Editorial

When President Joe Biden asked what critics would have him cut from his covid relief bill, he got plenty of answers about reducing the $510 billion in aid to state and local governments — including from us. Now some moderate Senate Democrats are suggesting a middle way: Earmark $50 billion of those funds for broadband investment. The idea, spearheaded by Sens Angus King (I-ME) and Mark Warner (D-VA), is a political crowd-pleaser more likely to attract cross-aisle support than most big spending.

Current levels of broadband deployment subsidies should be maintained or increased over the next five years, but policymakers will need to change the way these subsidies are distributed. The base for the Universal Service Fund needs to be broadened and made sustainable. Except in the most remote areas, the standard for publicly subsidized broadband networks should be set at 1 Gbps symmetrical or higher to ensure that public investments will be usable for a generation or longer.

The two biggest cable companies, Comcast and Charter, have taken lots of public bows in 2020 talking about how they are making sure that homes with students have affordable broadband during the pandemic. Comcast is serving low-income students with its Internet Essentials product. Charter has a similar product called Spectrum Internet Assist that delivers 30/3 Mbps for $14.99 with a WiFi router for $5 per month.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of broadband connections and the ways that not being connected can worsen inequality. While policymakers struggle to find effective methods of increasing adoption, the pandemic itself appears to have helped make some strides in closing the divide. Specifically, based on data from the largest ISPs’ quarterly 10Q SEC filings, the upward trend in the number of fixed line connections accelerated once the pandemic began, as the figure below shows.

Section 230 of the Communications Act has been dubbed the “twenty six words” that created the interactive free expression of the internet: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. This simple piece of legislation provides immunity from liability as a speaker or publisher for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who host and moderate information provid

If it wasn’t obvious before, the coronavirus pandemic makes clear the need for an open internet with broadband access for all Americans. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the broadband industry to see the light on control of the internet. AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile and other major Internet service providers aren’t backing away from their goal of raking in billions by charging websites more for priority access to the internet. The providers are hoping Republicans will regain the White House in 2024 and once again roll back net neutrality provisions.

The emphasis on “rural broadband” misses potentially the most important long-term issue. For valuable reasons, policymakers are focusing on the immediate issue of lack of internet access. However, delivering ultra-fast connectivity at an affordable price in a socially equitable manner in all of our American communities is just the table stakes.

Since Comcast is doing so well, one might think they could afford to be a good corporate citizen and community partner when it comes to bridging the digital equity divide. But apparently Comcast officials don’t have to play nice when they are the dominant game in town. Instead, the company has been at constant odds with Baltimore City officials and advocates over access to the internet services Baltimore children need for online learning.

Today, there’s a glaring inequity in one crucial area that guarantees inequity in myriad others: Internet access.

Social-media giants are under attack for censorship, but a few years ago they positioned themselves as champions of free speech. At issue was “net neutrality,” the Obama-era policy that treated internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T as common carriers—akin to the old Ma Bell monopoly—by prohibiting them from discriminating among content providers, including the social-media sites. Facebook and Twitter turned out to be more threatening than under threat.