Universal Broadband

Discourse and interest in the digital divide research community is steadily shifting beyond access and adoption to utilization, impact, and outcomes of information and communications technologies (ICTs), particularly the internet. In the United States, studies and surveys conducted by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) indicate increase in internet use in every corner of the country over the last two decades. However, recent surveys on ICT use indicate significant disparities in dimensions of internet use. For example Americans’ use of the internet to pursue e-education, e-health, e-commerce, e-entertainment, and telecommuting has varied significantly – longitudinally as well as geographically. Additionally, internet use habits are rapidly expanding, providing new insights into the emerging internet of things, wearable technologies, and new forms of social media usage. As novel technologies and lifestyles emerge, analysis of new disparities and dimensions of the “usage digital divide” stemming from social, economic, societal, and environmental factors becomes important. This research examines spatial clusters, geographic disparities, and socio-economic dimensions of existing and emerging dimensions of internet use among the 50 U.S. states.

CenturyLink said in its semiannual report to the Federal Communications Commission that 53% of urban-area customers in the former Qwest territory can get speeds of 40 Mbps or higher. However, the number of customers that can get higher speeds in rural areas is far lower, showing again the divide between these markets. While the telecommunication company has seen some improvement over the past year, only 24.1% of its rural-area Qwest customers can get access to a 40 Mbps connection. A key contributing factor to this disparity is the challenge of deploying copper-based broadband.

[Commentary] Twelve senators wrote to the Federal Communications Commission expressing concern regarding the agency’s latest Notice of Inquiry. The senators’ letter echoes many arguments pressed by various interest groups which seem misguided, or at least premature, given that the agency is simply asking questions to get better information about the state of the industry. But congressional opposition to the Notice of Inquiry is especially odd, given that the proceeding is, well, required by Congress. They are concerned that the agency might conclude that some Americans access internet-based services on mobile networks rather than fixed broadband networks. And while this would give the agency a more complete view of how Americans access “advanced telecommunications capability,” their unstated concern is that it might also show that fewer of us are internet-impoverished, which undermines the case for regulation.

Sept 8, three research papers using National Telecommunications & Information Administration's Digital Nation survey data will be presented at the 45th Research Conference on Communications, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC) an annual conference attended by researchers, policymakers, and advocates from the public, academic, and private sectors. The papers serve as instructive examples of how researchers can take NTIA's survey data beyond the basic metrics to offer unique and valuable insights into Internet use in America. Policy staff from NTIA will present one of the papers, which examines the connection between digital and financial inclusion. Another paper - a TPRC Student Paper Contest winner - comes from a student from Oklahoma State University Stillwater who wrote about the behavioral relationships behind the increases in mobile-only households. And researchers from the University of Redlands School of Business used NTIA data to examine geographic patterns of Internet use in U.S. states.

As students across the country head back to school this week, you might imagine their school leaders consumed by last-minute hiring decisions, meetings with principals and other school leaders, and ongoing management of the district’s finances and facilities. But for Pam Moran, superintendent of Albemarle County Public Schools in Virginia, there’s another topic weighing on her mind: the district’s broadband infrastructure—or the network of equipment and technologies needed to provide high-speed internet service to Albemarle’s classrooms.

Over the past decade since she began leading Albemarle’s schools, she’s been at the helm of the digital transformation reshaping the district. The tools, then, exist to help districts to bridge the digital divide for their students. The problem is that many districts don’t have access to these tools. Places like Albemarle Schools provide a clear example of how school districts can close the digital divide; now we need to address the barriers that keep other districts from following suit.

I’m going to talk about what the Federal Communications Commission is doing to promote innovation and investment across the Internet ecosystem. Along with security, people primarily look to government leaders to help create the conditions that make it easier for the private sector to deliver economic growth, jobs, and personal opportunity. And to grow our economy, create jobs, and expand opportunity in a world that’s gone digital, we need world-leading Internet infrastructure that serves as a platform for innovation and entrepreneurship.

[Commentary] What does gigabit civic engagement look like? The initial winners of the Charles Benton Next Generation Engagement Award demonstrate not just what “could be” but what “is”. Civic engagement is about working to make a positive difference in the life of our communities. It is about developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values, and motivation to make that difference. It means improving the quality of life in a community, through both political and non-political processes. An engaged individual recognizes himself or herself as a member of the larger social fabric and, therefore, considers social problems to be at least partly his or her own. Such an individual is willing to see the community-wide dimensions of issues, to make and justify informed decisions, and to take action for the benefit of the community. My father spent a lifetime advocating for a holistic approach combining access to fast, fair, and open communications networks and the training to develop 21st century skills. He undoubtedly would have been extremely proud that his name is attached to this award and to the project winners in Louisville, Kentucky; Austin, Texas; and Raleigh, North Carolina.

Mapping analyses of AT&T’s 2016 broadband deployment data reported to the Federal Communications Commission for Wayne County, MI, (Detroit) and Lucas County, OH, (Toledo) show the same pattern of “digital redlining” of low income neighborhoods as National Digital Inclusion Alliance research has previously revealed in the Cleveland and Dayton areas.

The new maps, showing Census blocks in the two counties where AT&T offers fast fiber-enhanced “VDSL” broadband service — and blocks where it doesn’t — are part of NDIA’s ongoing research into the FCC’s Form 477 Fixed Broadband Deployment data for June 2016. NDIA has found a high correlation between neighborhoods where AT&T has chosen not to deploy the newer fiber-to-the-neighborhood technology, and those with poverty rates of 35 percent or more. In areas where the company hasn’t installed VDSL capacity, households as well as small businesses are still dependent on older, slower, all-copper ADSL2 service with maximum downloads speeds as low as 1.5 mbps or even 768 kbps.

Can the “smart” and the “inclusive” come together in a way to make our cities better places to live for everyone? An answer in the affirmative is possible, but not inevitable.

For this to happen, stakeholders—mayors, businesspeople, and community leaders—must have an appreciation of three things:

1. The smart city and the inclusive city are very different
2. One (inclusiveness) does not follow necessarily from the other (a smart city).
3. Action is necessary to bridge the gap between a smart and an inclusive

Modernizing Lifeline for broadband is critical for poor people and people of color, who are more likely to be on the wrong side of the digital divide and who cite cost as a major barrier to adoption. Lifeline is the only federal program poised to increase broadband adoption and provide a pathway out of poverty for millions of people. When talking about Lifeline, we hear a lot about waste, fraud and abuse. But this narrative is overblown and frankly offensive.

I have long been troubled by the tenor of the Lifeline debate: There’s a tendency to wage war on the poor, to demonize and assume the worst about Lifeline recipients. And I cannot sit here today, especially as white supremacy is on the rise around the country and in the White House, without directly confronting the racist undertones of these assumptions. We should avoid inflated stories of waste, fraud and abuse at the expense of poor people and people of color, who rely on Lifeline to meet basic needs. The first priority should be expedient implementation of the 2016 Order. We should reject radical measures such as moving Universal Service funds to the U.S. Treasury “to offset other national debts,” as the FCC Chair’s office evidently suggested to the GAO. This could undermine all USF programs, including Lifeline and others designed to connect rural Americans, schools and libraries.