Digital Divide

As I participate today in Silicon Harlem's annual conference, I'm reminded of the 929,000 New Yorkers, including those who live and work in the heart of Harlem, that depend on the Federal Communications Commission's Lifeline program for affordable telecommunications services. I am saddened to affirm, during a conference that seeks to find solutions to narrow technology divides and create enhanced opportunities for the disconnected, that the FCC majority has issued a so-called proposal for the Lifeline program which promises to jeopardize our efforts at ubiquitous and affordable services for the citizens of New York and the rest of the country.

If the goal of the current FCC majority is to widen existing divides, and ensure that our nation's most vulnerable are less likely to be connected, this item sets us on that path. It will harm those less fortunate, those who need to dial 911, stay in touch with their children's educators, keep a job, and stay healthy. The day we head down such a path, is a sad one indeed. I commit to doing everything in my power to ensure that the only universal service program designed to close the affordability gap, remains a shining and successful means for economically-strapped citizens to have voice and broadband services.

Oct 24, the Federal Communications Commission voted to approve a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will undo years of the FCC’s work to improve wireless deployments in rural areas, close the digital divide, and promote spectrum use by a wide range of users with diverse and innovative business models in the 150 megahertz between 3550-3700 MHz (the 3.5 GHz Band or Band).

Adopting the NPRM is the first step to undermining the FCC’s work in the 3.5 GHz Band, and represents a rare lose-lose-lose scenario in spectrum policy making. The draft NPRM explores expanding the geographic size of 3.5 GHz Band Priority Access Licenses (PALs) from the size of census tracts to Partial Economic Areas (PEAs), extending the license term from three years to 10 years, and to making PALs renewable. Currently, it appears the Commission (thanks to FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn) may have resisted its worst impulses and walked back its draft proposal to license all PALs by PEA. However, If eventually adopted as the licensing scheme for the 3.5 GHz Band, the NPRM’s proposals would make licenses unaffordable for rural broadband providers seeking to serve targeted, unserved communities, and other innovative wireless uses (e.g., an Internet of Things network on a corporate campus or distribution warehouse, or a wireless network to serve an airport, shopping center, arena, or stadium), and make it unlikely that the 3.5 GHz Band is actually put to use closing the digital divide in rural America.

Among hundreds of bills signed into law on Oct 22 by Gov Jerry Brown (D-CA) was the rural broadband measure championed by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D — Winters), Several past efforts to increase funding to close the Digital Divide were intensely opposed by the largest telecommunications and cable companies. After a three-year stalemate, this bill represents a cooperative effort between legislators of both houses and both parties, consumer advocates, and representatives from the telecommunications and cable industries to invest in broadband access and rural development.

The California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) is a state program aimed at closing the Digital Divide. The CASF does not depend upon General Fund dollars, but instead is funded by a small, existing surcharge on in-state phone bills. The current goal of this program is to incentivize the expansion of broadband infrastructure to 98% of California households. AB 1665 expands this goal to 98% of households in every geographic region of the state. This new goal creates a target that cannot be achieved by serving urban and suburban areas alone; it will ensure broadband infrastructure projects funded by AB 1665 are focused in rural California. The law will take effect beginning January 1, 2018.

With nearly half a million computing jobs going unfilled this year, according to Code.org, everyone from Google to the White House is eager to emphasize tech training. It's offered in the name of closing the so-called “skills gap,” and giving a more diverse set of people, beyond Silicon Valley and New York City, a crack at lucrative careers in tech. But Hopeworks’ founders and staff recognized nearly two decades ago that propelling people into the tech workforce from communities like Camden (NJ), notorious for its high rates of poverty and crime, requires a lot more than just teaching them to code.

The American Psychological Association recognizes that poverty and exposure to violence at a young age can be linked to post traumatic stress disorder in young adults. So Hopeworks' leaders believe that to prepare their students for work, teaching them social and emotional coping skills is at least as important as teaching them Javascript.

As you visit the booths and exchange ideas, remember: we simply cannot afford to leave anyone behind in this 21st Century, internet-based economy. While there have been considerable improvements in accessibility to mainstream technology, too many Americans remain unable to utilize our most innovative advancements to their fullest potential. Collectively, we must work to change that reality.

There are more than 56 million people in our country, and over a billion people globally, with one or more disabilities and with advancements in medicine and our focus on fitness, those numbers will continue to climb as we live longer. So the time is now to close the digital divide that too many with disabilities face. We must ensure that technologies are accessible and that anyone and everyone is able to enjoy and benefit from the innovation over the horizon.

[Commentary] There is one aspect of criminal justice reform that the current administration has tragically ignored: the broken market for inmate calling services.

Inmate calling is a horribly malfunctioning system that not only adversely impacts inmates and their families, but our society as a whole. Providers of inmate calling services compete and win business not based on being the lowest-cost bidder, as is customary for most requests for proposals to governmental agencies. Rather, they win contracts based on which of them is willing to pay the most in kickbacks (they call them “commissions”) to those correctional facilities. The result is not the lowest cost service for inmates and their families, but instead, rates for phone calls that have been as high as $14 per minute.

The FCC should end the practice of picking and choosing, ignoring and punting, while an unarguably dysfunctional market regime preys on the most vulnerable. The FCC can and should adopt targeted rules to address the costs of interstate calls. States and localities can and should reform their practices to cap rates and eliminate kickbacks. And Congress can and should enact a legislative solution that provides a firm legal foundation for further inmate calling reforms. Private litigation could also attack these practices, and some lawsuits have already been filed. But policymakers should also work to help new services and technologies enter the marketplace, to increase competition and lower prices. There is no good policy reason why an inmate’s family should have to use the most antiquated and expensive systems to communicate with loved ones when viable alternatives exist. The time to act is now.

Babies and young children are accessing and viewing media in new ways now that the majority of American families have mobile and internet-connected devices at home. Smartphones, tablets, and other devices also present new challenges and opportunities for parents introducing media to their kids for the first time. Combined with the data from the 2011 and 2013 reports, the 2017 Zero to Eight study gives us a clearer view of how young children's media use has evolved over time and provides a foundation for how we can use technology to support children's learning, play, and growth. Take a look at the infographic and read our blog post for highlights. This research helps us update Common Sense resources with the most useful and relevant information for today's parents, teachers, and leaders. Together we can make media a positive influence in kids' lives -- especially during the first eight years.

In “Exploring the Digital Divide,” Common Sense finds that there are still substantial gaps between lower- and higher-income children in home computer access (25 percentage points) and high-speed home internet access (22 percentage points).

This Digital Playbook provides several core strategies for increasing digital equity and inclusion, ensuring that all community members will have the necessary resources for full participation in the economic, political, and civic opportunities available within Charlotte, North Carolina.

The vast majority (96%) of rural young people age 14 to 22 years old have cellphones, including 17% who get mobile service from a local provider and 75% who get service from a national carrier, according to a rural youth technology survey conducted by the Foundation for Rural Service. Nearly the same amount (95%) have internet connectivity at home, and a substantial portion of them get connectivity from a local provider. Just under one in three respondents get internet connectivity from a satellite provider. That 95% number is considerably higher than overall home internet take rates that other surveys have found, underscoring how much more important the internet is for households that include teens and young adults.

The survey also included questions about how rural youth use technology — information that could become increasingly valuable as those young people become technology decision makers. About two-thirds of respondents to the FRS survey would consider living in a rural area soon after graduation.

A point often lost when we talk about the digital divide is what happens when we actually bridge the divide. Too often, we declare mission accomplished when we’ve connected a home that has been forever without, but I challenge you to take a more nuanced view. We should only claim victory when a consumer is meaningfully using their connectivity to take advantage of the economic, educational, and health care opportunities it affords....

One of our primary goals at the Federal Communications Commission is to be good stewards of ratepayer dollars. That means moving away from the past practice of using our high-cost program to fund multiple networks in the same geographic area. We should not support a company that is serving an area where another provider is providing quality service without a subsidy. That is fundamentally inconsistent with protecting consumers and it does not enable the market to work as intended.