Research

The Federal Communications Commission estimates it will take between $397 billion and $478 billion to reach all underserved locations. It’s worth remembering there are only two numbers at play: the number of locations that don’t have access to 100/20 broadband service, and the average cost to bring fiber-to-the-home service to those locations. I estimated 23.1 million un- and underserved locations. The FCC study estimated 45.5 million, or 32% of all United States housing units. The second part of the equation is the cost to serve the average unserved or underserved location.

With US cable broadband subscriber growth remaining flat or going negative, operators are hard-pressed to find a remedy that will rekindle growth in a service category now considered central to the overall business.

Broadband usage patterns of participants in the Federal Communications Commission's Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) are significantly exceeding those of the broader connected population, according to initial results contained in the second quarter 2022 OpenVault Broadband Insights (OVBI) report. Data from several thousand ACP households during 2Q22 has revealed the following:

The Ensuring Phone and Internet Access Through Lifeline and Affordable Connectivity Program Act (H.R. 4275) would require the Federal Communications Commission to report to Congress annually on enrollment in its Lifeline program and its Affordable Connectivity Program, disaggregated by how applicants qualify for support. For example, Lifeline applicants may qualify based on prior enrollment in Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or the Supplemental Security Income program.

The lack of broadband in many rural and Tribal communities is widely recognized, but there are also claims of a lack of broadband availability in predominantly Minority and urban communities, sometimes labeled digital redlining or digital discrimination. Motivated by such claims, the bi-partisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA) includes a specific provision to address digital discrimination and the Federal Communications Commission is currently contemplating formal rules for such.

Analysis demonstrates that philanthropic organizations in the US have given little--less than 1% of overall giving by large foundations--to digital equity funding. Funding barriers may be overcome with greater participation of US institutional philanthropic giving to digital equity. Other key takeaways include:

As high-speed internet becomes increasingly important as a resource for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and management services, gaps in digital infrastructure may have a detrimental impact on health outcomes. Using national census and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data from 2018, researchers evaluated state-level rates of household internet access and age-adjusted cardiac mortality.

The most important decision when designing and building a statewide middle-mile fiber-based network is whether to build a brand new long-distance fiber-optic cable route in areas where none exist, or use strands within an already installed cable via a pre-paid, discounted long-term lease called an IRU. In California for example, its great diversity of population centers, geographic and topographic terrains, weather conditions, and natural hazards greatly influences the presence, or absence, of fiber-based middle-mile infrastructure.

A middle-mile network is a fiber connection consisting of long-haul core backbone routes and regional routes, and last-mile providers—not unlike the transportation model of high-capacity long-haul interstate highways—can be effective in connecting major cities, inland, cities, remote regions, and everything in-between. In this model, an open-access middle-mile network bridges the gap between the global Internet and any last-mile providers that wish to connect to it, who then bridge the remaining gap to their individual local residential and business customers, as well as fire, earthquake, c

Internet service providers’ discriminatory underinvestment in broadband infrastructure and services—referred to as “digital redlining” for disproportionately affecting low-income communities of color—is drawing increased public scrutiny, including from policymakers.