Gregory Rosston

We write to provide economic insight to help states maximize the benefits of its Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) and other funds for its residents. Several economic concepts are critical to maximizing the benefit of the BEAD money for state residents.  

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is inefficient, ineffective, and funded by a regressive tax mechanism. Several reforms could improve the program:

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) included some $42.45 billion to ensure “access to affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband” throughout the United States. However, $42 billion is unlikely to be sufficient to serve all households. To maximize the number of households receiving service, awards need to ensure sufficient quality at the lowest cost.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is beginning an epic effort to implement the broadband provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Congress allocated $42.45 billion to build rural broadband through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Development (BEAD) Program, and these resources have the potential to provide internet access to most if not all households that do not currently have access. NTIA states in its Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) that its focus is to provide service to unserved and underserved areas.

The Technology Policy Institute recommends that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA):

In the middle of the pandemic, the Federal Communications Commission used a reverse auction process to save taxpayers about $7 billion on projected expenses of $16 billion for broadband service to unserved areas — nearly a 50 percent savings!

The next administration should launch a concerted broadband data-collection and analysis effort to support smart, timely, and informed decision-making by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other agencies that work on broadband, such as the Rural Utilities Service. Specifically, the FCC should collect (or work with others to collect) comprehensive data on the following eight indicators:

The key missing component of nearly every proposal to solve the connectivity problem is evidence — evidence suggesting the ideas are likely to work and ways to use evidence in the future to evaluate whether they did work. Otherwise, we are likely throwing money away. Understanding what works and what doesn’t requires data collection and research now and in the future. It doesn’t have to be this way. The pandemic did not only lay bare the implications of the digital divide, it also created a laboratory for studying how best to bridge the divide.

We evaluate a program by a private Internet Service Provider intended to encourage low-income households to subscribe to broadband internet service.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced a bill with real potential to mitigate the digital divide. Most proposals simply call for more money for existing programs or for new programs without evidence they will help. Real-world experience, however, has demonstrated how little we truly understand about why many low-income people do not subscribe. The Markey bill tackles this underlying issue.