Joe Kane

The $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program faces serious hurdles in its goal to “make sure that every American has access to reliable, affordable, high-speed Internet.” For one, traditional broadband is capital intensive, requiring large initial investments to deploy infrastructure. The theory behind BEAD was that it would resolve this issue through a massive one-time lump-sum expenditure to deploy broadband infrastructure to every American. However, we are now three years removed from when BEAD legisl

Private and federal broadband investments have achieved universal broadband deployment throughout the United States. Still, barriers that prevent some households from accessing the Internet remain. This lack of broadband adoption, not lack of deployment, is the central reason for the remaining digital divide. Therefore, identifying and addressing barriers to broadband adoption should be the core of broadband policy. One major barrier to broadband adoption is whether low-income households can afford it.

Adoption is now the primary barrier to closing the digital divide. While deployment subsidies have been the bread and butter of broadband policy for decades, now that implementation of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA’s) Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program is underway, broadband policy must retool for a future that prioritizes adoption efforts to address the leading causes of Internet non-use rather than the dwindling problem of lack of deployment. Digital inclusion efforts that can address adoption gaps

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals threw federal broadband policy into chaos recently by declaring the Universal Service Fund unconstitutional. The decision threatens to shut down the Federal Communications Commission’s longstanding system of collecting fees from telecommunications customers to subsidize rural broadband deployment and Internet access for low-income households, schools, and other programs. For years, policymakers have acknowledged the need to overhaul the USF because of its ballooning fees, potential for waste, and outdated priorities.

Policymakers inundated with self-serving arguments for specific spectrum allocation need ways to evaluate which actually advance the public interest. By focusing on the goal of productive spectrum use, one can differentiate between reasoning that would enhance productivity and that which would only advance private interests.

New broadband funding programs necessitate dramatic reforms to old programs. In its report, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) recommends reversing the status quo and sustaining the Affordable Connectivity Program by shrinking the redundant hodgepodge of federal broadband programs. With so much at stake, it is more important than ever to ensure that broadband funding helps those who need it, and the right programs are sustainable. ITIF says that as things now stand, federal broadband programs are dangerously out of balance.

With the rapid rise of wireless technology, the demand for access to the spectrum has increased in recent years. However, there are critical and interrelated gaps and failures in the process and policies used for efficiently allocating the spectrum in the US. Key takeaways from an analysis on this issue include the following:

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provides the federal government with the resources necessary to close the digital divide based on lack of service in certain geographic areas and make broadband available to all Americans. ITIF appreciates this opportunity to comment on how the Federal Communications Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should implement the provisions of the IIJA related to purported “digital discrimination.” The FCC’s primary goal in this rulemaking should be adherence to the text of the statute and to close the digital divide.

The federal government’s use of spectrum dates back to the beginning when radio frequencies were used to communicate—and so does the policy question of how to apportion spectrum access between government and private uses. The federal government has important missions that require the use of the electromagnetic spectrum. But federal spectrum lacks market discipline and profit motives, so it does not tend toward efficient use. Six proposals to improve upon this include the following:

Opponents of the current private-sector-provided broadband system have long engaged in a campaign to convince people that US broadband is deficient. Critics malign the quality of US broadband networks by claiming the speeds are too slow. But the question of speed is deceptively complex since there is general confusion over what constitutes “fast” broadband.