By Christian Kuzdak
Over the past few years, attention has rightly turned to the old and persistent problem of the Digital Divide. Though new communications technologies push the limits on speed and bandwidth, the improvements mean little to Americans left behind by companies and lawmakers alike. However, the Biden Administration has promised to bring enormous resources to bear to finally tackle this issue once and for all, announcing that it intends to ensure that every single American has access to reliable and affordable internet. In turn, Congress has appropriated tens of billions of dollars to infrastructure deployment, subsidies, educational programs, and more. Simultaneously, private businesses have begun to seriously explore alternatives to traditional wired broadband, setting up a more competitive environment than ever. There is reason to be optimistic about this concerted effort, which many have noted mirrors the rural electrification efforts of the 1930s.
The Digital Divide has already begun to close, but anywhere between 14 million and 42 million Americans (nobody is really certain) remain without access to broadband. Many others make do with expensive and/or slow services. The solution to this problem lies in a whole-of-society approach to improving competition, subsidizing rollout, and supporting the most vulnerable consumers.
Closing the Digital Divide
Federal and State government efforts to improve connectivity are certainly not new, but the variety and intensity of these efforts have increased dramatically, particularly with the November 2021 passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which included $65 billion for the Biden Administration’s High-Speed Internet for All Initiative. The bulk of this made its way into the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which is charged with apportioning $42.5 billion to US states and territories according to need. NTIA closed out 2022 having allocated initial planning grants to every state and territory, effectively putting the ball in their court as they marshal resources for the creation of five-year action plans. The remaining funding will then be distributed based on need to address unserved areas (lacking 25/3 megabit per second or Mbps speeds), then underserved areas with speeds below 100/20 Mbps.
A long-time thorn in the side of policymakers, FCC broadband maps are again taking center stage, and causing headaches. NTIA will ultimately decide how to distribute BEAD funding based on new and improved broadband maps released by the FCC last month. While these maps generally appear better than the infamously inaccurate ones that have been on file with the FCC for years, they have still been sourced from internet providers, who have an obvious incentive to overstate their capabilities. Moreover, the maps do not offer pricing information, a major barrier to adoption for many consumers which BEAD seeks to address. Luckily, the Broadband Data Act, which prompted the FCC to update its maps in the first place, requires that the Commission engage in a challenge process to improve accuracy. States, tribal and local governments, other entities, and even individual consumers can search addresses and submit challenges directly to the FCC for investigation.
So, what’s the problem? Timing. NTIA has asked the states to submit all challenges by January 13, giving the FCC enough time to incorporate changes so NTIA can begin issuing grants by June 30. Many states, localities, smaller providers, and public interest entities lack the resources to adequately check and challenge data for their respective areas in that amount of time. Considering that the FCC has already received thousands of challenges according to Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, and that the possibility of legal action over inaccurate data is high, we may well see NTIA’s June 30 distribution date slip. Moreover, the IIJA allows for a second round of challenges, this time from localities, providers, and non-profits to individual state determinations regarding their slice of the BEAD pie. All of this portends a slow and halting process, though accuracy is more important than speed when it comes to connecting the unconnected.
Though it is the biggest by dollars, BEAD isn’t the only game in town. NTIA is also overseeing: (1) three Digital Equity grant programs totaling $2.75 billion to help states address accessibility needs like affordability and capability; (2) a separate $1 billion fund specifically for the construction of middle mile infrastructure between local and national/regional networks, and (3) a $2 billion Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP) specifically targeting tribal lands and improving access to telehealth, virtual education, and more. These are supplemented by other federal government programs, including the Department of Agriculture’s ReConnect Program, which doled out $1.6 billion to rural providers in 2022.
All this is to say nothing of FCC-led efforts through the Universal Service Fund, like the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) reverse auction which will channel up to $20.4 billion into providers to subsidize buildout to areas they otherwise wouldn’t go. The FCC also provides subsidies directly to consumers through the Affordable Connectivity Program and aims to better outfit schools and libraries through its Emergency Connectivity Fund.
The bottom line is that the government has gotten serious about closing the digital divide, but the devil, as always, is in the details. States and localities will need to navigate federal broadband funding programs deftly to help ensure that the money is spent wisely. This will require a deep knowledge of technology trends, market forces, demographics, and more. It is likely that BEAD and other broadband funding programs will take somewhat longer to implement than policymakers would like, but with careful planning and input from state and local authorities, we could achieve the kind of universal connectivity that rural electrification did in the 1930s, ushering in a more connected future where no one is left behind.
The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent.