Universal Broadband

[Commentary] The week of Jan 8, after President Donald Trump signed two significant executive orders on improving broadband infrastructure, members of the House Communications Subcommittee introduced four resolutions laying out our principles for broadband expansion nationwide. The resolutions include prioritizing infrastructure funding to areas that are currently unserved, easing the regulatory process, ensuring coordination among all levels of government, and establishing clear, consistent rules regardless of broadband technology.

Many of the power cooperatives that helped electrify rural Tennessee in the 1930s and 1940s are gearing up for a similar effort to bring high-speed broadband to rural areas not connected to today's information superhighway. But similar to electrification of the South in the early 20th century, the telecommunications upgrades for rural broadband are likely to be costly and take years or even decades to fully implement.

For many low-income Americans, internet connectivity is a struggle. About half (53%) of those in households with annual incomes under $30,000 have a home broadband internet subscription plan, compared with 93% of households whose annual incomes exceed $75,000. This makes closing connectivity gaps a priority for policymakers, the non-profit sector, and many internet service providers (ISPs). What is perhaps less appreciated is the variety of models that have arisen to try to reach those without broadband at home. The population of non-home broadband users is not monolithic.

Under changes the Federal Communications Commission recently proposed, fewer people may receive subsidized broadband service under the Lifeline program. Those left out will struggle to do online tasks such as filling out a job application, or paying bills online. About 12.5 million low-income people across the country, and thousands in Ohio, could be affected.There are even health implications, since so much of today's medicine relies on patients having the ability to make appointments, refill prescriptions and view test results online.

On Oct 30, 2017, Rep John Ratcliffe (R-TX) wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to take action to address the budget shortfall in certain parts of the High-Cost Universal Service Fund (USF).

January 20 marks the one-year anniversary of Donald Trump’s inauguration. With little indication of what his communications policy plans were before the election, now seems a good time to reflect on what his Administration’s priorities have been over the past 12 months. Here’s a look at what Trump's Federal Communications Commission decided to tackle first in 2017.

The House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, chaired by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), introduced a series of resolutions laying out principles for broadband infrastructure:

By one recent estimate about 8.9 percent of Americans, or about 29 million people, lack access to wired home “broadband” service, which the Federal Communications Commission defines as an internet access connection providing speeds of at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Even where home broadband is available, high prices inhibit adoption; in one national survey, 33 percent of non-subscribers cited cost of service as the primary barrier. Municipally and other community-owned networks have been proposed as a driver of competition and resulting better service and prices.

Over the summer, FiveThirtyEight published two stories on broadband internet access in the US that were based on a data set made public by academic researchers who had acquired data from Catalist, a well-known political data firm. After further reporting, we can no longer vouch for the academics’ data set. The preponderance of evidence we’ve collected has led us to conclude that it is fundamentally flawed. That’s because:

[Commentary] If some areas end up with no winning bidder, does that mean the Federal Communications Commission's Connect America Fund Phase II auction is a failure? The answer is “No!” The FCC will need to look at the results of the Phase II auction to evaluate how universal service auctions are different in practice from spectrum auctions, and adjust accordingly, as necessary.