Don't Ignore Urban Communities in the Broadband Infrastructure Mix

[Commentary] Conventional wisdom that appears to be driving broadband policymakers, media coverage and funding is that rural areas need infrastructure and urban areas just need to figure out how to get more people using (buying) the infrastructure that exists. Hmm, maybe not.

Plenty of urban areas, similar to their rural kith and kin, need new, better infrastructure. Incumbents like to tell us that low-income communities are well covered by broadband because there are retail stores all over town where people can buy a cell phone and service. Cable service is “available” everywhere because TV ads blanket metro areas. This argument only holds water if you don't look close enough to realize that bucket’s full of holes. If a business in the poorest parts of town want highspeed service, it’s going to cost more because the nearest available wireline is so far away. As cabling deteriorates or becomes obsolete, incumbents aren't making the ‘hood a priority for upgrades because they regard it as a poor investment opportunity. And they aren't giving residents price breaks either. As one person said, “you can put free computers in houses, but if Internet access is $90/month and I clear $20K/year, adoption won't happen.”