A growing number of initiatives across America have sought to facilitate affordable access to broadband by working with willing incumbents, partnering with new entrants, establishing their own communications networks, or developing creative new alternatives. For many, broadband partnerships have emerged as their most attractive option; for some, partnerships may be their only feasible option. Depending on the circumstances, partnerships can significantly improve a broadband project’s prospects for success. Among other things, they can facilitate the pooling of resources available to the partners, enable each partner to perform the tasks for which it is best suited, and allow for asymmetric allocation of benefits. For example, a well-crafted partnership can take advantage of a public or cooperative entity’s ability to invest “patient capital” in projects that provide long-term benefits for the community and, at the same time, accommodate a private entity’s need to earn more immediate profits. In some cases, partnerships can also enable the parties to comply with State restrictions on purely public broadband initiatives. Recognizing the attractiveness of broadband partnerships, Congress and several states have sought to encourage them to help accelerate broadband deployment, adoption, and use. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act does not just favor partnerships in broadband matters. It also does so for transportation and cybersecurity.

In the midst of this historic time, I sometimes lose sight of the fact that the official broadband speed definition, at least according to the Federal Communications Commission, remains at 25/3 Mbps. I’m not sure there is anything more absurd in the broadband industry than this outdated definition. Some would argue it was already outdated when it was established back in 2015, as a benchmark to measure national broadband progress. The FCC has consistently used the benchmark as a requirement for much of its legacy universal service program. That meant carriers receiving funding through various FCC sponsored rural broadband programs had to deliver service of at least 25/3 Mbps. Although exceptions were made, with some programs allowing even slower 10/1 Mbps. The much-heralded RDOF program directs funding to areas that currently lack 25/3 Mbps coverage. Many argue this relegates much of rural America to second-class broadband service. Just about everyone in the industry knows this benchmark is absurd. It’s pretty clear that the industry has moved on from this outdated benchmark. There is already considerable debate regarding what broadband should be defined as. Maybe there will never be consensus on that. But clearly there’s consensus that 25/3 Mbps isn’t it.

Despite opposition from most of our Kansas congressional delegation, new federal dollars are coming to Kansas to expand broadband access. President Joe Biden recently signed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, fulfilling a 2020 campaign promise. The bill had moderate bipartisan support, though every Republican in Congress from Kansas opposed it. The only Kansan to support it was Rep Sharice Davids (D-KS). Kansas will receive about $4 billion from the bill, including about $100 million to expand broadband infrastructure and money to help 669,000 working class Kansans get discounted internet through the Affordable Connectivity Program. The infrastructure bill has odd politics considering that several provisions — like broadband — disproportionately help Republican-leaning rural communities. Why would our elected Republicans oppose it? Even if our Republican lawmakers secretly supported the infrastructure bill and broadband money for Kansas, politics prevented them from being open about it. Maybe they feared ending their political careers in a primary. But rural Kansans getting internet via dial-up or a slow mobile hotspot with limited data probably don’t care which president’s signature helps bring them broadband.

[Patrick R. Miller is an associate professor of political science at the University of Kansas]

The global economy is increasingly digitalized. Countries that wish to successfully compete in the global digital economy must cultivate workforces possessing the requisite digital skills so that industries, enterprises, and even individuals can thrive in the digital environment. This report explores the state of digital skills across the US economy, examining what they are, why they matter, the current extent of workforce digitalization, and how the United States fares in international digital skills comparisons. It concludes by providing a brief overview of some of the best practices and programs being introduced by nonprofit, academic, and corporate organizations to deepen the US digital skills base and suggesting policy recommendations to further foster US digital skills development.

Broadband and spectrum issues are top of mind for Gigi Sohn and Alan Davidson, President Joe Biden’s picks for the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications Information Administration, respectively. Ahead of their confirmation hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee on Dec 1 (where there’s expected to be plenty of fireworks), they shared with lawmakers what they view are the top challenges facing their agencies:

“The FCC’s top challenge is ensuring that every household in the [US] has affordable and robust broadband Internet access,” Sohn wrote in her questionnaire. She said the agency should play a leading role in developing and executing an “all-hands-on-deck” approach to expanding broadband access, corralling the support of the public, private and philanthropic sectors. Other challenges will include shoring up the resiliency and security of the nation’s communications networks, particularly against weather-related challenges and cyberattacks, such as the Colonial Pipeline and SolarWinds hacks. “The interconnected broadband networks that underpin our digital economy are among our most vulnerable attack conduits,” she wrote, suggesting the development of “an oversight regime that requires network providers to determine best practices, subject to regulatory oversight.” (That could be a reference to reclassifying broadband as a telecom service, as the FCC did in 2015 with its net neutrality rules, which would give the agency more regulatory authority over broadband.) Sohn added that the FCC will need to coordinate closely with other government agencies to develop spectrum policy that balances 5G mobile broadband service and unlicensed uses, such as Wi-Fi.

Davidson homed in on broadband access and affordability as his “top priority in the coming years,” according to his questionnaire. That agency has been tasked with doling out tens of billions of dollars in broadband funds as part of the infrastructure package President Biden recently signed into law. Davidson also said that the NTIA has an important role to play in the spectrum battles that have arisen in Washington, calling for a “broad coordinated, national approach to spectrum use and planning.” In his response, Davidson also argued for building a stronger internet by "bolstering cybersecurity, protecting privacy, and pressing for America's view of a free and open Internet around the world" — something that he has advocated for in his roles at Google and Mozilla, as well as at various advocacy groups and the Obama-era Commerce Department.