Op-Ed

A group of senior communications experts, working with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, released its “Global Broadband Plan for Refugee Inclusion.” The detailed report calls for “all refugees, and the communities that host them, to have access to available, affordable and usable mobile and internet connectivity.” At first glance, the idea of devoting scarce resources to ensuring refugees can go online may sound misguided.

The lion’s share of discussion around the digital divide has centered around access, but the prices rural consumers are paying for the services available to them are worth paying attention to as well. According to our research, roughly 146 million rural Americans do not have access to a low-priced plan for wired broadband internet. That’s nearly 45 percent of the US population. We define “low-priced” as a broadband plan with a monthly cost less than or equal to the 20th percentile of all plan prices, or around $60 per month.

One of the first decisions a community needs to make in bringing broadband to residents is what sort of network to operate. Should the network be closed, with one Internet service provider providing service to residents; open and lit, providing the basic infrastructure for potentially competing ISPs; or open with dark fiber leased to competing ISPs? All three models have their proponents and detractors. In my experience and opinion, no one model is ideal for every community. Each option impacts how a community will build and operate a network, and each has advantages and disadvantages.

The disadvantages inherent to rural towns – geography, low population density and lack of fiber density – compound one another to make sourcing middle-mile transport unusually difficult for rural municipalities. In addition, incumbents that might provide backhaul generally aren’t thrilled with the prospect of losing market share. They may view municipal network initiatives as competitive threats and resist working with municipalities on sourcing middle-mile transport and/or lobby to fight them in their quest to modernize.

A stark spatial hierarchy is emerging in the United States. Big cities are ascendant, enjoying accelerated job growth in a knowledge-driven economy, while midsize cities, small metro areas and rural communities struggle to keep pace. These geographic fault lines have provoked a debate about how to revitalize rural America. What if the best way to rejuvenate small towns is to invest in cities? Proximity to cities does not solely explain rural prosperity. And some direct investments, such as broadband and rural entrepreneurship, can improve rural fortunes.

While telecommunication giants are boasting faster, unlimited wireless connectivity for their mobile phone users under the long-awaited fifth generation wireless network (5G), the energy industry is worried. Energy groups are warning regulators that a 5G rollout without securing adequate bandwidth for the sector could cause major harm to the nation’s electric grid and critical infrastructure.

When President Donald Trump unveiled his administration’s plan for “winning the race” to 5G, he neglected to mention that the US is building its network using a technology that’s inferior to what the rest of the planet will likely adopt.

The “digital divide” commonly refers to the question of who has access to the Internet, but at least when it comes to race and income, that gap is pretty insignificant. Policymakers are too busy bridging a fake divide to notice the real one right under their noses. The real divide is actually in time spent on screens, and there, the gap is enormous.

In the aftermath of [recent horrific mass shootings], some of the responses from internet companies include ideas that point in a disturbing direction: toward increasingly centralized and opaque censorship of the global internet. Facebook, for example, describes plans for an expanded role for the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, or GIFCT.

Recently, Tennessee made a smart investment in its digital future when the state awarded $14.8 million in funding to local broadband projects. This funding is a welcome recognition that local networks are really good at connecting Tennesseans to high-quality, reliable, affordable internet access. But Tennessee can do more. The state could expand next-generation internet access to an even greater number of households without spending a dollar by allowing municipal fiber optic networks to expand to areas that want their service.