Op-Ed

Sen Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) has doubled-down on her unwillingness to support the Save the Internet Act and overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of net neutrality. In a letter to constituents, the senator brushes off concerns from citizens asking her to restore net neutrality by parroting cynical, 

As the head of the Federal Communications Commission, I’ve been working for the past two-plus years to advance a market-based strategy to promote US leadership in 5G. As part of what we call our 5G FAST Plan, the FCC finished its first 5G spectrum auction in Jan, and we’re holding a second right now that’s already generated almost $2 billion in bids. The recipe for US leadership in wireless technology is proven and simple: Free up airwaves to accommodate the increase in wireless traffic. Get rid of the red tape that slows the deployment of wireless infrastructure.

I know firsthand what it’s like living on the wrong side of the digital divide because my local community in rural Minnesota has been experiencing it for far too long. That is one of the reasons why I founded A Better Wireless, a wireless ISP that is seeking to connect rural Minnesotans who lack affordable broadband access. 

Why is it important whether broadband internet access service (BIAS) is considered a common carriage service or not? Because if BIAS is a common carriage service, then BIAS providers bear the fundamental obligations of common carriers.  These common carriage obligations are:

The Supreme Court is considering whether to weigh in on a defining battle of the digital era. The court is about to decide what happens next in Oracle v. Google — a case that will affect not just the apps on your smartphone, but the future of American software innovation. The case hinges on whether developers should be able to create new applications using standard ways of accessing common functions. Those functions are the building blocks of computer programming, letting developers easily assemble the range of applications and tools we all use every day.

A group of senior communications experts, working with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, released its “Global Broadband Plan for Refugee Inclusion.” The detailed report calls for “all refugees, and the communities that host them, to have access to available, affordable and usable mobile and internet connectivity.” At first glance, the idea of devoting scarce resources to ensuring refugees can go online may sound misguided.

The lion’s share of discussion around the digital divide has centered around access, but the prices rural consumers are paying for the services available to them are worth paying attention to as well. According to our research, roughly 146 million rural Americans do not have access to a low-priced plan for wired broadband internet. That’s nearly 45 percent of the US population. We define “low-priced” as a broadband plan with a monthly cost less than or equal to the 20th percentile of all plan prices, or around $60 per month.

One of the first decisions a community needs to make in bringing broadband to residents is what sort of network to operate. Should the network be closed, with one Internet service provider providing service to residents; open and lit, providing the basic infrastructure for potentially competing ISPs; or open with dark fiber leased to competing ISPs? All three models have their proponents and detractors. In my experience and opinion, no one model is ideal for every community. Each option impacts how a community will build and operate a network, and each has advantages and disadvantages.

The disadvantages inherent to rural towns – geography, low population density and lack of fiber density – compound one another to make sourcing middle-mile transport unusually difficult for rural municipalities. In addition, incumbents that might provide backhaul generally aren’t thrilled with the prospect of losing market share. They may view municipal network initiatives as competitive threats and resist working with municipalities on sourcing middle-mile transport and/or lobby to fight them in their quest to modernize.

A stark spatial hierarchy is emerging in the United States. Big cities are ascendant, enjoying accelerated job growth in a knowledge-driven economy, while midsize cities, small metro areas and rural communities struggle to keep pace. These geographic fault lines have provoked a debate about how to revitalize rural America. What if the best way to rejuvenate small towns is to invest in cities? Proximity to cities does not solely explain rural prosperity. And some direct investments, such as broadband and rural entrepreneurship, can improve rural fortunes.