Information Technology & Innovation Foundation

If all goes well, the $42.5 billion in BEAD funding that Congress allotted in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act should be enough to extend broadband coverage across the country. But it will depend on how states and territories use the money. The first half of 2024 is a critical juncture as states solicit feedback and approval of their Initial Proposals from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which administers the BEAD program.

In a time when broadband affordability still plays a major role in the digital divide, the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) meets an obvious need. Roughly two years into the program, around 23 million households are enrolled for discounted broadband and a one-time device subsidy. We should be able to consider this case closed: We now have a strong, effective mechanism for closing the affordability gap. Indeed, ACP enjoys bipartisan support, and its virtues are extolled by industry and consumer advocates alike.

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.

In the third decade of the 21st century, getting online is no longer optional, and providing financial assistance to US households that can’t afford broadband should be as much a given as food stamps. More broadly, from a macro perspective, high rates of broadband use benefit society and the economy; and from a micro perspective, those least likely to be online are those who would in many ways benefit most from it. In both cases, broadband policy should prioritize connecting remaining offline households in order to achieve universal connectivity.

If you Google the question “Is the Internet killing local languages and cultures,” you will receive a lot of results that suggest the answer is yes. But if you look at them a bit more closely, you will see that the most dire warnings tend to be from 2010 to 2017. More recent results often take the opposite stance—that technology actually helps preserve local languages. Advances in machine translation are clearly part of this shift in opinion. But there are also important economic, geopolitical, and cultural forces at work. Languages have always evolved as if in a marketplace.

The US emerged as a global leader in digital policy in the 1990s thanks to its pro-innovation approach, supplemented by multi-stakeholder and international cooperation on key issues.