That's A Wrap: Techdirt Greenhouse, Broadband In The Covid Era

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

Over the last few months a wide variety of activists, experts, engineers, and academics provided their insights into broadband access (or a lack thereof) in the COVID era. We'd like to thank all of the participants for their insights during a difficult and complicated time, and hope readers gleaned something useful from the exercise. You can peruse all of the contributions here if you missed any of them during the busy holiday season.

Our first two Techdirt Greenhouse panels, focusing on content moderation and privacy, saw no shortage of elaborate solutions for extremely complicated subjects. While broadband access can certainly be complicated (especially when it comes to policy, legislation, and network management), in many ways it's the simplest subject we've tackled so far.

42 million Americans still lack access to any broadband whatsoever, double official FCC estimates. Millions more can't afford access (given US broadband pricing is some of the highest in the developed world). The primary reason why: 83 million Americans can only obtain broadband access through a single provider (aka a monopoly). Hand-in-hand with regulatory capture, the result has been decades of high prices, slow speeds, stifled competitive potential, and abysmal customer service.

The reason isn't that complicated: We've let natural telecom monopolies dominate the market and (with the occasional exception) dictate state and federal policy. These politically-powerful monopolies have then cultivated an environment of apathy or outright denial. And instead of driving more, creative solutions to market, the US solution to this problem has (again with the occasional exception) been to downplay or deny there's a problem, or to use flawed data and sloppy policy to throw millions in subsidies at giant companies for networks routinely left half deployed. Often with zero penalty.

The one-two punch of monopolized access and apathetic/corrupt regulators/lawmakers has calcified a problem that should have been solved a decade ago. That's left a discordant chorus of folks, usually on the state or local level, scrambling to fix the problem using limited funds and bad data, usually without adequate federal support. All while being undermined at every step of the way by powerful entrenched monopolies whose top priority is to deny there's a problem, unfairly demonize creative solutions to said nonexistent problem, and keep the broken status quo intact.

Peggy Schaffer, in charge of expanding broadband access in Maine, discussed how federal data is so lacking, states have been forced to crowdsource their own home-grown solution simply to identify US broadband gaps. As Pew's Anna Read confirmed, there's a lot the federal government can learn from watching state efforts to bridge this persistent digital divide.

For years the internet saw ample debates over whether broadband was a luxury or an essential utility; the latter generally opposed by industry because it creates greater urgency to actually address monopolization. With COVID making it clear broadband is essential for survival, opportunity, health care, education, and employment, experts like Consumer Reports' Jonathan Schwantes argue that it's time to treat broadband as the essential service it is.

Experts like Gigi Sohn say the federal response during the COVID era has been a profound disappointment. And, as Francella Ochillo and Andrea Kelemen noted, the most vulnerable among us are usually the first punished by our collective failure.

Fortunately, this is all fixable, and COVID could finally provide the impetus to break through decades of policy dysfunction.

Most of our experts agree the first step is better data and better maps to accurately identify the scope of the problem (Blair Levin), something we've only just begun with the recent passage of the DATA Act. From there, the solution involves supporting local, creative efforts to drive more competition to market, whether that comes in the form of innovative mesh networks (Terique Boyce), or local community broadband builds (Christopher Mitchell). It also involves giving regulators at the FCC the authority and resources to actually do their jobs (Dana Floberg), and applying antitrust enforcement consistently.

Again, the solutions are difficult but not impossible, though they all start with challenging entrenched, politically-powerful monopolies, which has never been America's strong suit. But while COVID has taken much from us, our COVID-era educational failures (Brandon Forester, Deb Socia, and Geoff Millener) could finally provide the motivation we need to take America's broadband affordability and availability problem seriously.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, covid, digital divide

Could The Digital Divide Unite Us?

from the the-game-has-changed dept

The digital divide is not only a rural problem. The digital divide is a problem that unites us across rural, urban, suburban and tribal lands. It is a bipartisan problem. The solution must be multi-pronged: affordable ubiquitous broadband with the appropriate devices and trusted digital literacy and technical support.

Last March, as the pandemic forced all kinds of essential activities online, communities across the U.S. woke to the reality that large numbers of their residents couldn’t access the internet because they lacked the necessary broadband connections, equipment and/or skills. Schoolchildren and college students couldn’t participate in online classes; patients with chronic illnesses couldn’t visit their doctors via telemedicine; seniors living alone were cut off from service programs, faith, and even family support. Companies found that many employees lacked the connectivity to work where they lived. Whole families found themselves in library parking lots, using Wi-Fi for online tasks they couldn’t perform at home.

Suddenly there was a widespread realization that the digital divide is everywhere -- not just out in the country, but in the biggest cities and many of their suburbs as well.

Yes, there were (and are) many families in rural communities struggling to deal with online learning, work and social life because the available internet services where they live are far too slow to support them. But there are also millions of American households whose communities have excellent access to high-speed broadband service from one, two or three providers -- but at a monthly cost that those households just can’t afford. Many of those same households don’t have computers -- for the same reason, i.e. affordability -- or have never had a chance to develop the basic digital skills to use the technology.  

Enter the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, the $2.3 trillion COVID relief and government funding package, which includes several provisions that address broadband deployment and digital inclusion, particularly broadband affordability. The new law allocates $3.2 billion for an Emergency Broadband Benefit program, which will reimburse internet service providers for providing broadband service and devices to low-income households. Additionally, the Act lists digital inclusion and broadband adoption as activities eligible for funding within “Tribal Connectivity” and the “Office of Minority Broadband Initiatives.”

While there are still many questions as to how the broadband sections will be implemented, one thing is certain - we now have Congressional recognition that the affordability barrier to digital equity must be addressed.

For years, the conversation and advocacy around the digital divide was itself divided. In part, due to the inconsistency of what is meant by “digital divide.” According to the 2019 U.S. Census, 36 million households do not subscribe to a wireline broadband service. 26 million of these households are in urban areas. 10 million are in rural areas. The lower a household’s income, the less likely they are to consistently subscribe to a wireline broadband service.

In addition to rural deployment solutions, we must:

• establish a permanent broadband benefit

• increase access to affordable computers

• increase access to digital literacy and technical support

• improve broadband mapping including residential cost data, and

• support local/state digital inclusion planning

It has been over a decade since the federal government has supported broadband access and use for disadvantaged communities. The current emergency support for digital inclusion is temporary. This pandemic has resulted in local innovative and collaborative solutions addressing the digital divide. Now is the time for innovation and collaboration at the federal level.

Might the digital divide unite us?

Angela Siefer is the Executive Director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. She has been working in the field we now call digital inclusion since 1997. She has helped physically set up computer labs in underserved areas, managed broadband conferences, conducted research, managed digital inclusion programs, assisted with the Department of Commerce’s Broadband Adoption Toolkit, testified before Congress and more. Government Technology Magazine named Angela one of their Top 25 Doers, Dreams, and Drivers of 2019.

Bill Callahan is the Research and Policy Advisor for the National Digital Inclusion Alliance while also directing the Cleveland-based Connect Your Community. He has been active in local and national efforts to promote digital empowerment for low income people and communities since 1996, when he organized Cleveland's first neighborhood technology center and home computer ownership program.

Sean Davis is a graduate of George Washington Law and Manager of Research and Policy for the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. Prior to joining NDIA, Sean worked with the Wikimedia Foundation where he researched content moderation laws and the national Consumers League where he advocated for a federal privacy bill.

Filed Under: broadband, digital divide

A National Solution To The Digital Divide Starts With States

from the think-local dept

Although the digital divide didn’t start with COVID-19, the pandemic has put into stark relief the need to bridge this divide once and for all. The solution—providing tens of millions of Americans with high-speed, reliable broadband—might seem like a daunting task. But our research has found that Colorado and other states are leading the way in connecting communities to high-speed, reliable internet.

The digital divide is a costly challenge to solve: A 2017 report from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) found that 14% of residential and small and medium-sized businesses lacked access to broadband and that it would cost $40 billion to get fiber optic cable—which carries broadband signals—to 98% of those premises. It would cost another $40 billion to serve the last 2 percent.

When it comes to closing gaps in broadband connectivity, “the easy stuff … has been done,” and the hard work remains. In addition to cost, the challenge of solving the digital divide is compounded by geography, demographics, and the types of entities that provide service, which can leave one rural community unserved while a local telephone company or electric cooperative is available to provide a neighboring community “fiber to the home and to the farm and to the cabin.”

States will be key to completing the job of expanding access to broadband; they play a critical and often overlooked role in shaping the way broadband reaches our doorsteps and enables stakeholders from the public and private sectors to participate in connectivity efforts.

State governments recognize that a single policy or a one-time funding initiative is not enough to get their citizens online. So, they are creating policies and programs that reinforce each other and will help reach the goals that are necessary to fully deploy broadband. For example, state legislatures have passed complementary policies that set service speed targets, set up funding and financing mechanisms, designate who can provide service, and regulate access to the infrastructure that providers need to build and operate networks. These policies create and support the work of state broadband programs.

States also have the tools and expertise already in place—including dedicated staff—to help local stakeholders overcome the barriers to internet access. These staff members on state broadband programs serve as a point of contact for addressing broadband challenges, providing information on state programs, and responding to questions from grantees and others. They also work to build strong relationships with local groups, and often play a central role in facilitating coordination among communities and providers to advance broadband projects and policy.

Colorado illustrates this multifaceted approach to closing gaps in broadband access by funding both middle and last mile projects, providing support for planning, evaluating and improving existing deployments, and collaborating closely among agencies engaged in broadband efforts.

The state’s broadband programs are led by the Colorado Broadband Office (CBO), which is housed in the Governor’s Office of Information Technology. The CBO focuses on federal funding, public-private partnerships, and broadband data. It also coordinates with the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) and the Department of Regulatory Affairs (DORA), which house the state’s broadband grant programs, as well as with other state agencies engaged in broadband deployment, including the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Pew’s report on How States Are Expanding Broadband Access provides a more detailed explanation of Colorado’s program.

Several key elements have contributed to the progress being made by Colorado’s broadband initiatives. First, the state’s broadband grant programs provide funding for both middle and last mile infrastructure. According to the CBO’s executive director, the middle mile projects bring fiber as close as possible to communities, which are then able to form public-private partnerships to leverage this middle mile infrastructure for last mile projects—some of which are funded through a last mile grant program. Together, this work helps extend broadband service to rural and unserved communities.

Like several other states highlighted in our report, Colorado has invested in planning to build the local capacity needed to then be able to apply for support for broadband infrastructure projects. These grants, funded through DOLA, provide support for the development of regional broadband strategies. The planning process has helped educate community leaders about the importance of broadband and develop local broadband champions capable of moving projects forward; combined with the infrastructure funding, the investment in planning has led to the development of multiple networks that meet local and regional needs, including the Region 10 middle mile network and Project THOR.

Further, the state has continued to evaluate the impact of its broadband efforts and make recommendations for next steps. The CBO manages data and mapping, which helps the state assess its progress and—because DOLA and DORA grant recipients are required to provide geographic information system data on network operations for five years—helps ensure the accountability of public funds.

Colorado also focuses on how future broadband needs should inform its policies and programs. In October 2020, an interagency working group published a report that found that “policies must be updated to support the actual bandwidth needs of Coloradans” and made recommendations to concentrate on technology solutions and policies to meet those needs.

And, finally, although Colorado’s broadband initiatives are run through different agencies, the departments collaborate closely. The CBO leads a biweekly interagency meeting that helps ensure that DOLA, DORA, the Department of Transportation and other state agencies are aware of each other’s activities—creating opportunities for efficiencies and for troubleshooting any issues that arise.

A suite of policies creates the framework that supports Colorado’s broadband program and goals, including the executive order that created the CBO and enabling legislation for the DORA grant program—as well as policies focused on expanding broadband access and ensuring the quality of those services, such as addressing barriers to broadband deployment by electric cooperatives and requiring DORA grantees to adhere to the principles of net neutrality.

Other states are taking a similarly comprehensive approach, including steps to ensure that grants and loans support projects that meet connectivity needs over the long term. For example, states have set speed goals that exceed the FCC’s 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload standard for deployment, such as Minnesota’s goal of border-to-border residential access of 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload by 2026, Washington’s goal of 150 Mbps symmetrical service by 2028, and Vermont’s goal of 100 Mbps symmetrical service by 2024.

Like Colorado, Maine and North Carolina provide planning and technical assistance to aid communities in identifying local solutions. California and Virginia have provided grants for middle mile infrastructure to help decrease the cost of deploying last mile service to homes and businesses, in addition to grants targeted toward building last mile infrastructure. And Tennessee and Minnesota have technology neutral grant programs that can provide funding to any technology that delivers internet service at broadband speeds, and either encourage or require that grant-funded networks are built in such a way that they can be upgraded to significantly higher speeds.

As all levels of government work to address gaps in broadband access, policymakers can learn from states about effective strategies to expand high-speed internet. These efforts are built on multiple, mutually reinforcing activities that address components of what makes broadband deployment so difficult—from setting goals that look to future needs, to building expertise at the local level, to funding support to reduce the cost of infrastructure deployment. Through these efforts, states are making meaningful progress in ensuring that their citizens have access to reliable, high-speed internet access.

Anna Read is an officer with The Pew Charitable Trusts’ broadband research initiative.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, covid-19, digital divide, municipal broadband, states

Can Broadband Policy Help Create A More Equitable And inclusive Economy And Society Instead Of The Reverse?

from the newfound-urgency dept

25 years ago, then NTIA Administrator Larry Irving warned that the rising importance of the internet had the downside of creating what he coined a “digital divide."

15 years later, the National Broadband Plan reported that as “more aspects of daily life move online and offline alternatives disappear, the range of choices available to people without broadband narrows. Digital exclusion compounds inequities for historically marginalized groups.” In light of these trends, the plan warned “the cost of digital exclusion is large and growing.”

Judging by the limited government response to those described dangers, both warnings arguably were ahead of their times. In those eras, many viewed internet access as a luxury and saw many other needs as higher priorities for government funds.

That changed this past spring. COVID accelerated the momentum of the economy and society towards "remote everything," revealing that the divide was more costly and urgent than the country had realized. This then launched countless editorials from a wide spectrum of political views, that called for government action to get networks everywhere, get everyone on them, and use them to improve the delivery of essential public goods like education, health care and job training.

That is progress but it is still far from an achievement.

To get networks everywhere, we first need accurate data, something that on a bipartisan basis Congress recognized the FCC has not collected. We also need the FCC to revisit two issues: what now constitutes being unserved, and the minimum standards for any government subsidized deployment. While many have offered their instinctual views on the answers to both, COVID created a real world experiment for high-bandwidth use cases that we should use to illuminate how we answer those questions for a remote everything economy and society.

Once we have a better map and understanding broadband need, Congress should provide funding, at a minimum, to pay for the capital expense of building out networks where no further operating expenses are necessary. Those funds should be allocated in ways that use market forces to assure the public funds are efficiently distributed.

That is not always true today. For example, recently the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utility Service (RUS) awarded Beehive Telephone Company Inc. a $2.3 million ReConnect grant to deploy a fiber-to-the-premises network to four residents, four farms, and four businesses in Washington County, Utah. It also doled out a $2.7 million grant to deploy a fiber-to-the-premises network to connect 147 people in Elko County, Nevada. These average out to be more than $33,000 per home passed.

That compares rather unfavorably to the FCC’s recent Rural Development Opportunity Fund (RDOF) reverse auction which averaged about $1,770 per home passed. There are concerns about that auction, particularly as other such auctions have experienced a number of defaults owing to technological, economic or competitive factors. Further, the mapping failure likely led to millions spent on unnecessary subsidies. Still, the auction demonstrates that if we had good maps and devoted the appropriate resources, we can finish the job of getting networks everywhere.

Helping everyone connect is tougher and statistically more important. After all, three times as many Americans have access to networks but have not adopted service as those who simply have no available networks. Yet we devote far more to the availability gap than we do the adoption gap. in 2019 the ratio was greater than five to one—even though the cost to America of an individual not adopting is similar to the cost of an individual not having access.

To get everyone on, we have to address two critical issues: digital readiness and affordability. For digital readiness, we need a more focused effort at the local, state and federal level, for developing, testing and improving such efforts for targeted communities of non-adopters.

Affordability, however, is the most significant factor. Affordability can mean two things. First, it can mean the price of an average service. Second, it can mean the entry level price for a baseline service. Policy needs to explore both; if we are looking at the challenge of affordability for the currently unconnected, we have to prioritize addressing the second.

The current program for addressing that affordability is called Lifeline. It is inadequate in many respects, most obviously in the subsidy it offers, of $9.25 a month. It also is distributed poorly, with only 7 million of the 38 million eligible homes taking the benefit. But if the FCC increased both the subsidy and the number of recipients, it would blow up the current funding mechanism, which is based on an assessment on certain phone services that is already at 30%.

Further, even if the monthly subsidy could be increased, it would not necessarily lead to broadband where we need it. We should approach Lifeline reform by recognizing that certain public goods are enhanced with greater broadband in homes. We all benefit when all school children have to tools to do their homework and engage in other online learning in their homes. We also benefit when all can take advantage of telehealth in the home, both improving community health and lowering costs for the overall system. We all benefit when the unemployed are not cut off from on-line training or the tools to search, apply and interview for new jobs, diminishing the time they are unemployed.

The current Lifeline program does little to capture these benefits as in practice it is an important but limited mobile service. Simply increasing the subsidy and distribution mechanisms would not capture the benefits of home use.

We need to continue to improve efforts to connect all to voice services, but we also need to capture the public benefits of in home broadband. As to the benefits for school children, Congress to step up, as it did with the school lunch program and other federal support for schools serving low income students, ensuring that they have a baseline access to educational opportunities outside the classroom, which are overwhelming online. We also need to examine how the health and unemployment insurance programs can assist in getting such persons connected. Such programs can provide both efficient distribution mechanisms and use savings to the program to help offset the costs of a broadband benefit.

Some might argue that the FCC should use its authority to assess charges on other parts of the communications networks so as to fund in-home broadband needs itself. While that might make some theoretical sense, there are multiple problems.

First, as the recent legal battles on classifying carriers under Title I or II of the Communications Act have shown, any FCC assessment that is used to subsidize broadband has significant legal vulnerabilities until the classification controversy is resolved. Second, even if the courts were to uphold a Title II classification—the most favorable outcome for expanding FCC authority for increased assessments—the revenue base may still be too limited and charges on it tend to be regressive. Third, the issue is fraught with political difficulties, which is why, a decade after the National Broadband Plan called for reform, every FCC Chair has chosen to let his successor face the consequences of the unsustainable trends.

In short, counting on FCC action to reform the current system would likely delay closing the availability and adoption gaps for many years.

Finally, there is a utilization gap; the gap between how our communications networks are used today and how they could be used to improve outcomes in delivering essential services.

Yes, we need all students online to be able to continue learning outside the classroom, but we also need for tools that provide teachers the support they need to enable students to maximize the effectiveness of digital content. Yes, we need low income persons to be able to access telehealth, but we also need to improve how we use digital technologies to target and treat diseases that disproportionately afflict low-income communities. Yes, we need the unemployed to stay connected while searching for a job but we also need to us AI and other technologies to improve how we empower people to upgrade their skills for the jobs of the future. And we need to upgrade government services so that all can access critical information and assistance on a 24/7/365 basis.

There is no silver bullet for closing any of the three gaps. All three require multiple actions by multiple government institutions across different jurisdictions. By my rough and preliminary estimate, there are over 100 federal government actions that would useful in addressing one of the key questions for government in the next decade: how can we use the tools of the information society to create a more equitable and inclusive economy and society?

But it is also one area where there is a distinct possibility of a bipartisan effort to make progress. When I discuss these issues with Republican friends, I always ask if they think the country would be better off if there were broadband networks everywhere, if everyone who wanted to be was on, and if we used the networks to improve how we deliver health care, education and job training. The answer is always yes, something that was not true prior to COVID. I then ask if they think market forces alone will achieve those goals. The answer is always no. While we may disagree on specific policies—and while compromises will likely result in policies all sides view as sub-optimal—those answers set the stage for productive conversations and policies considerably better than we have today.

In contrast with the attitudes of decades past, COVID has created a broad and deep understanding that costs of digital exclusion are too great for our economy and society to tolerate. Congress and the incoming Administration, aided by an FCC that hopefully will take its role as an expert agency seriously, to finally assure that there are networks everywhere, everyone can get on, and that we use them to improve how we deliver essential services.

Blair Levin is a Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a Policy Analyst for New Street Research, a global telecommunications and tech equity research firm. Previously he was Chief of Staff to the Chairman of the FCC, from 1993-1997, Executive Director of the effort that produced the 2010 United States National Broadband Plan, and he has consulted with a numerous cities, states and countries on broadband policy.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband plan, covid, digital divide, fcc, net neutrality