulty that lawmakers have in keeping up with the pace of AI developments. Several bills have been introduced in Congress in the hope of regulating AI. One aims to prevent companies from using Section 230 protections to avoid liability for harmful AI-generated content, while another seeks to require political ads to include disclosures when generative AI is employed. Of note, administrators in the Houses of Representatives have reportedly placed limits on the use of generative AI in congressional offices.

Biden administration officials can freely communicate with social media companies — for now. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has put a pause on Judge Terry A. Doughty's order that prohibits most federal officials from talking to companies like Meta about content. According to The New York Times, the three-judge panel has ruled for Doughty's preliminary injunction to be put aside "until further orders of the court."

If you'll recall, the state attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri filed a lawsuit against President Joe Biden and other top government officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci. They accused the current administration of pressuring social media companies to censor certain topics and remove content. The lawsuit, the Washington Post reports, is based on emails between the administration and social networks, wherein the former questioned the companies' handling of posts on their websites containing conservative claims on the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential elections, as well as anti-vaccine sentiments. 

Doughty, a Trump-appointed judge, said the plaintiffs "produced evidence of a massive effort" by the defendants "to suppress speech based on its content." He also wrote in his decision that if the allegations are true, "the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States history." His order prohibits federal agencies that include the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security from asking online platforms to take down content with "protected free speech." They could still, however, communicate with those entities for issues related to criminal activity, national security and election interference by foreign players. 

Conservatives have long believed that mainstream social media platforms are biased against right-wing ideologies. That had led to the launch of social networks associated with conservatives, such as Parler and Donald Trump's Truth Social. The state attorneys argued that federal officials crossed the line by threatening to take antitrust actions against social networks and to limit their Section 230 protections, which allow internet companies to moderate content on their platforms as they see fit. It's worth noting that former President Trump previously signed an executive order that sought to limit federal protections offered by Section 230 after Twitter fact-checked a false tweet he posted.

The Justice Department appealed Doughty's order the day after it was issued, arguing that it was too broad and could limit the government's ability to warn people about false information in times of emergency. Apparently, the administration has already felt its effects after its scheduled meeting with Meta to discuss strategies on how to counter foreign disinformation campaigns was cancelled. This stay will allow federal agencies to continue working with online platforms until the court could look further into the complaint. The appeals court has ordered for the case's oral arguments to be expedited so a final decision could be reached in the near future. 

The Federal Trade Commission has been unsuccessful in its last-ditch effort to pump the brakes on Microsoft completing its $68.7 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to grant the agency an emergency stay of a ruling that allowed the deal to proceed in the US.

A temporary restraining order was put in place last month to prevent Microsoft and Activision from closing the acquisition until Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ruled on the FTC's request for preliminary injunction. When Corley rejected the FTC's injunction request this week, she ruled that the agency had until 11:59PM PT on July 14th to obtain an emergency stay from the appeals court. Otherwise, Microsoft and Activision would be free to close the deal in the US after that time.

Corley determined the FTC didn't prove its arguments that the merger would harm consumers. The FTC on Wednesday filed a notice that it planned to appeal Corley's decision. On Thursday, it asked the district court that ruled on the preliminary injunction in the first place to block the merger pending a decision from the appeals court. Hours later, Corley denied that motion.

Back in December, the FTC sued to block the deal on the grounds that it would harm competition. An administrative hearing is set for early August. The agency sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the companies from closing the merger until the antitrust trial takes place. However, the merger deadline is July 18th.

Microsoft and Activision Blizzard are evidently confident of closing the deal by their Tuesday deadline. Activision’s stock will be delisted from the Nasdaq-100 index before the stock market opens on Monday, so the companies may finally seal the deal around that time. 

Microsoft and Activision have yet to resolve issues with a UK regulator, which had blocked the deal over cloud gaming concerns. The companies and the Competition and Markets Authority agreed to put their legal battle on hold to try and resolve the regulator's concerns. The CMA said Microsoft and Activision were welcome to restructure the deal but warned that move may trigger a fresh merger investigation.

This story is developing, refresh for updates.

American regulators now appear to be clamping down on generative AI in earnest. The Washington Post has learned the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has launched an investigation into OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT and DALL-E. Officials have requested documents showing how the company tackles risks stemming from its large language AI models. The FTC is concerned the company may be violating consumer protection laws through "unfair or deceptive" practices that could hurt the public's privacy, security or reputation.

The Commission is particularly interested in information linked to a bug that leaked ChatGPT users' sensitive data, including payments and chat histories. While OpenAI said the number of affected users was very small, the FTC is worried this stems from poor security practices. The agency also wants details of any complaints alleging the AI made false or malicious statements about individuals, and info showing how well users understand the accuracy of the products they're using.

We've asked OpenAI for comment. The FTC declined comment and typically doesn't remark on investigations, but has previously warned that generative AI could run afoul of the law by doing more harm than good to consumers. It could be used to perpetrate scams, run misleading marketing campaigns or lead to discriminatory advertising, for instance. If the government body finds a company in violation, it can apply fines or issue consent decrees that force certain practices.

AI-specific laws and rules aren't expected in the near future. Even so, the government has stepped up pressure on the tech industry. OpenAI chief Sam Altman testified before the Senate in May, where he defended his company by outlining privacy and safety measures while touting AI's claimed benefits. He said protections were in place, but that OpenAI would be "increasingly cautious" and continue to upgrade its safeguards.

It's not clear if the FTC will pursue other generative AI developers, such as Google and Anthropic. The OpenAI investigation shows how the Commission might approach other cases, though, and signals that the regulator is serious about scrutinizing AI developers.

A judge has rejected the Federal Trade Commission's request for a preliminary injunction to prevent Microsoft from buying Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion. Both Microsoft and Activision said they'd abandon the blockbuster merger if Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted the injunction.

"Our merger will benefit consumers and workers. It will enable competition rather than allow entrenched market leaders to continue to dominate our rapidly growing industry.” Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said in a statement.

"We're grateful to the court in San Francisco for this quick and thorough decision and hope other jurisdictions will continue working towards a timely resolution." Microsoft president and vice chair Brad Smith said. "As we've demonstrated consistently throughout this process, we are committed to working creatively and collaboratively to address regulatory concerns."

The FTC sued to block the merger last December and a hearing in its administrative proceeding is set for August 2nd. However, the merger agreement has a deadline of July 18th, so Microsoft and Activision Blizzard are eager to close the deal by then. Otherwise, Microsoft will be on the hook for a $3 billion breakup fee to Activision unless the two sides are able to renegotiate terms. As such, they wanted the court to review the FTC's injunction request swiftly.

The companies claimed that, if the preliminary injunction were granted, it would "effectively block the transaction because the FTC's process is 'glacial' and one no substantial business transaction could ever survive."

Along with the FTC, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority is the only other national antitrust regulator that has formally challenged the Activision takeover. Microsoft and Activision are appealing the CMA's decision to block the merger over cloud gaming concerns. The appeal process that can take several months. There are suggestions that the companies will lock in the deal regardless.

That prompted the FTC to request an injunction in the hopes of being able to "assess the legality of the proposed acquisition" in next month's hearing before the deal closes. "Press reports began circulating suggesting that defendants were seriously contemplating closing the proposed acquisition despite the pending administrative litigation and the CMA orders," the FTC's request read. 

Corley issued a ruling following a five-day trial in June that saw all manner of juicy gaming industry secrets and emails between industry leaders laid bare for all to see. For one thing, we learned that MachineGames' Indiana Jones project was originally going to be a multiplatform game, but after Microsoft bought ZeniMax, it made the title an Xbox console exclusive.

Microsoft and Activision Blizzard aren't entirely in the clear. Regulators in dozens of countries have cleared the deal, including in the European Union. However, the UK antitrust authority presented a significant road block (an appeal process will start with a hearing later this month). The FTC's administrative trial is pending and it can still appeal Corley's decision. However, the companies have cleared a major hurdle by winning this particular battle. 

A temporary restraining order stipulated that Microsoft and Activision are unable to close the merger "until after 11:59PM Pacific Time on the fifth business day after the court rules on the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction or a date set by the court, whichever is later." Still, they just about have time to seal the deal before their deadline.

This story is developing, refresh for updates...

Japanese drugmaker Eisai and US-based Biogen have been working together on advancing research in the space of Alzheimer’s for nearly a decade. Finally, the FDA, granted the fruits of that labor, Leqembi, its blessing for intravenous use. This marks the first approved treatment that can slow the progression of Alzheimer’s.

Leqembi received a preliminary approval in January that allowed it to be used in a limited capacity. That approval was conditioned on the two drug makers conducting a confirmatory study to verify the drug's clinical benefit.

Though Leqembi slows Alzihmer’s progression, it is not a cure. Instead, it addresses the underlying biology that spurs Alzheimer's advancement. The drug works by reducing amyloid plaques, or "misfolded" proteins that form in the brain of a person with Alzheimer's.

Leqembi isn’t the only drug targeting beta-amyloid plaque buildup to treat Alzheimer's. Aduhelm received approval under the accelerated pathway in 2021, but it’s still not fully FDA-approved. But what sets Leqembi apart from its predecessor is that the drug demonstrated actual clinical benefit in addition to simply reducing the buildup of the AD-inducing proteins.

Besides needing a medical prescription, taking the drug will require professional administration in a hospital or infusion center every two weeks. The company, though it may not be its sole responsibility, recognizes its need to boost accessibility. In a public statement, Christopher Viehbacher, the CEO of Biogen, said the company’s main focus now is to work with Eisai to make Leqembi “accessible to eligible patients as soon as possible.”

The drug’s hefty price tag of $26,500 will unfortunately make it inaccessible to most. Current rules mean that it’s unlikely to be covered by Medicare. According to the Alzheimer's Association, those on Medicaid only should be able to get coverage of the FDA-approved drug in most cases. But, even if Medicaid does cover it, patients would be responsible for a 20 percent copay – or about $5,300. Experts predict the total cost of Leqembi treatment can run upward of $90,000 a year, if you take infusions and laboratory tests into account.

An expensive treatment program is something to consider for the one in nine Americans who are over the age of 65 that have Alzheimer’s dementia. That number is expected to grow as the nation’s aging population continues to grow. The number of Americans 65 and older is projected to climb from 58 million in 2021 to 88 million by 2050. This has led to an increased focus on treatments and diagnostics for Alzheimer’s, like blood tests that can detect the disease.

A judge has blocked the Biden administration and other federal officials from communicating with social media companies in a case that could have far-reaching implications. On Tuesday, a Trump-appointed judge granted the state attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri a temporary injunction against the federal government, reports The Washington Post. The two Republican lawyers sued President Joe Biden and other top government officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, last year, accusing them of colluding with Meta, Twitter and YouTube to remove “truthful information” related to the COVID-19 lab leak theory, 2020 election and other topics.

Although he has yet to make a final ruling in the case, Judge Terry A. Doughty wrote in his order that the Republican attorneys general “produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.” While the order grants some exceptions for the government to communicate with Meta, Twitter and YouTube, it also specifically targets more than a dozen individual officials. Among those are Jen Easterly, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of Homeland Security.

The lawsuit is the latest effort by some Republicans to allege the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to censor conservative views. The GOP has aired that grievance in a few different venues — including, most notably, a contentious House Oversight Committee hearing at the start of the year related to the so-called “Twitter Files.” The lawsuit from the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri takes a different tack. Instead of directly targeting Meta, Twitter and YouTube, which argue they have a First Amendment right to decide what content is allowed on their platforms, the attorneys general sued the federal government. Whatever happens next, that strategy has already led to the most successful effort yet to counter online content moderation. 

Separately, it's worth noting Meta, Twitter and YouTube have all recently scaled back their moderation policies in one way or another. In the case of YouTube, for instance, the company said last month it would begin allowing videos that falsely claim fraud occurred during the 2020 election. Meta, meanwhile, last month back its COVID-19 misinformation rules for Instagram and Facebook in countries where the pandemic is no longer deemed a national emergency. 

Nobody said dragging one of the largest government bureaucracies to ever exist into the digital era was going to be easy but the sheer scale and myriad variety of failings we have seen in recent decades have had very real, and near universally negative, consequences for the Americans reliant on these social systems. One need look no further than at how SNAP — the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has repeatedly fallen short in its mission to help feed low-income Americans. Jennifer Pahlka, founder and former executive director of Code for America, takes an unflinching view at the many missteps and groupthink slip-ups committed by our government in the pursuit of bureaucratic efficiency in Recoding America: Why Government Is Failing in the Digital Age and How We Can Do Better.

Metropolitan Books

Excerpted from Recoding America: Why Government Is Failing in the Digital Age and How We Can Do Better by Jennifer Pahlka. Published by Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company. Copyright © 2023 by Jennifer Pahlka. All rights reserved.

Stuck in Peanut Butter

The lawmakers who voted to cut the federal workforce in the 1990s, just as digital technology was starting to truly reshape our lives, wanted smaller government. But starving government of know-how, digital or otherwise, hasn’t made it shrink. It has ballooned it. Sure, there are fewer public servants, but we spend billions of dollars on satellite software that never goes to space, we pay vendors hundreds of thousands of dollars for basic web forms that don’t work, and we make applying for government services feel like the Inquisition. That’s the funny thing about small government: the things we do to get it — to limit government’s intrusion into our lives — have a habit of accomplishing the opposite.

Take, for example, an application for food stamps that requires answering 212 separate questions. That’s what Jake Solomon at Code for America discovered when he tried to find out why so few Californians in need enrolled in the state’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Many of the questions were confusing, while others were oddly specific and seemed to assume the person applying was a criminal. “Have you or any member of your household ever been found guilty of trading SNAP benefits for drugs after September 22, 1996? Have you or any member of your household ever been found guilty of trading SNAP benefits for guns, ammunition, or explosives after September 22, 1996?” It would often take up to an hour for people to fill out the entire form. They couldn’t apply on a mobile phone; the application form, called MyBenefits CalWIN, didn’t work on mobile. Lots of the people Jake observed tried to complete the form on computers at the public library instead, but the library computers kicked you off after half an hour. You had to wait for your turn to come again and pick up where you left off.

SNAP is a federal program that states are responsible for administering. The smaller the jurisdiction in charge, the more likely that the program will be attuned to local needs and values. California, along with nine other states, has chosen to further devolve administration to its individual counties, putting the burden of managing client data on fifty-eight separate entities. To handle that burden, the counties (with the exception of Los Angeles) formed two consortia that pooled IT resources. When it became clear that clients should be able to apply online, each consortium then contracted for a single online application form to save money. It turned out to be quite expensive anyway: MyBenefits CalWIN, the form Jake studied, cost several million dollars to build. But at least that got divided across the eighteen counties in the consortium.

What those several million dollars had gotten them was another question. Jake and his Code for America colleagues published a “teardown” of the website, over a hundred screenshots of it in action, with each page marked up to highlight the parts that confused and frustrated the people trying to use it. (To be fair, the teardown also highlighted elements that were helpful to users; there were just far fewer of them.) The teardown was a powerful critique. It was noticed by anti-poverty advocates and the press alike, and the ways in which the counties were failing their clients started to get a lot of attention. Jake should not have been popular with the people responsible for MyBenefits CalWIN. Which was why he was surprised when HP, the vendor managing the website, invited him to a meeting of the consortium to present his work.

The meeting brought representatives from each of the counties to a business hotel in downtown Sacramento. It was only after Jake finished showing them his observations that he realized why he’d been invited. The HP representative at the meeting presented a variety of options for how the consortium might use its resources over the coming year, and then the county representatives began engaging in that hallmark of democracy: voting. One of the questions up for a vote was whether to engage some of HP’s contracted time to make MyBenefits CalWIN usable on a mobile phone. Fresh off Jake’s critique, that priority got the votes it needed to proceed. Jake had done the job he’d been invited to do without even knowing what it was.

What struck Jake about the process was not his success in convincing the county representatives. It was not that different from what Mary Ann had achieved when her recording of Dominic convinced the deputy secretary of the VA to let her team fix the health care application. The HP rep was interested in bringing to life for the county reps the burdens that applicants experienced. Jake was very good at doing that, and the rep had been smart to use him.

What Jake did find remarkable was the decision-making process. To him, it was clear how to decide the kinds of questions the group discussed that day. SNAP applicants were by definition low-income, and most low-income people use the web through their phones. So at Code for America, when Jake developed applications for safety-net benefits, he built them to work on mobile phones from the start. And when he and his team were trying to figure out the best way to phrase something, they came up with a few options that sounded simple and clear, and tested these options with program applicants. If lots of people stopped at some point when they filled out the form, it was a sign that that version of the instructions was confusing them. If some wording resulted in more applications being denied because the applicant misunderstood the question, that was another sign. Almost every design choice was, in effect, made by the users.

The counties, on the other hand, made those same choices by committee. Because each of the eighteen counties administers the SNAP program separately, the focus was on accommodating the unique business processes of each separate county and the many local welfare offices within the counties. It wasn’t that the county reps didn’t care about the experience of their users—their vote to start making MyBenefits CalWIN work on mobile phones was proof of that. But the process the consortium followed was not constructed to identify and address the needs of users. It had been set up to adjudicate between the needs of the counties. The result had been, for years, an experience for clients that was practically intolerable.

Ever since the founding of the United States, a core value for many has been restricting the concentration of government power. The colonists were, after all, rebelling against a monarchy. When power is concentrated in the hands of one person or one regime, the reasoning goes, we lose our liberty. We need to have some government, so we’ll have to trust some people to make some decisions, but best to make it hard for any one person to do anything significant, lest that person begin to act like a king. Best to make sure that any decisions require lots of different people to weigh in.

But as Jake saw, the way you get 212 questions on a form for food assistance is not concentrated power, it’s diffuse power. And diffuse power is not just an artifact of the complexities federalism can bring, with decisions delegated down to local government and then aggregated back up through mechanisms like the county consortia. The fear of having exercised too much power, and being criticized for it, is ever present for many public servants. The result is a compulsion to consult every imaginable stakeholder, except the ones who matter most: the people who will use the service.

A tech leader who made the transition from a consumer internet company to public service recently called me in frustration. He’d been trying to clarify roles on a new government project and had explained to multiple departments how important it would be to have a product manager, someone empowered to direct and absorb user research, understand both external and internal needs, and integrate all of it. The departments had all enthusiastically agreed. But when it came time to choose that person, each department presented my friend with a different name, sometimes several. There were more than a dozen in all.

He thought perhaps he was supposed to choose the product manager from among these names. But the department representatives explained that all these people would need to share the role of product manager, since each department had some stake in the product. Decisions about the product would be made by what was essentially a committee, something like the federal CIO Council that resulted in the ESB imperative. Members would be able to insist on what they believed their different departments needed, and no one would have the power to say no to anyone. Even without the complications of federalism, the project would still be doomed to exactly the kind of bloat that MyBenefits CalWIN suffered from.

This kind of cultural tendency toward power sharing makes sense. It is akin to saying this project will have no king, no arbitrary authority who might act imperiously. But the result is bloat, and using a bloated service feels intrusive and onerous. It’s easy to start seeing government as overreaching if every interaction goes into needless detail and demands countless hours.

Highly diffuse decision-making frameworks can make it very hard to build good digital services for the public. But they are rooted in laws that go back to long before the digital era.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed a formal ban on fake reviews and testimonials. Companies would also be prohibited from using phony followers and views to inflate their social media metrics if the rule takes effect as it stands.

This isn't the first time the agency has trained its sights on fake reviews. In its first such case in 2019, it fined a third-party Amazon seller for paying for fake reviews (Amazon itself has sued phony review providers). Earlier this year, the FTC levied a $600,000 penalty against the owner of a vitamin brand for “review hijacking" on Amazon.

The new rule, which the agency said it was working on in October, is close to being finalized and it includes steep penalties for those caught peddling fake reviews and testimonials. As The Washington Post points out, the FTC plans to slap businesses that "buy, sell and manipulate online reviews" up to $50,000. Not only is that fine for each phony review, it's also for every time a consumer sees it. So, if the FTC finds out that one fake review has been viewed just 20 times, the business that bought it could be on the hook for $1 million.

“Our proposed rule on fake reviews shows that we’re using all available means to attack deceptive advertising in the digital age,” Samuel Levine, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. “The rule would trigger civil penalties for violators and should help level the playing field for honest companies.”

Explicitly, the FTC aims to ban "businesses from writing or selling consumer reviews or testimonials by someone who does not exist, who did not have experience with the product or service, or who misrepresented their experiences." Similarly, companies won't be allowed to obtain or disseminate reviews and testimonials that they "knew or should have known that they were fake or false."

Repurposing an existing review to make it appear that it was written for a different product (i.e. review hijacking) will be outlawed, as will offering payments or other kinds of compensation for positive or negative reviews. The FTC says companies can still ask users to leave a review, as that's an important way for small businesses to enhance their reputations.

Managers and officers won't be allowed to post reviews of their company's products without clear disclosures and nor can they ask family members or employees to do so in certain circumstances. Under the proposed rule, companies won't be allowed to run websites that claim to offer independent reviews of categories of products and services that include their own offerings.

Review suppression will be banned as well. Companies won't be allowed to use intimidation tactics, such as legal threats and false accusations, to push customers to remove or avoid leaving a negative review.

In addition, the FTC seeks to ban companies from using fake followers and views to fluff up their social media numbers. "The proposed rule also would bar anyone from buying such indicators to misrepresent their importance for a commercial purpose," the agency said. This is a provision that could have far-reaching consequences beyond commerce — influencers may have to ensure they don't factor in bots when they try to secure brand deals.

Meanwhile, the proposed notice for the rule takes note of the popularity of generative AI. "It has been reported that an AI chatbot is being used to create fake reviews," it reads. "As the reporting notes, the widespread emergence of AI chatbots is likely to make it easier for bad actors to write fake reviews."

The rule won't take effect immediately. It will be open to public comments for a 60-day period, after which the agency will consider changes before finalizing the directive.

A lot of these provisions make sense. In essence, the FTC is trying to ensure that businesses and brands are transparent and honest with consumers. Actually enforcing these measures, however, is a different matter. The agency told the Post that it won't be getting extra resources to tackle purveyors of fake reviews, but a codified rule can strengthen its hand in court. Taking on companies based overseas that sell and post phony reviews might be a difficult task too. Still, a formal ban on these practices and the threat of eye-popping fines may be enough to deter some companies from using fake reviews.

President Joe Biden will today announce the details of how $42 billion in funding to bolster broadband internet access will be allocated. The investment, which was funded by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, aims to give all Americans access to high-speed internet by 2030.

Last year, the White House announced an initiative that would allocate at least $100 million to participating states through the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. The remainder of the funding was on hold until the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) drew up a more detailed coverage map showing which homes and businesses lacked high-speed internet access. The funding will be allocated based on the map.

The FCC released its first draft of the overhauled map, which incorporates more granular data, in November. Still, politicians on both sides of the aisle were concerned it left out millions of businesses and homes and urged the White House to delay the broadband funding efforts until issues were resolved.

After taking feedback from the public and states, the FCC unveiled an updated version in May. According to The Washington Post, the updated map addressed around 4 million mistakes, resulting in approximately half a million more homes, businesses and other locations without any internet access being identified. In all, the FCC determined that more than 8.3 million homes and businesses lack access to high-speed internet.

States will first focus on bringing broadband to locations that have no access at all. If they have any funding left over, they can use it to improve internet access for those with slow speeds.

It could take up to two years for the government to dole out all the funding. States will submit their initial plans later this year and that will open up a fifth of the funding, according to Reuters. The rest of the $42 billion will be unlocked after states finalize plans for investing the funds.

Many of the locations that lack broadband access are in rural areas. By and large, major providers have shied away from rolling out broadband in these locales due to their smaller populations and the high cost of installing infrastructure.