Op-Ed

Many states have their own offices focusing on rural broadband, and there is very little coordination between those offices, and the many federal agencies responsible for elements of internet connectivity extension. President Joe Biden and Congressional leaders can include language that ensures that better coordination leads to faster deployment of rural broadband solutions. It is not as if there has been no work done on this to date. The Federal Communications Commission has been working on this issue for years, and some progress has been made.

Sustainability when looking at a digital infrastructure plan needs to take cybersecurity and data privacy into account. In the modern world, data is a currency. From the dark web to marketing analytics, data has a financial value. The government needs to address these issues as part of establishing a nationwide internet infrastructure. Relying solely on internet service providers to build the infrastructure and secure it will fail. Regulations do not secure information or cloud services; they serve as deterrents. The federal government needs to take action to fill in security holes.

Early in 2008, a group of people living in east-central Vermont, who understood the importance of the Internet to economic development, decided to act independently. They formed ECFiber, the EC standing for East-Central Vermont, a 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation with the goal of providing fiber access to every premises in 23 contiguous towns and one municipality in central Vermont. At the end of 2020, almost all of the roads in the original 23 towns have been provisioned with fiber.

Internet access is essential for economic development and helping to deliver the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, especially as even basic broadband can revolutionize the opportunities available to users. Yet, more than one billion people globally still live in areas without internet connectivity. Governments must make strategic choices to connect these citizens, but currently have few independent, transparent, and scientifically reproducible tools to rely on.

At the early days of my doctoral study and fellowship at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, University of Southern California (USC) over two years ago, I conducted a 10-month field research to understand the dynamics of digital access and use among people experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles. It was the first time I witnessed a massive number of houseless individuals and families residing on the street and struggling to sustain their lives on minimal sustenance and digital means.

The COVID-19 pandemic has put the digital divide on policymakers’ agenda like never before. It is challenging them to find solutions that meet the urgency of the crisis while building a foundation for sustainable progress over time. This means that policymakers will want to build on lessons learned and explore new approaches. In contemplating these and other ideas, policymakers may want to look at analysis of broadband adoption barriers – the more reliable the better.

In December 2020, in connection with a 2016 mandate to draft a report on the State of the Lifeline Marketplace, the Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau issued a data request asking wireless providers about customer usage and cost information. While the FCC’s newfound interest in data is commendable, the bureau is asking the wrong questions.

Racial and ethnic minority communities that lack internet access have been left behind in the race to get a COVID-19 vaccine. We are researchers who study health disparities. We are concerned that even when vaccinations are offered in these communities, those at greatest risk for COVID-19 may be unable to obtain appointments without the help of family or friends. This includes racial and ethnic minority communities and older adults, the age group that is currently being vaccinated. Our research suggests that lack of internet access may be an important reason.

As the lead staffer for Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) on Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TA96), I often smile when people “correct” me to explain that Section 230 wasn’t part of TA96, but rather part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The reality is that Section 230 is contained in Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a title that the framers of TA96 indicated could also be referred to by its “short title,” as the “Communications Decency Act of 1996.” Today, however, I feel people can simply call it what they want.

A growing concern as we considered telecommunications reform efforts in the early 1990s was the creation or emergence of a “digital divide.” It is an issue that remains with us today. In the early 90s, there was a desire to harness the awesome power of advanced, digital communications services to enhance education. My boss, Rep.