Measuring broadband is an ongoing challenge for policymakers and, for many participants in broadband policy debates, often a source of frustration. The frustration about broadband measurement emanates from what seems knowable – at least it is about other infrastructure. We know where our roads and highways run. Today it is easy to know when they are clogged, where there are tolls, and how much those tolls cost. Electric infrastructure is essentially ubiquitous and it isn’t hard, in most places, to find out the cost of a kilowatt hour and compare prices among providers. Broadband is another story. For at least a decade, policymakers and other stakeholders have sought to better understand broadband – where networks run, how fast they are, how much service costs, and who uses it. Answers on those issues turn out neither to be simple nor agreed upon. How many Americans do not have access to network download speeds of 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) – the Federal Communications Commission’s definition of broadband? It could be 21 million or it could be 162 million. When you measure network speeds, what do you find is the average speed in the United States? It could be 72 Mbps, or possibly 119 Mbps, or maybe something else. How many people have broadband internet subscriptions at home? It could be more than 80% or it might be something like 70%. What follows is an overview of broadband’s measurement challenges and what they mean for policymakers and other stakeholders.

[John B. Horrigan is Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute, with a focus on technology adoption, digital inclusion, and evaluating the outcomes and impacts of programs designed to promote communications technology adoption and use. Horrigan is also currently a consultant to the Urban Libraries Council.]

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai sent letters to Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Joni Ernst (R-IA), Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Jon Tester (D-MT), and Rep. Tom O’Halleran (D-AZ) on July 31, 2019, and August 1, 2019, in response to their letters expressing concern with broadband mapping. Chairman Pai agreed updated and accurate broadband deployment data is critical to bridging the digital divide and said the FCC will consider an order at the FCC’s August Open Meeting that would result in more granular and accurate broadband maps through the creation of the digital opportunity data collection. Chairman Pai said these updated maps would be used to focus funding to expand broadband through future initiatives such as the second phase of the proposed rural digital opportunity fund.

California-based company Cloudfare, which is a market leader in web infrastructure, was thrust into the spotlight of international debate after abruptly terminating its contract with 8chan, the far-right internet forum known for perpetuating conspiracy theories and hate speech, in the wake of the El Paso shooting. Few of us think about the millions of servers facilitating our everyday online activity until they stop us from buying tickets to a hotly anticipated football match, music festival or theatre production. When you type a web address into your internet browser (Google Chrome, for example), your computer communicates with the server hosting that site to pull it on to your machine. The more servers supporting your site, the more visitors it can handle. While visiting the web pages of tech companies such as Facebook or Google, you’re likely using their specially-designed in-house servers. Cloudflare, a relatively late entrant in the brave new world of web infrastructure, was founded in 2009. It is among the best-known in its field, having received financial backing from the likes of Microsoft, Qualcomm and Google’s CapitalG. As of 2017, Cloudflare provided services to 19 million websites globally. Within minutes of losing Cloudflare’s global network of servers, 8chan became inaccessible and vulnerable to DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks.

CenturyLink said that it will invest “several hundred million dollars” in edge computing, following in the footsteps of AT&T and Verizon. AT&T and Verizon both have mobile businesses and with the advent of low-latency 5G networks, they and other mobile carriers are recognizing the need to minimize the distance between mobile users and the cloud. CenturyLink’s entry into edge computing suggests that the edge compute market may be like the fiber backhaul market— a mobile-driven opportunity even for non-mobile carriers. CenturyLink Senior Vice President of Product Management Paul Savill referenced wireless carriers as one of several target groups for the company’s edge compute offerings, along with enterprises, hyperscalers and systems integrators. “Forward-looking companies seeking the advantages of next-generation IoT, AI and machine learning applications increasingly need distributed solutions— from the local edge to the public cloud core— that combine compute, storage and networking in an integrated package,” CenturyLink said.

As the two-year anniversary of the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville approaches, civil rights and digital activists say Twitter has not done nearly enough to prevent white nationalists from spreading hate speech online. Twitter is facing increased pressure to take action following the mass shooting in El Paso, where the shooter—who appeared to embrace white nationalism—killed 22 people and injured dozens more. Patrick Crusius shared his anti-immigrant screed on the online message board 8chan. Following the shooting, Twitter users urged the tech company to also ban 8chan's verified account from its platform, using the hashtag "untwitter8chan." Some activists say Twitter is responsible for allowing far-right actors to spread violent ideologies on its platform.

"This is a sophisticated and organized international network designed to bring about white ethnostates," said Jessica J. González, the vice president of strategy and senior counsel at Free Press and co-founder of the Change the Terms coalition. There's been "incomprehensible levels of white supremacist and misogynist violence," in the two years since the 2017 rally, said González, adding that it's time for tech companies to take the steps to curb the spread of that violence online.

The incentives for foreign countries to meddle are much greater than in 2016, and the tactics could look dramatically different.

• The Hack and Leak: Overcome or Poised for a Comeback? It’s unclear whether the Russian government will reprise its most infamous and innovative act in 2016: the hacking and leaking of emails from the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
• The Dawn of a New Disinformation Age: Social-media giants such as Facebook and Twitter have grown far more sophisticated since 2016 at detecting and disabling coordinated foreign campaigns of misinformation and fake accounts, honing their approach based on challenges confronted not just during the US midterms but in elections everywhere from India to the European Union. These crackdowns, however, have exposed how the actors behind these schemes have multiplied beyond Russia and employed new tactics and tools to exert influence on political processes worldwide.
• The Soft Underbelly of America’s Election Infrastructure: While there’s no evidence that votes were altered or vote tallies manipulated during the 2016 US presidential election, the Russians likely targeted election systems in all 50 US states, including research on “election-related web pages, voter ID information, election system software, and election service companies.” Foreign actors could also try to make it harder for Americans to exercise the right to vote, perhaps by modifying voter-registration rolls, tampering with government mechanisms for informing voters when and where to vote, indirectly stifling the vote through attacks on systems such as the power grid.
• The Influence Hiding in Plain(ish) Sight: Governments can spread propaganda to American audiences through state-run news organizations such as China’s Global Times or Russia’s RT. And, perhaps the most common way for other countries to sway American politics and policy is through “dark money,” or other direct and indirect funding and influence channels—whether that comes in the form of U.S.-based foreign agents meeting with campaign officials abroad or American lobbyists making campaign contributions to American politicians while simultaneously working on behalf of foreign clients.