Senate hearing (117th Congress), ENSURING SOLUTIONS TO MEET AMERICA'S BROADBAND NEEDS
Summary
Transcript of S. Hrg. 117-900, "Ensuring Solutions to Meet America's Broadband Needs," a December 13, 2022 hearing of the Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, chaired by Ben Ray Lujan with John Thune as Ranking member. Witnesses were Kimball Sekaquaptewa of the Connect New Mexico Council and Santa Fe Indian School, Hon. Michael Powell of NCTA, The Internet & Television Association, Jonathan Spalter of USTelecom and Angela Siefer of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. The appendix includes a letter dated December 12, 2022 from Marc H. Morial of the National Urban League and the Lewis Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and Inclusion. A closing statement describes community outreach for the ACP program.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Senate hearing (117th Congress), ENSURING SOLUTIONS TO MEET AMERICA'S BROADBAND NEEDS.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/senate-hearing-117th-congress-ensuring-solutions-to-meet-america-s-bro-7758e82051/
, SHA-256 f63fb1c7e4c8e6f1ae41365f002644548dee6984127c4d92dba3ea407bbfd838.Full text
[Senate Hearing 117-900]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-900
ENSURING SOLUTIONS TO MEET AMERICA'S
BROADBAND NEEDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA,
AND BROADBAND
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 13, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-049 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia Virginia
RICK SCOTT, Florida
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
Lila Helms, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
John Keast, Republican Staff Director
Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Steven Wall, General Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA, AND BROADBAND
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico, Chair JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROY BLUNT, Missouri
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GARY PETERS, Michigan DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE LEE, Utah
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado Virginia
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 13, 2022................................ 1
Statement of Senator Lujan....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 4
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 26
Letter dated December 8, 2022 to Hon. Charles Schumer, Hon.
Mitch McConnell, Hon. Nancy Pelosi and Hon. Kevin McCarthy
from Competitive Carriers Association, Information
Technology Industry Council (ITI), NATE: The Communications
Infrastructure Contractors Association, NTCA--The Rural
Broadband Association, Rural Wireless Association,
Telecommunications Industry Association, Wireless
Infrastructure Association, and WTA--Advocates for Rural
Broadband.................................................. 28
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 32
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 34
Statement of Senator Sinema...................................... 36
Statement of Senator Baldwin..................................... 38
Statement of Senator Young....................................... 39
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 41
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 43
Statement of Senator Capito...................................... 45
Statement of Senator Lummis...................................... 47
Witnesses
Kimball Sekaquaptewa, Chair, Connect New Mexico Council; Chief
Technology Director, Santa Fe Indian School.................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Michael Powell, President and CEO, NCTA, The Internet &
Television Association......................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO, USTelecom................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Angela Siefer, Executive Director, National Digital Inclusion
Alliance....................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Appendix
Letter dated December 12, 2022 to Hon. Ray Ben Lujan from Marc H.
Morial, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Urban
League......................................................... 59
Report: National Urban League--Lewis Latimer Plan for Digital
Equity and Inclusion........................................... 61
Letter dated December 13, 2022 to Hon. Ray Ben Lujan and Hon.
John Thune from Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, Public
Knowledge...................................................... 196
Letter dated December 13, 2022 to Hon. Ray Ben Lujan and Hon.
John Thune from Meredith Attwell Baker, President and CEO, CTIA 199
Letter dated January 5, 2023 to Hon. Ray Ben Lujan and Hon. John
Thune from Angie Kronenberg, President, INCOMPAS............... 201
Article dated October 19, 2022 entitled, ``Dollars to Megabits,
You May Be Paying 400 Times As Much As Your Neighbor for
Internet Service,'' by Leon Yin and Aaron Sankin, The Markup... 204
Broadband report dated November 17, 2022 entitled, ``Broadband
Pricing: What Consumer Reports Learned from 22,000 Internet
Bills'' by Jonathan Schwantes.................................. 210
Report entitled, ``Closing the Digital Divide Benefits Everyone,
Not Just the Disconnected'' by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in
partnership with Common Sense.................................. 243
Response to written questions submitted to Kimball Sekaquaptewa
by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 277
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 279
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 280
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 281
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Michael Powell
by:
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 282
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 283
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 283
Response to written questions submitted to Jonathan Spalter by:
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 284
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 284
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 285
Hon. Roger Wicker............................................ 285
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 286
Response to written question submitted to Angela Siefer by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 286
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 287
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 287
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 288
ENSURING SOLUTIONS TO MEET AMERICA'S BROADBAND NEEDS
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and
Broadband,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ben Ray
Lujan, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lujan [presiding], Klobuchar, Blumenthal,
Peters, Tester, Sinema, Rosen, Thune, Fischer, Moran,
Blackburn, Young, Capito, Scott, and Lummis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. Well, good morning, everyone. I call the
hearing before the Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and
Broadband, on ``Ensuring Solutions to Meet America's Broadband
Needs'', to order. I want to thank Ranking Member Thune for
working with me to hold this hearing. And thank you to our
witnesses for your testimony and your participation.
Congress provided $65 billion for broadband in the
bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to
fundamentally reshape the landscape of connectivity in the
United States. The law deploys broadband, supports adoption,
and requires new rules for inclusion and equity.
This is a historic, bipartisan commitment to close the
digital divide and ensure that everyone is able to participate
in the digital economy in our interconnected world. I want to
acknowledge what we have accomplished so far.
But now it is time to have a different conversation about
putting those resources to work. Congress must ensure that our
Federal, tribal, State, and local partners are able to deploy
these resources efficiently to address real need and not just
maximize opportunities and profits.
Every village, colonial, tribe, and pueblo in New Mexico
and across the Nation deserves equal access to the
opportunities that this law provides. Congress has good reason
to be vigilant regarding the use of these funds. It is going to
be important that there are guardrails, prudent oversight, and
that the investment flows to areas where it is needed most.
Just as historic inequities and redlining in the housing
and financial industries meant low income and communities of
color were left unserved by housing and access to banking,
digital redlining has resulted in worse service at higher
prices for those same communities.
An investigation published by the markup in October in
partnership with the Associated Press, showed that many
Internet service providers offered their worst deals to
formerly redlined neighborhoods.
This article demonstrates why it is so important that the
FCC implement meaningful new rules to prevent this digital
discrimination related to broadband. As public and private
partners deploy new broadband programs, Congress must ensure
Federal funds meet the needs on the ground, not deepen existing
racial and socioeconomic inequities.
We must also work with administration--or sorry, we must
also work with Administrator Davidson and the National
Telecommunication and Information Administration to allocate
funds according to the true state of access to affordable
broadband as required by law. With the Broadband Data Act,
Congress provided direction and funding to the Federal
Communications Commission to develop cutting edge broadband
maps.
These maps have already proven to be a leap forward in
understanding broadband availability in the United States. I am
deeply grateful for the work Chairman Rosenworcel and the FCC
have done in the area of implementing the Broadband Data Act,
and NTIA will use these maps to make funding allocations for
the $42.5 billion made available through the Broadband Equity
Access and Deployment, which will probably be calling BEAD
today.
But the initial version of these maps still needs work. The
version largely relies on self-reported data from broadband
providers. Now, the example that I will give here shows where
there was much data that was missing. Whole communities were
missing from the fabric of these maps, like in my state,
Shiprock, New Mexico, which is out in the four corners on the
Navajo Nation, and Conchita Pueblo in New Mexico we are not
included.
We cannot afford to get this wrong. Fortunately, the bill
recognized that local communities have the best knowledge of
their own connectivity issues, and it required the FCC to
include a robust challenge process.
We want to encourage everyone across the country to learn
about this challenge process, to learn about the app that was
developed by the Federal Communications Commission, learn how
to use it, and just check the speeds at your house or your
business or your schools. And if they are not, as reported on
the map site, use the map and let's get better data. NTIA
should ensure funding allocations use the most accurate data
available.
I will continue to work closely with the Commission and
communities on the ground to ensure the maps represent the true
state of broadband availability in New Mexico and across the
country. We must also continue to find long term solutions to
make broadband access equitable across the United States.
That is why I introduced the Digital Equity Foundation Act
to create an ongoing source of funds for digital literacy,
equity, and inclusion on an ongoing and sustained basis. As the
pace of technological development continues to accelerate, we
will always have a divide between those who have access and
those who need it.
We must weave digital equity into the fabric of
connectivity in America. This bill would supplement the
existing digital equity program that was included in the
bipartisan infrastructure bill. It would create a permanent
foundation to ensure long term nationwide initiatives that can
truly reshape the future of the United States, in addition
through funding and working to strengthen digital equity for
programs like BEAD and tribal broadband, and of course, for
affordable connectivity.
We will need to find permanent funding for every one of
these important priorities that we have worked on together.
Today, tens of millions of Americans do not have a choice
between Internet service providers. Their options are limited
to whoever has cable running to their apartment or fiber to
their houses or wireless service in their valley. There are too
many communities where market forces have failed.
Congress acted to ensure that the millions of Americans who
do not currently have access to affordable broadband gain
access. I look forward to our discussion today that will focus
on making that a reality and to identify additional needs that
might require additional Congressional action.
I am very honored that our witnesses joined us today, and
Mr. Thune, all in person, which I certainly appreciate. Kimball
Sekaquaptewa who is a fellow New Mexican and someone that I
have enjoyed getting to know throughout the years and watching
her work, who is the Chair of the Connect New Mexico Council
and Chief Technology Director for the Santa Fe Indian School.
She has been a tireless advocate for connecting unconnected
communities across New Mexico, and I deeply appreciate her
presence today, and I look forward to hearing more about what
has been accomplished and how it might help connect more people
across America. Jonathan Spalter was the President and CEO of
USTelecom.
The Broadband Association, USTelecom represents a diverse
set of telecommunication providers across the country working
to expand connectivity through a variety of new and established
technologies. The Honorable Michael Powell is President and CEO
of NCTA, the Internet and Television Association.
Mr. Powell is former Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, and now represents most of the cable market and
some of the largest residential broadband providers in the
United States. And finally, Angela Siefer, who is the Executive
Director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. She has
been a tireless advocate for digital inclusion and equity
efforts nationwide.
Thank you all for being here. I look forward to this
conversation. And I would just add that this conversation is
taking place at a time that we have four FCC Commissioners. And
I am certainly hopeful that there is an up or down vote that
can be scheduled on the Senate floor over Gigi Sohn's
nomination, and I am calling on a vote to take place.
Many of us have been asking for a vote to take place for a
while. There were several voices, including mine, that
advocated for nominations a year before they took place, I
think, and even the reconfirmation of the chair and others. So
I am hopeful that we can have a full Commission soon.
One final note, while this might be my last opportunity to
preside over a subcommittee hearing this year, my deepest
thanks to Ranking Member Wicker in his tenure as the Ranking
Republican Member of the Commerce committee as well, who has
shaped national broadband policy, including the Broadband Data
Act and many others.
Much of what we will discuss today were possible through
the hard work of Senator Wicker and his staff to put these
efforts in place, including Olivia Trusty, John Lynn, Kelsey
Guyselman, and Matthew Hamilton. The Armed Services committee
is going to be very fortunate to have Mr. Wicker as part of
that committee as well.
I also want to recognize Chair Cantwell and her staff for
their support this Congress, including former staff John
Branscome, Shawn Bone, Brian McDermott, and Mary Claire York,
and then current staff Christi Barnhart, Mary Huang, and Harsha
Mudaliar, and Wes Platt.
I want to thank them all for the work that they do
tirelessly every day, and then turn this over to Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for having
today's hearing. And let me begin by saying that it has been a
pleasure to lead this subcommittee with you these past couple
of years, and I look forward to continue working with you on a
number of important issues before this subcommittee next
Congress.
And one of those issues is ensuring that Americans have
access to reliable broadband services. The expansion of these
services to more rural areas has long been a priority of mine
here in the U.S. Senate.
And since March 2020, Congress has allocated billions of
dollars for broadband related services through COVID-19
pandemic relief packages, and most recently through passage of
the infrastructure bill which has provided broadband funding at
a price tag of over $64 billion.
The nearly $80 billion for broadband specific projects, on
top of the billions of dollars the FCC disburses annually under
its Universal Service Fund, is an unprecedented amount of
money.
The good news is that for those areas where certain
connectivity challenges remain unresolved, this funding, in
addition to the sustained investments made by
telecommunications providers across the country, should help
close the digital divide.
The bad news is that this funding is spread out over 15
separate agencies and 133 programs, with the lion's share of
the funding going through NTIA. This is deeply concerning. As I
argued in Congress, was debating the infrastructure bill, NTIA
has previously fumbled attempts to bring broadband access to
more communities.
Back in 2009, the stimulus bill allocated $4.7 billion to
NTIA to expand broadband access in rural and underserved areas.
It didn't go very well. The agency struggled with
implementation. There were serious issues with a number of the
projects the agency approved. Other projects resulted in a
significant amount of overbuilding, meaning that they resulted
in the construction of additional broadband infrastructure in
areas that already had access to reliable broadband at the
taxpayers' expense.
More recently, last year, NTIA called for volunteers to
help determine how to allocate the $1.5 billion Congress
provided NTIA for certain broadband programs. That is
unacceptable, and I am afraid without stringent oversight, NTIA
will make and has already made the same mistakes when managing
the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment
Program and Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program.
That is why last week I began an oversight effort to review
the numerous Federal broadband programs. Oversight of how these
dollars are being spent is necessary to avoid agencies misusing
billions of taxpayer dollars, more importantly, to ensure the
funding is actually going to areas that are truly unserved.
If there are changes that need to be made to the various
programs Congress has established, we need to get to work to
make sure they are as effective as possible and that they work
as Congress intended.
One such program we have begun work to make necessary
improvements to is USDA's Reconnect Program. I was pleased to
partner with Chair Lujan and Senators Klobuchar and Fischer in
introducing the Rural Internet Improvement Act, legislation
that will streamline USDA's broadband authorities and target
funding to areas most in need.
We must also recognize the Federal Government will not
solve the digital divide on its own. It is important we
maintain a regulatory framework that promotes investment and
allows telecommunications companies to make the kind of choices
that have resulted in strong networks.
Unlike other countries, broadband providers in the United
States were able to keep Americans connected when demands for
fixed and mobile networks soared during the pandemic. This is
largely because of the United States' light touch regulatory
approach to broadband policy, which has incentivized the
private sector to make network reliability, affordability, and
resiliency a priority.
Finally, we must tackle permitting hurdles that delay the
buildout of broadband infrastructure. My MOBILE NOW Act, which
was signed into law in 2018, has been an effective tool in
moving the Federal Government in the right direction. But I
continue to hear concerns about unnecessary delays and costs
associated with broadband permitting.
The agencies processing permitting requests need to be held
accountable if they are not meeting deadlines, which is why
today I am sending a request to several Federal agencies on the
steps that they have taken to implement MOBILE NOW's broadband
siting mandates.
For too long we have talked about bridgeting--bridging, I
should say, the digital divide. It is time to actually do it.
And the only way that happens is if this committee actually
utilizes its important oversight responsibilities to ensure
that agencies under its jurisdiction make smart, targeted
investments that use taxpayer dollars responsibly.
Anything short of that will result in Government waste
leaving Americans still unconnected. I want to thank each of
the witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to the
discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Thune. I appreciate
that. And we will now recognize our witnesses for 5 minutes
each for their testimony. And we will begin with Kimball
Sekaquaptewa of New Mexico. Kimball.
STATEMENT OF KIMBALL SEKAQUAPTEWA, CHAIR, CONNECT NEW MEXICO
COUNCIL; CHIEF TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR, SANTA FE INDIAN SCHOOL
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Thank you, Chair Lujan. My name is
Kimball Sekaquaptewa, you can call me Kimball, from the Hopi
tribe, and a mother of three in the Pueblo of Cochiti. Please
note that while our shared tribal experience is largely a rural
experience, it is well known that New Mexico is one of the
least connected states in the country, in large part due to the
rugged and rocky terrain and sparse population density.
In my community, the wireline ISP offerings have not
changed in 20 years. In short, there are none. Until I
completed my first fiber optic network in 2018, the entire
tribal government, a public library, shared a 3.0 mbps
connection over a bonded TI.
As the Chief Technology Director for the Santa Fe Indian
School, it was my duty to provide Internet connectivity to our
700 students who, during COVID-19, we sent home to 23 rural
tribal communities, some of the least connected lands in the
United States.
In fact, 89 percent of our students did not have Internet
access that met the FCC performance benchmark of 25/3. Those
that did lived in town. If there was a silver lining, it was
that we could build on previous efforts. In 2016, I leveraged
the FCC's Schools and Libraries E-rate Program to create a
consortia of tribal schools and libraries to bring high speed
Internet to six pueblos.
Our goal was to provide our pueblo students with the same
college and career opportunities as their more affluent peers.
Realizing that our work reached beyond education, the tribes
self-invested in additional infrastructure for improved
governance and focused efforts such as health care.
With their new fiber backhaul, it was these tribes who were
able to pivot and deploy residential Internet access during the
pandemic. Some now participate in the Affordable Connectivity
Program as service providers.
Fast forward to 2022, the work continues. Thanks to the
NTIA Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, the Santa Fe Indian
School is constructing a 324 mile route to three more pueblos
and remote tribal lands. TBCP springboards tribal efforts to
connect unserved homes and anchor institutions, and our
experience has proven that we can be our own solution to the
digital divide.
It is also true that until the iterative FCC broadband
fabric matures, tribal self-certification of broadband
availability is essential. In my rural community, the map
currently shows three residences when it should show 275. In
total, the Santa Fe Indian School will have placed 500 miles of
middle mile fiber, which is equally important for the state of
New Mexico as it is for the tribes.
Given the NTIA open network requirement, private industry
will not have to bear those expensive costs to build these
routes and will have access to fiber backhaul to improve and
extend their last mile networks. For too long, providers have
built around sovereign lands when in fact we are the critical
partners to achieve right-of-way and navigate permitting
processes, along with the Federal agencies having oversight.
As Chair of the Connect New Mexico Council, and with my
colleagues, we steward the deployment of scalable, reliable,
affordable broadband to connect every New Mexican utilizing
both State funds and the upcoming IIJA BEAD Program.
In addition, in New Mexico, we created a pilot grant with
BEAD like NOFO requirements, and I can see formidable barriers
to participation. While local government and tribes are
eligible as BEAD grantees, functionally, the stringent
requirements for matching funds, letters of credit, and
professional engineering stamps discourage participation.
These requirements favor better resourced ISPs who will
apply to serve their next best markets. As a nation, we run the
risk of maintaining the status quo and missing the most
underserved communities without local flexibility to administer
federally funded programs. The rush to use the FCC fabric map
compounds the issue.
We estimate that the fabric is missing tens of thousands of
unserved homes and anchor institutions such as small schools,
health care centers, houses of worship in New Mexico,
potentially shortchanging our state by up to $500 million in
funding, an educated guess because the way the funding formula
will work is still unknown.
We ask NTIA to extend the January 13, 2023, deadline to
have more time to challenge the missing location to the FCC's
preliminary broadband map. Last, I submit that the solution to
bridge the digital divide in the United States does not lie in
a methodology limited to a conventional ISP approach.
In that, I refer to a broader broadband ecosystem. For
instance, only half of the states in the country have state
education networks, an approach that is not currently
incentivized. The development of State education networks has
the ancillary benefit of installing middle mile infrastructure,
enabling last mile deployments.
The way that the fabric currently counts anchor
institutions minimizes the role that they can play to provide
systemic solutions. Uplifting these corollary broadband efforts
creates a holistic approach, one that is needed to solve the
complexity of broadband access for all. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sekaquaptewa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kimball Sekaquaptewa, Chair, Connect New Mexico
Council; Chief Technology Director, Santa Fe Indian School
My name is Kimball Sekaquaptewa, please call me Kimball, from the
Hopi Tribe of Arizona and a mother to three children of the Pueblo de
Cochiti. I am joining you here today from Santa Fe, New Mexico. Please
note that while I share a tribal experience, it is largely a rural
experience. It is well-known that New Mexico is one of the least
connected states in the country in large part due to the rugged and
rocky terrain and sparse population density, resulting in extremely
high construction costs with limited return on investment. In fact, in
my home community, the wireline ISP offerings have not changed in 20
years, in short there are none. Until I built my first fiber optic
backbone in 2018, the entire tribal government and public library
shared a bonded T1 of 3.0 Mbps. As the Chief Technology Director for
the Santa Fe Indian School it was my duty to provide Internet
connectivity to our students who we sent home abruptly in March 2020
with the onset of COVID-19, to 23 rural/tribal communities who we know
to be the least connected lands in the United States. In fact, in a
survey of families, we learned that 89 percent of our students did not
have Internet Access that met the FCC performance benchmark of 25/3.
Those that did lived in town.
If there was a silver lining it was that we could build on previous
efforts. Leveraging the FCC Schools and Libraries E-rate, I led a
consortium of tribal schools and libraries to bring high speed
affordable Internet into six Pueblo communities. Our goal was to
provide our Pueblo students the same college and career opportunities
as their more affluent urban peers. Our tribal leaders realized that
our work reached beyond education and invested private funds to add
broadband infrastructure for improved governance, healthcare, and
environmental protection. With their existing fiber backhaul, it was
these communities who were able to pivot and deploy residential
Internet access during the pandemic.
Fast forward to 2022, the collaborations continue. Thanks to a NTIA
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP) program, the Santa Fe
Indian School is constructing a 324-mile route to three more Pueblos
and remote tribal lands. I can't overstate the importance of this
historic tribal broadband opportunity. The program springboards tribal
efforts to connect the unserved homes and anchor institutions because
our experience has proven that are our own solution to the digital
divide. It is also true that until the iterative FCC Broadband Fabric
map matures that tribal self-certification of broadband availability
used to determine TBCP eligibility is essential. In my rural community,
the map currently shows 3 residences when it should show 275.
In total, the TBCP supports us to place 500 miles of middle-mile
fiber in New Mexico and these connections are equally as important for
the State of New Mexico, as they are for the tribes themselves. Given
the NTIA open network requirements, private industry will not have to
bear expensive costs to build these routes and will have access to
fiber backhaul to improve and extend their last-mile networks.
Thinking of tribes as partners and not just recipients of service,
is a paradigm shift to solve rural connectivity in all states with
tribal nations. For too long, providers have built around sovereign
lands, when in fact, we are the critical partners and hold the skills
to achieve right-of-way and navigate the permitting processes on tribal
lands with the Federal agencies having oversight.
Looking ahead, the financial sustainability of emerging tribal
networks is paramount. While the current grants provide the capital
funding, operations and management require on-going support. Our Tribal
ISPs are increasingly participating in the Affordable Connectivity
Program as providers but the future of this program is uncertain.
Alternatively, FCC could provide a pathway for emerging ISPs to access
Lifeline through a modification of the ETC designation.
As Chair of the Connect New Mexico Council and together with my
colleagues, we steward the broadband infrastructure deployment effort
to connect every New Mexican to scalable, reliable, affordable
broadband. With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA) and the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD)
Program we have a generational opportunity to create a connected
nation. In New Mexico, we have implemented a pilot grant like the BEAD-
like NOFO requirements, and I can see formidable barriers to
participation. While local governments are eligible grantees,
functionally, the stringent requirements for matching funds, letters of
credit, and professional engineering stamps prohibit participation.
These requirements favor better resourced ISPs, who will apply to serve
their next best markets. As a nation, we run the risk of replicating
the status quo and missing the most underserved communities without
local flexibility to the federally-funded programs.
The rush to use the FCC Fabric map, compounds the issue. In New
Mexico, we estimate that the Fabric is missing tens of thousands of
unserved broadband serviceable locations, potentially shortchanging NM
by up to $500M in the funding allocation. Yet the number is a
guesstimate because the way the formula funding will work is still
unknown. In addition, the map does not include many small schools,
libraries, health care providers, houses of worship and other community
anchor institutions and we fear those institutions will not receive
broadband because of being left off the map. We ask the NTIA to extend
the January 13, 2023 deadline to allow challenges for the missing
locations to the FCC's preliminary broadband map, so they can be
counted appropriately.
Lastly, I submit the solution to bridge the digital divide in the
United States does not lie in a methodology limited to a conventional
ISP approach. In that I refer to a broader broadband ecosystem. For
instance, only half of the states in the country have state education
networks--an approach that is not currently incentivized. Yet the
development of state education networks has the ancillary benefit of
installing middle-mile infrastructure for an entire state and enables
last mile deployments. However, to encourage, or even allow these
proven strategies, our methodology must match. The way that the Fabric
currently counts anchor institutions, minimizes that role they can play
to provide systemic solutions. Uplifting these corollary broadband
efforts creates a holistic approach, one that is needed to solve the
complexity of broadband access for all.
Thank you for allowing me to share the story of my last decade's
contribution and work to ensure solutions to meet America's broadband
needs for now and for the future.
Senator Lujan. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Next, we will hear from the Honorable Michael Powell, the
President and CEO of NCTA.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL POWELL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NCTA, THE
INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Powell. Thank you very much, Chair Lujan, Ranking
Member Thune, members of the Committee. I am honored to be with
you today. I am Michael Powell, President and CEO of NCTA, the
Internet and Television Association, and our members have
invested hundreds of billions of dollars over 20 years to bring
high speed, high quality broadband to 90 percent of households.
And while we are proud of that achievement, we recognize
that the work is undone. Many of our members would love to
serve rural and unserved parts of the country but are unable to
do so because they are cost prohibitive without public support.
For that reason, we are extremely excited, motivated, and
committed to work with Congress and community organizations to
make this last great opportunity a resounding success over the
next couple of years. It is not an exaggeration to say this is
a once in a generation opportunity for three reasons.
First is the amount of money appropriated is genuinely
unprecedented. It is ten times the amount of money that was
allocated and authorized during the BEAD Program in 2009, and
it really addresses the core concern in many unserved areas.
Simply put, it is too costly to serve with too little
revenue to continue to operate throughout the network without a
loss. This scale of resources provides the first meaningful
opportunity to genuinely close the digital divide and so we are
very excited about that.
The second area that really represents true wisdom on the
part of this committee in Congress is to insist that the FCC
develop more granular broadband maps. For too long, we have
used maps that are out of date, well understood to have
overstated the number of areas that are served.
That is a serious problem in targeting resources in an
efficient and significant way. We are very excited about that.
The FCC has made a gallant effort at the first draft. I think
it is commendable. It is a very difficult task. But there are
many, many rounds of improving the data quality, ensure that
those maps are accurate in the ways that Chair Lujan was
referencing.
Third, and I think less discussed, is that Congress took a
fresh approach to addressing adoption and affordability. Fresh
in that it focused on direct credits to consumers in order to
afford high quality service.
Put simply, combined with the kinds of offerings ISPs have
agreed to provide, eligible low income families will be able to
access broadband essentially for free, and just as importantly,
have the freedom to choose the plans that most suit their
family needs. This is a great improvement. But we know from
past experience it is going to take a lot more than money.
It is going to take excellent execution of the program. As
Senator Thune mentioned, these are 130 programs with a lot of
money being funneled through 15 different agencies. Gosh, what
could go wrong? In our past experience, we have lessons that
tell us what will go wrong, and I would like to highlight just
a few.
The first is failing to maintain discipline in targeting
the most unserved areas. I follow the family dinner rule.
Nobody should get seconds till everybody's been served.
Frequently in past programs, this is the biggest error that's
repeatedly made. Money will always work hard to get to more
economic communities if allowed to in areas where there is
already broadband, where the economics are more sound.
It will require discipline on the part of regulators to
ensure that that doesn't happen. The second important thing to
do is remove obstacles the Federal Government and other
Government agencies have within their power. Here I speak
specifically of permitting, both on Federal lands and local
communities, as well as access to poles. Put directly, poles
are the lifeline to reach rural America.
If you do not have access to them at reasonable rates, you
will not reach those communities, plain and simple. Next is the
importance of maintaining discipline against regulatory creep.
These kinds of programs always have a tendency to attract
layered on regulatory requirements that are tangential to the
mission of the program.
The consequence of that is it creates more complexity,
additional burden, and raises the cost of an already fragile
cost model. We should resist the temptation to do that as much
as conceivably possible.
And finally, we have experienced all too often the presence
of waste, fraud, and abuse. While we see a set of taxpayer
resources to solve an important public policy problem, there
will be people who see it as a honeypot and will endeavor to
find every scheme possible to take as much of that money as
they can.
We have seen that before. That requires real
accountability, real transparency, clear criteria, a Government
that explains its decisions in issuing grants clearly and make
them publicly available. So thank you very much for having me
today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael K. Powell, President and CEO, NCTA--The
Internet & Television Association
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Michael Powell, and I am the President and CEO of NCTA--The Internet &
Television Association. It is a privilege to appear before you to
discuss our efforts to ensure that all Americans have access to
reliable, high speed broadband services.
The cable industry is proud of its role in delivering high-speed
broadband to America. We have invested hundreds of billions of dollars
over the past three decades, but there are areas that remain
economically hard to reach due to many factors, including their
remoteness, challenging terrain, and low density. In the shadow of the
COVID crisis, Congress attacked this problem by appropriating
unprecedented levels of funding. These resources will be administered
through a variety of federal, state, and local agencies, with the goal
of closing deployment and adoption gaps, and getting all Americans
connected. Working in private-public partnerships, this funding
presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to overcome the economic
obstacles that have limited network expansion in rural, high-cost areas
and to address the issues that slow broadband adoption.
These programs offer great promise, but there are substantial
challenges in effectively administering this complex effort. Success
will require sharp focus and resolve to direct resources where they are
most needed. Past attempts have often failed because resources were
mistargeted, or poorly administered by both government agencies and
ineffective providers. We cannot allow that to happen this time.
Congress's continued oversight of the programs that disburse this
massive expenditure is essential if we hope to celebrate closing the
digital divide in years to come. This hearing is a welcome start.
NCTA is deeply committed to this mission. Working cooperatively
with the government, we will do everything in our power to achieve
Congress's goal of reaching every community and citizen with robust,
high-quality broadband service. Accomplishing this mission requires
policies that address three critical objectives:
(1) Encourage significant private investment in the construction of
next generation networks, including government action to remove
barriers that slow deployment such as permitting delays and
pole access;
(2) Target government funding to areas that are unserved. Experience
shows that support is often siphoned to areas that are more
economical to serve and already have broadband, leaving too
many communities still waiting for Internet access. Public
spending is essential to overcoming geographic and economic
barriers that leave unserved communities on the wrong side of
the gap; and
(3) Promote broadband adoption. This challenge is two-fold: (1) we
need to effectively offer financial support to low income
communities, and (2) work with experienced community
organizations to raise awareness of available support and teach
digital skills to those who have access to broadband, but don't
subscribe.
Let me now address each of the components in a bit more detail.
Cable's Private Investment Enabled the Widespread Deployment of
Broadband Networks, But Obstacles to Reaching Some Communities
Remain
NCTA members lead the Nation in building best in-class broadband
networks in rural counties and urban cities throughout the United
States. Fueled by private capital, cable broadband networks connect 82
million broadband households. More than 90 percent of American
households have access to cable high-speed broadband--including 55
percent of rural homes--and NCTA's members are committed to reaching
many more. This year, and every year, cable spends between $17 and $19
billion to deploy fiber-rich broadband networks in diverse areas across
America. These networks are high-speed, high quality, and highly
reliable connections that empower consumers to participate fully in the
Internet ecosystem.
Networks are not static, and cable has continually pushed the
leading edge. Gigabit networks were the exception in 2016 when only 4
percent of homes had access. Today, only 6 years later, our members
offer 1-gigabit plans to 96 percent of homes where we offer broadband
service. Already, the industry is opening the next frontier with its
``10G'' initiative--a plan to deploy ultra-high-speed multigigabit
symmetrical connections to consumers in the near future.
These investments proved indispensable in meeting the unanticipated
and unprecedented COVID 19 threat. No one ever anticipated a situation
where virtually every citizen was at home relying on the Internet to
work, to attend remote school, and to entertain and inform themselves.
This was the greatest stress test imaginable and the network and the
men and women who kept it working passed with flying colors. Without
decades of broadband investment, COVID could have been a devastating
economic catastrophe.
It is also noteworthy that as we deal with new economic challenges,
broadband continues to connect new subscribers and offer great value.
While speeds have continued to increase, prices remain stable and have
even decreased. In an economy that is seeing inflation in the range of
8 percent, broadband prices have barely risen, with the cost of entry
plans, most popular plans, and top tier plans all decreasing over 20
percent.
All is not rosy, however, in deploying broadband. Broadband
builders face significant obstacles in reaching many unserved
communities. For example, the categorical exemption of certain pole
owners from the mandates of the Pole Attachment Act has outlived its
usefulness and only serves to impede the extension of broadband
networks into rural and unserved areas. All utility pole owners should
be required to provide timely and non-discriminatory access to poles,
ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way, at non-discriminatory rates.
Without timely access to all poles, it will be incredibly difficult--if
not impossible--to reach the Administration's stated goal of reaching
100 percent of currently unserved families and small businesses by
2030.
Similarly, broadband deployments that cross Federal lands are
frequently stymied by slow permitting processes. Federal approvals are
also required for many federally funded broadband projects and often
delay deployment. These problems are significant in rural areas,
particularly in western states which encompass a lot of Federal land. A
recent letter from members of this Committee to the Secretaries of the
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce detailed this concern and called
upon the Secretaries to streamline permitting on Federal land. In fact,
streamlined permitting procedures for access to all public rights-of-
way would help accelerate broadband deployment everywhere.
Cable is proud of its record building broadband throughout the
country. Of particular pride is our commitment to offering equal access
to our infrastructure throughout our service areas. Cable gigabit
networks in urban areas are deployed as equally in low-income areas as
in higher income ones. And importantly, there is virtually no
difference in gigabit service availability based on race or ethnicity.
The industry is committed to ensuring and improving equal access for
all our citizens regardless of income, race, ethnicity, color,
religion, or national origin.
Well-Managed Federal Programs Are Essential to Ubiquitous Deployment
Congress has taken the most important step to closing the digital
divide by allocating enormous resources to the task, but money alone
will not produce a successful outcome. Success will require disciplined
execution. Holistically, this effort involves over 100 programs
administered by a dizzying array of government agencies. A lot can go
wrong. It is imperative to keep a number of known risks front of mind.
1. Resources fail to go to the neediest areas first
Unserved communities lack broadband for one reason above all
others--they are prohibitively expensive to serve. The cost of
deploying infrastructure over expansive, difficult terrain is
exponentially higher than other areas. At the same time, the revenue to
offset those expenses is inversely less where fewer people and
businesses reside. Government funding is essential to offsetting these
dynamics and incenting companies to build. Yet, there will be many
forces that prefer to spend these limited resources in towns and
communities with better economics, where broadband already exists. This
is a fatal error that has been repeated many times in past programs,
leaving the unserved still hungry for their first taste of broadband.
In many of its programs, Congress has made clear that its focus is on
unserved areas. To meet these goals, it is critical that implementing
agencies distribute funding as intended with focus, rigor, and
discipline.
Precise targeting will be important. The FCC's first draft of new
broadband maps is an excellent start, but we will need to continually
refine them and faithfully and consistently use them as an
authoritative source across many programs if we want good results.
2. Inadequate Coordination
As mentioned, there is a lot of money being distributed by lots of
different agencies with lots of different criteria and rules.
Consequently, there is a serious risk that poor coordination and
disharmony in the terms and conditions of these programs leads to
confusion, delay, waste and poor results. Congress and the
Administration should continually seek to harmonize the constellation
of broadband programs to ensure efficiency in reaching our goals.
3. Policy Creep and Added Cost
The economic equation of unserved areas is fragile. Adding even a
little additional cost or reducing available revenue can destroy a
viable model for serving a new area, driving providers to drop plans to
enter. There are a bottomless number of contested policies and
regulations that many would love to layer on to this program. Already,
we see efforts to introduce forms of rate regulation, open-access
requirements, buy American provisions, and labor rules. Whatever the
merits, many of these efforts will prove distracting and worse add
costs to serving areas that are already too costly. This is
counterproductive to the bipartisan objective of opening the purse to
solve the digital divide.
4. Failing to Measure Success and Inviting Waste, Fraud and Abuse
How successful the broadband funding programs are at building new
networks will depend on which projects receive approval and the quality
of provider selected to get the job done. It is imperative regulators
use clear, measurable selection criteria and effective accountability
and tracking processes. What you cannot measure you cannot manage well.
Ambiguous criteria, poor controls, and grants to inexperienced
providers will, as it has in the past, lead to a great deal of waste,
fraud, and abuse. Transparency is particularly critical, because we
will need to enlist a large community to watch for and discover
problems. The huge pot of money on the table will attract less than
honorable efforts to get it, without advancing the goals for which it
was intended. In addition, there will be countless new companies formed
to enter these markets who will be well-intended but who lack the
experience, long-term resources and staying power to successfully
complete and maintain these expensive broadband builds. The grant
programs need guardrails that ensure weak providers with low
probabilities of long-term success are not excessively favored over
companies with a proven track record of building and operating
networks.
NTIA, Treasury, and USDA are working hard to distribute these funds
in an effective and responsible fashion, and they have been open to our
input on how to implement the programs most effectively under their
stewardship. But we recognize that there is always room for continued
improvement in the administration of complex government funding
programs. To that end, NCTA supports efforts such as Senators Thune,
Lujan, Klobuchar, and Fischer's introduction of the Rural Internet
Improvement Act, which would reform the Department of Agriculture's
Rural Development broadband programs, enhancing provider participation
and helping broadband reach more Americans.
Broadband Adoption Requires Collaboration Across Sectors
While the prospect of improving access is exciting, ensuring all
Americans are connected requires more than attention to infrastructure
gaps. Broadband access without widespread adoption is like the
proverbial falling tree in the forest that no one hears. Cable
operators have long been leaders in offering special programs for low-
income households so that they can fully participate in the economic,
educational, and social life of our society.
Over the last 10 years, programs like Comcast's Internet
Essentials, Charter's Spectrum Internet Assist Program and Cox's
Connect2Compete have provided affordable and accessible Internet to
more than 14 million consumers. More recently, in response to the
pandemic, NCTA members restructured and expanded their programs to
respond to increased need. Charter Communications, for instance,
launched programs to provide free Internet and Wi-Fi access for 60 days
to households with students or educators. Similarly, Cox participated
in Nevada's Connecting Kids coalition which successfully reached and
connected every K-12 student in the state by January 2021. Another NCTA
member, Mediacom, partnered with Des Moines Public Schools to share the
cost of Internet access for families in need.
NCTA members were also day one participants in both the Emergency
Broadband Benefit and the Affordable Connectivity Programs, enabling
eligible customers to use government subsidies to offset the price for
broadband service. Indeed, many broadband providers including Comcast,
Charter, Cox, Mediacom, and Midco have gone a step further by
voluntarily offering a robust broadband service with at least 100 Mbps
that is fully covered by the monthly $30 ACP subsidy. In short,
eligible subscribers will get high quality broadband for free.
Commercial providers, however, cannot make satisfactory progress on
adoption alone. NCTA and its members embrace the critical role played
by experienced community organizations and trusted digital navigators.
They are best positioned to help identify non-adopters and to assist in
overcoming adoption barriers. Our companies are working with nonprofits
and other organizations to engage in community outreach, to build
digital skills, and to highlight the value of broadband technology.
Additionally, cable providers have recognized the importance of digital
literacy--investing $650 million since 2011 in digital literacy and
training efforts.
NCTA recognizes that having a high-speed broadband connection at
home opens up a world of opportunity. We are encouraged by the
collaborative spirit that has launched our renewed focus on getting all
Americans connected to the internet. And further, we welcome the
continued interest of this Committee and other policymakers in keeping
this effort on track toward a day when we can finally realize our
national commitment to universal broadband service.
Thank you and I am happy to take your questions.
Senator Lujan. Next, we will hear from Mr. Jonathan
Spalter, the President and CEO of USTelecom.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SPALTER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, USTELECOM
Mr. Spalter. Good morning, Chair Lujan and Ranking Member
Thune. I am so glad for the invitation to join this
conversation today, and I would like to join you, Senator
Lujan, in extending thanks to Senator Wicker for his
exceptional service to this committee, but also to the cause of
broadband around the country.
My name is Jonathan Spalter. As you mentioned, I am the
President and CEO of USTelecom, the Broadband Association. We
are the National Trade Association representing network
providers, innovators, and suppliers and manufacturers
connecting the world through the power of broadband.
Our membership ranges from leading publicly traded
companies, some of the largest investors and job creators in
the country, to local and regional companies and cooperatives
that have roots in their company, in their states, and in their
service areas going back over a century.
What unites our diverse membership is a shared commitment
to connecting communities, businesses and individuals to
opportunity, to a better quality of life, and to each other via
technology. U.S. broadband, I believe in my heart, has been a
tremendous national success story, with massive investment in
network expansions, prices that are actually trending lower,
even in a time of inflation, and ever increasing speeds.
And as Senator Thune has mentioned, broadband providers'
investments, along with smart, common sense, regulatory and
legislative approaches, is why America's networks rose to the
challenge of the pandemic, despite surges in demand due to the
abrupt shift to work, school, health care, and everything else
from the home.
The pandemic, however, also lays quite bare the
unacceptable cost of being left on the wrong side of the
digital divide. Universal connectivity is a matter of digital
equity, and our collective work is not yet done. But working
together, I believe in my core that it is in reach.
Between the tens of billions of dollars our members invest
each year in connected infrastructure, and the Federal
investments included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, IIJA, we have the opportunity to finally, fully, and
forever connect all parts of our nation, if we all work
together to meet this historic moment.
So, I appreciate the opportunity to roll up our sleeves and
explore the underlying causes of the remaining broadband gaps
and some of the concrete steps that we collectively can take to
close them. This includes maximizing the IIJA opportunity by
ensuring that funding recipients have the technical,
operational, and financial wherewithal to get these essential
infrastructure projects over the finish line.
Removing or lowering hurdles to speedy deployment,
clarifying that broadband grants should not be treated as
taxable income. Making permanent the Affordable Connectivity
Program to help low income families pay for Internet service.
Charting a sustainable future, a resilient future for
universal service. And last but not least, ensuring that
everyone has the digital skills that are necessary to harness
all that broadband makes possible to all in our country.
We must not oversimplify the complexities of achieving
affordable, reliable, high speed Internet for all, and you will
find no more committed partner and ally to making this happen
in America's broadband providers. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spalter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO, USTelecom
Good morning and thank you, Chair Lujan and Ranking Member Thune,
for the invitation to join this important conversation. I hope this
convening can help spark a renewed collaboration across the public and
private sectors, alongside community partners, to work effectively
together to connect every person, business and organization in this
country to high-quality, affordable broadband internet.
My name is Jonathan Spalter. I am President and CEO of USTelecom--
The Broadband Association. We are the national trade association
representing network providers, innovators, suppliers and manufacturers
connecting the world through the power of broadband. Our membership
ranges from large publicly traded corporations, some of the largest
investors and job creators in our country, to local and regional
companies and cooperatives that have roots in their community going
back a century or more.
What unites our diverse membership is a shared commitment to
connecting communities, businesses and individuals to opportunity, to a
better quality of life, to each other via technology. Universal
connectivity has always been our north star, and today, with a
concerted effort, it is within reach. Each year, broadband providers
invest billions in our Nation's connected infrastructure. Our ongoing
capital investments totaled $86 billion in 2021 alone.\1\ Together with
recent Federal investments included in the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA), they have the potential to finally, fully and
forever connect our nation--if we work together to make the most of
this historic moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USTelecom, Broadband Capex Report, July 18, 2022; available at:
https://ustelecom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2021-Broadband-Capex-
Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, we appreciate the opportunity presented by this hearing to roll
up our sleeves and explore together the underlying causes of existing
broadband service gaps and how we can best get after the host of
concrete solutions available to us to close the digital divide.
I. Overall, U.S. Broadband Deployment is an Extraordinary Success Story
From a macro perspective, U.S. broadband deployment represents a
tremendous success story. America's broadband providers have invested
more than $2 trillion since 1996 to build and expand the Nation's high-
speed infrastructure. Last year's investment of $86 billion\2\
represents more than twice the historic public commitment made in the
IIJA, and these commitments are pressing forward despite the
substantial economic headwinds posed by inflation, supply chain
constraints and a tight labor market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USTelecom, Broadband Capex Report, July 18, 2022; available at:
https://ustelecom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2021-Broadband-Capex-
Report.pdf
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This vigorous investment is accelerating the transition from legacy
copper to high-speed fiber networks throughout our Nation. In 2021, 43
percent of U.S. households had access to fiber, up 12 percent from
2020.\3\ And providers have already committed over $45 billion of their
own capital to connect 48 million households to fiber in the coming
years.\4\ As a result, the number of households with fiber access is
expected to double over the next five years to cover 83 percent of U.S.
households.\5\ This forecast assumes effective use of IIJA funds, which
is mission-critical work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2021 Fiber Provider Study, Fiber Broadband Association, January
5, 2022; available at: https://www.fiberbroadband.org/blog/fiber-
broadband-enters-largest-investment-cycle-ever
\4\ New Street Research, Closing The Gap--An Open Letter To
Secretary Raimondo, October 2021; available at: https://ustelecom.org/
wp-content/uploads/2021/10/New-Street-Research-presentation.pdf
\5\ Independence Research, U.S. Broadband Blitz--Timeline and
Impact, February 2022; available at: https://www.fiberbroadband.org/
page/fiber-research
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadband access also is expanded by favorable broadband pricing
trends. While overall inflation has increased, the average price for
broadband has bucked this trend. Consumers spend, on average, $45 per
month for broadband service, down 14 percent from 2021-2022.\6\ The
average price for the fastest broadband speeds also is down more than
10 percent over this same period. In sharp contrast, consumer sticker
shock grew for other essential goods and services, with grocery bills
rising by 8.5 percent, health insurance by 6.1 percent and rent by 4.4
percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 2022 Broadband Pricing Index, USTelecom, June 29, 2022;
available at: https://www.us
telecom.org/research/2022-bpi/
\7\ 2022 Broadband Pricing Index, USTelecom, June 29, 2022;
available at: https://www.us
telecom.org/research/2022-bpi/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to broadband pricing that runs counter to inflationary
pressures consumers face with most other essential goods and services,
the IIJA established the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which
provides up to $30 per month to assist low-income Americans with their
broadband bills and up to $75 per month in tribal areas. More than
1,300 broadband providers are participating in the program--connecting
more than 15 million households so far to low-or no-cost broadband.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ USAC, ACP Enrollment and Claims Tracker, December 5, 2022;
available at: https://www.usac.org/about/affordable-connectivity-
program/acp-enrollment-and-claims-tracker/#total-enrolled
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Our Work Isn't Done Until True Universal Connectivity is Achieved
Broadband providers' investment is why U.S. networks, unlike those
in other countries, rose to the challenges of the pandemic despite
surges in demand due to the abrupt shift to work, school, health care
and everything else from home. The pandemic, however, also laid bare
the unacceptable cost of being left on the wrong side of the digital
divide. It left little doubt that broadband is an essential service for
everyone.
USTelecom member companies' commitment to connecting everyone--
regardless of race, ethnicity or income--runs deep in our DNA. It
advances both our business interests and the community values that have
defined and united our industry for decades. No child should have to do
their homework sitting in a fast food parking lot. Our parents and
grandparents should be able to review their blood sugar levels with
their endocrinologist from the comfort of home. Small businesses must
be able to access a world of potential customers online.
Our member companies have long been committed to digital equity to
ensure everyone in their service areas can take advantage of broadband-
fueled opportunities--from health care to education to employment and
reskilling. Together with community partners, our members have, for
example, established learning centers to support remote education and
provide tutoring and mentoring resources; STEM-based outreach programs
to enable K-12 students in underserved communities build the critical
skills they need to thrive in the digital economy; digital skills
training programs for adults in rural communities in partnership with
Historically Black Colleges and Universities; and telecom
apprenticeship programs so tribal community members can gain the skills
necessary for technology jobs on tribal lands.
Our collective work is not done until every person, business and
community institution is connected to high-quality, affordable
broadband. We agree wholeheartedly that universal connectivity
fundamentally is a matter of digital equity. The question before all of
us is how do we work collectively to get there? We begin with a shared
understanding of the complex web of issues that have made a fully
connected nation so elusive.
III. The Reality: Fiber is Costly and Complex to Deploy
Our member companies were founded, often a century or more ago,
with the mission of connecting communities to opportunity. They paved
the way for each generation of technological advancement in this
country, from early revolutions driven by the availability of
telegraphs and telephones, to universal copper-based telephone service,
to DSL internet, and now IP-based fiber-optics and fixed wireless
technologies.
As technology changes, so must our networks. Deploying next
generation networks requires us to replace, not simply upgrade, our
existing infrastructure. This is a time-consuming, resource-intensive
process, and it cannot happen overnight or everywhere at once. It is a
continuous endeavor. It involves navigating and overcoming a series of
challenges complicated by factors ranging from supply shortages and
limitations on the availability of skilled labor to legal barriers,
such as state and local permitting processes.
Deployment is further impeded by outdated regulatory requirements
that require our companies to maintain costly and inferior legacy
copper networks, expending substantial resources that could instead be
dedicated to accelerating the fiber transition. So as our members work
to completely replace copper networks with fiber, they face the
prospect of maintaining their legacy networks for lengthy and even
indefinite periods of time as they seek regulatory approvals to migrate
customers to next-generation networks. These obligations are
unilaterally placed on our companies. Cable, wireless, satellite and
other competitors face no similar demand on their capital, which
distorts both competitive dynamics in the marketplace and financial
decisions around deployment.
IV. Many Specific Opportunities Exist to Dismantle These Hurdles
Together
We face serious barriers to universal connectivity--from outdated
and uneven public policy to the sheer vast geography of our country. We
can push past these barriers, but we need a genuine partnership to do
so. There are numerous opportunities to join forces--across government,
industry and community organizations--to do collective problem solving.
What follows is by no means a conclusive list. It is intended to
illustrate the constellation of issues that present concrete
opportunities to take action now to help clear a path for long-term
success.
Maximize the IIJA opportunity. Congress is to be commended for
including language in the IIJA to emphasize that fund recipients must
be qualified and have the technical, operational and financial
wherewithal to get these essential infrastructure projects completed.
Conduct appropriate oversight to ensure grant recipients are
properly vetted to ensure they have the proven ability to
complete complex infrastructure projects.
Ensure government agencies coordinate deployments based on
FCC broadband maps, so funds prioritize unserved and
underserved locations.
Make sure the policy environment is flexible and supportive
of provider efforts to navigate supply chain challenges to
prevent equipment-related project delays.
Remove or lower hurdles to speedy deployment. From landlords who
won't allow access to or through their apartment buildings to Federal
agencies sitting on permits for years with no action, much can be done
by policymakers at all levels of government to eliminate barriers that
deny or delay affordable, reliable high-speed connectivity for all.
This should include passing national permitting reform legislation like
S. 1113--The Accelerating Rural Broadband Deployment Act authored by
Senators Daines and Kelly which would create a shot clock for agencies
to approve or deny an application within 60 days or the application is
deemed granted.
Prevent IRS takebacks. Under current law, all broadband grants,
including those in the IIJA's Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment
program, the American Rescue Plan Act's Capital Projects Fund and USDA
rural deployment funding, must be treated as taxable income. This means
roughly $1 in every $5 flowing to communities for infrastructure must
be returned to the IRS. Congress should act quickly to pass S. 5021--
The Broadband Grant Tax Treatment Act, authored by Senators Warner and
Moran, and cosponsored by Senate Commerce Committee Members Wicker,
Warnock, Capito, Sinema, Cruz and Fischer to make clear these resources
should remain in the communities they aim to serve--rather than be
taxed back to Washington.
Chart a sustainable future for Universal Service. In passing the
IIJA, Congress rightly asked the FCC to explore what the future of the
Universal Service Fund (USF) might look like once these historic
deployment outlays are made. The reality is that broadband
infrastructure is not a `set it and forget it' technology. Just like
roads and bridges, these networks must be maintained, repaired and
expanded over time. This will require ongoing resources in high-cost
areas. This financial burden must be more equitably shared. The current
outdated USF contributions mechanism is profoundly regressive--focused
largely on the dwindling number of landline telephone service
customers. To secure the future for universal service, the
contributions base should be expanded to include those companies that
benefit most from modern universal connectivity, namely the Nation's
leading edge providers. I urge passage of the FAIR Contributions Act
introduced by Senators Wicker and Lujan and cosponsored by Senators
Young, Capito, Barrasso, Crapo and Peters. The legislation would
require the FCC to go further in studying the feasibility of
contributions from the edge providers. USTelecom proudly endorsed this
legislation, and we hope that it will be passed by the Senate before
the end of the year.
Commit to long-term assistance for low-income households. While
most customers are enjoying faster speeds and lower broadband prices,
those struggling financially need additional assistance. The Affordable
Connectivity Program (ACP) was launched and funded by Congress to help
low-income households pay for Internet service. More than 1,300
broadband providers participate in the program, with more than 15
million households to date receiving what amounts to low-or no-cost
internet. While the ACP has proven successful, funding could run out
sometime in 2024. Congress should make permanent this commitment to
connecting low-income households.
Ensure everyone has the skills necessary to fully participate in
the promise of broadband. Digital skilling initiatives are necessary to
ensure all Americans are aware of and can harness the many
opportunities broadband makes possible. Local community organizations
are essential partners here. Congress recognized the importance of
these efforts in establishing $2.75 billion in Digital Equity Act
funding as part of the IIJA. USTelecom members have been working to
promote digital skills in the communities we serve for years and will
continue to be committed partners in this work.
V. Long-Term Success Requires Strong, Constructive and Timely Teamwork
Across the many challenges facing our nation--from inflation to
education, health care to social and economic divisions--meaningful
solutions hinge on the ability of every home and business to connect to
affordable, high-speed broadband.
Truly closing the digital divide means completing ubiquitous
physical infrastructure, ensuring low-income consumers have access to
this essential service and helping everyone attain the digital skills
necessary to take full advantage of the many possibilities broadband
brings into our lives.
We must not oversimplify the complexities of achieving universal
connectivity. But we have to work together to overcome these challenges
if we are to achieve our shared goal of empowering everyone to take
full advantage of affordable, reliable, high-speed internet. You will
find no more committed partners to achieving this essential national
goal than America's broadband providers.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Spalter. Next, we are going
to hear from Angela Siefer, the Executive Director of the
National Digital Inclusion Alliance.
STATEMENT OF ANGELA SIEFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
DIGITAL INCLUSION ALLIANCE
Ms. Siefer. Thank you so much for having me here. It is a
privilege and a joy to talk to you today. I am Angela Siefer. I
am the Executive Director of the National Digital Inclusion
Alliance. We are a nonprofit that advances digital equity by
supporting community programs and equipping policymakers to
act, which is what we did.
We envision a country where everyone has the opportunity to
use technology to live, learn, work, and thrive. Digital
inequities are not new, but the pandemic made them painfully
clear. That clarity calls to action.
Communities came together, scaled up existing digital
inclusion programs, set up new programs, took risks on
innovative solutions. They are our country's digital equity
heroes. They would not have made such progress without the
swift actions of Congress during the pandemic. Representing the
digital equity community, I thank you.
NDIA sits in a unique position. We facilitate the Nation's
largest community of practice. We have over 1,000 organizations
of local experts relaying their lessons learns and community
needs to policymakers. These heroes need you, again. The
historic investment in digital equity is amazing, but it will
not fully bridge the digital divide.
As long as technology keeps changing, the work will keep
changing, the divide will keep changing. There are many
solutions, affordable, robust broadband, affordable devices to
meet the needs of the user, access to ongoing skills training,
and tech support in multiple languages.
What your historic investment should do, let's say will do,
is change systems--so that we have strong digital inclusion
ecosystems that allow us to continually adapt to technology
changes. Let's call the investments a success when four things
happen, Government agencies integrate broadband adoption
programing and device ownership into their programs.
Industries who benefit from customers being online
prioritize corporate giving and community partnerships.
Philanthropy prioritizes digital equity in their giving because
it strengthens their missions.
Fourth, local digital inclusion ecosystems are so robust
that when people can't get going online for any reason, they
readily find the support and resources they need. That would
all be success. If all that happens, it is awesome. But we
still need Federal support.
Long term solutions to bridging the digital divide require
all hands on deck. As of December 15, 15 million households
were enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity Program. Given
that the rules for that were just created, this is a monumental
feat. We are thrilled that the FCC will soon have outreach
funds going into trusted community based organizations who are
already investing their own resources and raising awareness and
deploying digital navigators to sit with their neighbors.
But unless Congress takes action, this vital program will
go away in just a few short years. Internet service providers'
low cost programs are helpful, but they have participation
limitations. Representing the digital equity community today, I
ask you for sustained funding for the Affordable Connectivity
Program.
As we build networks and address broadband adoption through
BEAD, we also need sustained Federal funding for the all the
solutions, holistic solutions, digital navigators, digital
skills training, devices, not just for students. Representing
the digital equity community, I ask you to make the Digital
Equity Foundation a reality.
Funded by spectrum auctions, this will provide long term
support mechanism for digital inclusion programs. Another
request, we certainly need a full FCC. They have a big job.
Consider the new maps broadband, consumer labels, ACP, ECF,
many other responsibilities. They cannot do this without Gigi
Sohn.
Representing the digital equity community, I urge the
Senate to confirm her nomination before the holiday recess.
Finally, we need to increase the amount of digital equity funds
dedicated to tribes and territories.
The needs in Indian Country and in the territories are
great, and there are simply not enough funds in the Digital
Equity Act to fully cover these needs. I know I am asking for a
lot. It is bad form to say thank you and ask for more. But here
it is. That is our needs.
Internet access and the skills to use it are not only
essential to survive, but to thrive. And thriving is essential
to America's promise, to the well-being of its people and the
country's ability to compete globally.
Thank you for having me, and I welcome the Committee's
comments and questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Siefer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Angela Siefer, Executive Director,
National Digital Inclusion Alliance
Chairman Lujan, Ranking Member Thune and Members of the
Subcommittee, it's an honor and privilege to join you today to talk
about how critical digital equity is to our Nation's future. Thank you
for having me.
I'm Angela Siefer, the executive director of NDIA--the National
Digital Inclusion Alliance. We are a nonprofit that advances digital
equity by supporting community programs and equipping policymakers to
act. We envision a country where everyone has the opportunity to use
technology to live, learn, work, and thrive.
Digital inequities are not new. But the pandemic made them
painfully clear. That clarity caused action.
Communities came together, scaled up existing digital inclusion
programs, set up new programs, and took risks on innovative solutions.
They are our country's digital equity heroes. They would not have made
such progress without the swift actions of Congress during the
pandemic. Representing the digital equity community, I thank you.
Local digital equity efforts were strengthened with support from
the CARES Act, ARPA, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
particularly the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program and the Emergency
Connectivity Fund. Then last year you passed the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which prioritizes digital
equity in the BEAD Program and funds a historic $2.75 billion for the
Digital Equity Act, with an additional $14.2 billion for the Affordable
Connectivity Program. It's an amazing step forward. NDIA and our
community are working to make the most of these digital equity
investments.
NDIA's community includes over 1,000 local organizations running
digital inclusion programs, plus national advocates, researchers, and
public servants. These are the folks guiding ACP sign-ups; providing
appropriate devices; teaching digital skills; building digital equity
coalitions; and offering digital equity advice to their states,
territories, and the District of Columbia.
NDIA sits in a unique position--we facilitate the Nation's largest
digital equity community of practice, learning from these local
experts, and relaying their lessons learned and community needs to
policymakers. I am here to tell you--these heroes need you. The
historic investment in digital equity is amazing but will not fully
bridge the digital divide. As long as technology keeps changing, the
work of bridging the digital divide will keep changing. There are many
digital divides--the availability of affordable, robust broadband; the
availability of affordable devices that meet user needs; and access to
ongoing digital skills training and tech support in multiple languages.
What your historic investment in digital equity SHOULD do, and WILL
do, is create systems-level change and strong local digital inclusion
ecosystems that allow us to continually adapt as technology changes. We
should call the investments a success when:
1. Government agencies integrate broadband adoption programming and
device ownership into their programs.
2. Industries who benefit from their customers being online
prioritize digital equity in their corporate giving and
community partnerships.
3. Philanthropy prioritizes digital equity in their giving because
it strengthens their missions.
4. Local digital inclusion ecosystems are so robust that when people
can't get online for any reason, they can readily find the
support and resources they need.
If all of that happens, we will still need Federal support. Long-
term solutions to bridge the digital divide require all hands on deck.
As of December 5, over 15 million households are enrolled in the
Affordable Connectivity Program. Given that a year ago, rules for this
program didn't exist, this is a monumental feat. We're thrilled that
the FCC will soon fund outreach activities in trusted community-based
organizations, who are already investing their own resources in raising
awareness and deploying digital navigators to sit with their neighbors
and guide them through ACP enrollment.
But unless Congress takes action, this vital program will go away
in just a few short years. Internet service providers' low-cost
programs are helpful, but they all have participation limitations.
Representing the digital equity community today, I ask you for
sustained funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program.
Most communities won't see affordable home Internet service anytime
soon. Long-term solutions include increasing the availability of middle
mile. So, I ask you for additional funding to expand middle mile
networks.
We also need sustained Federal funding for digital navigator
programs, digital skills training, broadband adoption, and devices (not
just for students). Representing the digital equity community, I ask
you to make the Digital Equity Foundation a reality. Funded by future
spectrum auctions, this will provide a reliable long-term support
mechanism with the ability to flex to new needs.
Another request--we sorely need a full FCC. They have a big job.
Consider the new maps, the broadband consumer labels, ACP, ECF, and
many other responsibilities. They cannot do this without Gigi Sohn.
Representing the digital equity community, I urge the Senate to confirm
her nomination before the holiday recess.
Finally, we need to increase the amount of digital equity funds
dedicated to Tribes and territories. The needs in Indian Country and in
the territories are great, and there are simply not enough funds in the
Digital Equity Act to fully cover these needs.
As states, territories, DC, and Tribes embark on their BEAD and
digital equity planning it will be important to tie the two plans
together. We cannot work under the theory ``build it and they will
come.'' Our strategies must be holistic, addressing broadband adoption
while building networks, not after.
I know I'm asking for a lot. Access to the Internet and the skills
to use it are essential to not only survive but to thrive. And thriving
is essential to America's promise, to the wellbeing of its people, and
to the country's ability to compete globally.
Thank you for having me, and I welcome the Committee's comments and
questions.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Ms. Siefer. I will now recognize
members for questions, and I will start with myself. The first
question that I have is to all of the panel. And it is a simple
yes or no question.
Does increased broadband adoption act as a multiplier for
other sectors, including health care, education, employment,
and commerce? Kimball.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Absolutely. It has the ability to uplift
community wellbeing across those sectors. And the internet, you
know, has been in our tribal communities for a long time on our
cell phones, but community use, Government using broadband to
make our communities stronger with improved health care and
education is what broadband is about for our work.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. That is a resounding yes.
I appreciate that. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. Also resounding, yes. I Chair the Board of the
Mayo Clinic and I can tell you the importance of telehealth in
the case of a national emergency was essential.
Senator Lujan. Thank you. Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Well, absolutely, yes. And that is why we
really do thank you for your leadership on moving forward on
the IIJA and working with our companies to ensure that all
Americans can in fact be connected.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate it. Ms. Siefer.
Ms. Siefer. Resounding yes.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Another yes or no question,
do Federal subsidies like the Affordable Connectivity Program,
which provides $30 a month stipend toward Internet service for
eligible households and $75 a month for households on tribal
lands, lower barriers to broadband access? Kimball.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Absolutely. It is a critical stop gap
measure. It was a critical response during the pandemic, and it
is a critical stopgap measure moving forward while we install
affordable high speed networks to put in permanent solutions in
our communities.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. Yes, I think so. Providing a free service
removes price as any barrier to adoption. So it is critical.
Senator Lujan. Yes, I think so. Let me come back to that a
little bit later. Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Absolutely, yes. While, in fact, in context,
while overall inflation has increased, broadband prices have
actually bucked this trend.
The average consumer spends $45 a month on broadband, which
is actually 14 percent less between 2021 and 2022. I would also
say that it is incredibly important, and I agree with Ms.
Siefer, that we have to sustain the Affordable Connectivity
Program and make it permanent.
Senator Lujan. So the importance of sustaining the
programs. I may follow up there as well. And then, Ms. Siefer,
previous question?
Ms. Siefer. A resounding yes.
Senator Lujan. Another yes or no, do digital equity
initiatives like those funded by the Digital Equity Act for
digital literacy lower barriers to broadband adoption? Ms.
Kimball.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Absolutely. We are not putting in
broadband just for the sake of the broadband. We are trying to
change human lives and have people utilize the technology. So
digital--broadband adoption is the humanistic side of this
technology infrastructure project.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. Yes. We have learned from past experiences that
outreach, awareness, digital literacy, community groups are
essential to success.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that, sir. Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Yes.
Senator Lujan. Ms. Siefer.
Ms. Siefer. Yes, of course.
Senator Lujan. Glad I could hear you, Mr. Spalter. Now,
there should be little debate on this, deployment,
affordability, and adoption, each one provides a piece of the
puzzle. So I appreciate the explanation and the responses.
The Affordable Connectivity Program has made a real
difference helping Americans afford broadband access, but the
funding won't last forever. Hence the importance of this being
a sustainable program.
And the Digital Equity Act will help fund initiatives that
target other barriers to broadband adoption across the country.
But it is not a permanent program, and we need to do more.
Ms. Siefer, in addition to encouraging build out, how can
Congress work to provide permanent solutions to barriers to
broadband adoption in the United States?
Ms. Siefer. There are the individual things that Members of
Congress can do, which is working with those industries that
are impacted, right. If the industry benefits from having folks
being online. This is all the industries, right, this isn't
just Internet service providers.
But working with them to help them understand the benefits
so that they are then part of the solution. Then it is also the
Affordable Connectivity Program, it's the Digital Equity
Foundation, it's all the things that you all know you have
already done before, but because the digital divide is not
going to be over, we have to keep doing those things.
Senator Lujan. And Mr. Spalter, yes or no, do you believe
all broadband access technologies, whether it be fiber, cable,
wireless satellite, provide equal access to learning tools?
Mr. Spalter. Yes, I do. I would argue, however, that it is
wired based infrastructure that is going to be actually able to
allow us to achieve our goal of a fully and finally connected
nation. And we should focus our resources and our funding
programs accordingly.
Senator Lujan. And Mr. Spalter, yes or no, do some of your
members maintain data caps or data throttling on their consumer
broadband offerings?
Mr. Spalter. These are--certain of our members actually do
provide a range of different options to their consumers,
including lower priced options that would include a data cap.
This is an option that is potentially very accessible to
and important to certain of our consumers, and particularly,
for example, seniors who might want to choose a lower price
option.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And my time is up. Mr.
Powell, I have the same question for you, so if time allows
later, I will come back and ask a similar question as well. I
will now recognize Mr. Thune for his questions.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by
saying I have concerns about, as I said earlier, NTIA and other
agencies pursuing extraneous political goals in their
respective broadband programs, which could ultimately lead to
increased costs for providers deploying networks.
Mr. Powell, in your testimony, you talked about the need
for, or of Government agencies, I should say, to avoid
unnecessary added costs. Could you elaborate on this? How does
direct and indirect forms of net neutrality, open access,
burdensome labor requirements affect the deployment of
broadband networks to truly unserved areas?
Mr. Powell. I start with the premise that, remember, the
problem we are trying to solve is really precarious economic
environments that have disincentive providers from serving
those areas, so we have to be highly sensitive to what
additional costs we are adding.
So frequently these programs add levels of cost that
compromise the model for whether to accept funds to enter a
market or not. For example, if you don't have clarity on what
rates you are allowed to charge and there are suggestions you
will regulate the rates, that is a disincentive to knowing
whether you can afford to offer the service because you are not
clear on the amount of revenue you get.
Another example might be extensive workforce regulations,
while well-intended, ultimately mean you have reduced the pool
of skilled workers available to a provider in order to meet the
buildout requirements in a market with tight labor. That is
very, very complicating and actually could frustrate or defeat
any number of initiatives.
Failure to be tech neutral could mean you have a limited
amount of tools in your toolbox to solve complex problems in
rural America, and thus, you know, you are again, might choose
to pass on participation in the program. So you could go on and
on in ways that these things manifest themselves in actual
decisions on the ground.
Senator Thune. Mr. Spalter and Mr. Powell, there are a
number of barriers that slow down the deployment of networks.
Could you discuss the barriers your members face today, and
whether or not Congress should take additional action on
Federal permitting reforms?
Mr. Spalter. Certainly. Yes, Senator, there are a number of
different barriers that slow down deployment, including, as you
mentioned, a range of permitting challenges that our members
face both federally and also State--with the State and local
level.
We believe that there needs to be more coordinated and
accountable efforts on the part of the various, or the 13
various agencies that are involved in deploying broadband
around our country.
We believe that there should be much greater coordination
as well with State and local authorities to ensure that
permitting barriers can actually be leveled, that we can
machete through a lot of these problems.
I have been hearing from some of our members, for example,
in Western Montana, where the permitting challenges on BLM
lands can add 3 years to a build out. These are incredibly
challenging situations, and we have to collectively work
together to address them.
Senator Thune. You testified before the Commerce committee
in May 2020 on the resiliency of our country's broadband
network during the COVID pandemic. The United States, as has
been pointed out, fared much better than European countries
because of our light touch approach to regulating broadband
networks.
Now that we are almost 2 years removed from the height of
the COVID pandemic, what lessons should policymakers take away
from future attempts to regulate broadband? And what policies
could Congress pursue in the next Congress to encourage
continued investment?
Mr. Spalter. I think that the pandemic was instrumental in
showing all Americans, and hopefully as well our policymakers
and regulators, that the kinds of commonsense, smart policy
frameworks that enabled innovation and investment to the levels
that we have seen.
And I would like to point out at a high watermark just last
year of $86 billion in capital investment in our networks were
made possible not because we were trying to slow down the
incentives for investment in innovation, but because we were
trying to actually accelerate them.
I think going forward, if we can actually collectively as a
nation, make sure that, and especially on the precipice of this
historic moment where we actually will be able to deliver the
$42.5 billion of BEAD Program money, that we not encumber this
new tranche of investment in unnecessary regulatory overhang,
and that the NTIA and the states scrupulously listen to the
intent of Congress as it was expressed in the IIJA.
Let's focus on getting the monies out to the underserved
and unserved first.
Senator Thune. As I mentioned in my opening statement,
there are 130 programs, stunning really ,supporting broadband
across 15 different agencies. Could you speak to your--the
frustrations that your members have when they are notified
after the fact that another Federal agency is providing funding
to another entity to provide broadband in an area that is
already served. And I would start with Mr. Powell, Mr. Spalter,
and then open it up to the panel.
Mr. Powell. To quote one of my CEOs, it is a lot of money
going to too many places through too many programs under
different criteria. This is very, very complex to manage.
I think that, you know, another thing that our members are
quite frustrated by is areas that are possibly unserved but
there has already been Federal commitments to serve those areas
that have been provided through other programs.
For example, you could have won money in RDOF to serve an
area, yet it shows up as unserved in FCC maps or programs don't
fully recognize existing commitments to serve areas. That can
lead to a lot of confusion and complexity, and stranded
investment because they bid on those projects on the assumption
that they would build in those spaces under these terms and
criteria, only to have another program parachute in on the same
thing.
So one of the challenges for regulators is to ruthlessly
attempt to harmonize criteria, conditions across these programs
and make sure all take cognizance of the other as they make
their decisions.
Mr. Spalter. Frustrated is one word I would use. I think
that there are some others in my thesaurus that I could also
throw out. But clearly our members who know the implicit and
high fixed costs of deploying networks are alarmed when they
are potentially overbuilt by Federal dollars from one agency or
coming in and actually making it more challenging for them to
deploy.
Which is one of the reasons why we believe firmly, Senator,
that there should be--that Congress should require a
certification process by which agencies certify that their use
of Federal funds would not be actually deployed in areas where
Federal funds are already being spent.
Senator Thune. For all the panelists, yes or no questions,
Congress need to consider creating new broadband programs, yes
or no?
Mr. Powell. Should they consider new broadband programs? I
think we have a lot of broadband programs. I think they should
focus on refining and get the most out of the ones that we have
at the moment.
Mr. Spalter. I agree. I think that let's see how the BEAD
Program progresses. Let's see what we can do about reforming
USF, and then we consider whether or not additional programs
need to be come on--come online.
Senator Thune. Ms. Siefer.
Ms. Siefer. So I would focus on the broadband adoption side
of it, and further invest in what we have.
Senator Thune. Ms. Kimball.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. I would allow for continued funding to
focus on on-time, on budget implementations with adequate
support to realize those goals.
Senator Thune. Yes. And I will just close, Mr. Chairman, by
saying I for one am concerned that any new programs are going
to lead to duplication of services and wasteful spending.
And I hope that this vast array of programs that we have
and the funding that is associated with that can be put on the
target, and that we don't end up with a lot of overbuilding and
wasteful funding that doesn't achieve the desired goal.
And it seems to me there is a ton of funding in the
pipeline right now. And you add that to the normal, as I said
earlier, USF funding. We are in a unique position and hopefully
it can be utilized in a way that--utilized wisely and well on
behalf of the taxpayers. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Thune. Mr. Peters, you are
recognized for your questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Spalter, thank
you for being here today. As you know, in 2020, Congress passed
the Secure and Trusted Communications Act to ensure that
American broadband networks were free from the influence of
Chinese State connected companies like Huawei.
In the bill, we promised the broadband providers that we
would help pay ``to rip and replace'' this equipment. But so
far, Congress hasn't kept up with that promise, and there is
roughly a $3 billion shortfall in the program. And what some
people I think don't realize is that this funding shortfall
isn't just a national security issue, it is also a broadband
equity issue as well.
For example, in the upper peninsula of Michigan, where 25
percent of households cannot access broadband currently,
Northern Michigan University operates a network that provides
connectivity to its student body and over 16,000 households in
roughly 120 rural Michigan communities.
And without funding from Congress to replace its Huawei
equipment with trusted technology, the university's ability to
provide this service is without question in danger right now.
So my question for you is, can you explain the potential
consequences that rural broadband providers, and rural users
that rely on that service, are going to face if Congress does
not act soon to fully fund, Rip and Replace?
Mr. Spalter. Let me start by thanking you, Senator, for
your consistent and forceful stewardship of our Nation's
security and resiliency of our cyber infrastructure. That is
very, very appreciated by all in our sector.
If rural and local providers, particularly like those in
Northern Michigan, are unable to access Rip and Replace funds,
they will not be eligible to access Universal Service Fund, and
that can have a devastating consequence on the lives of our
rural communities, our families, and the enterprises that
populate them.
This is an absolutely challenging issue that we have to
make sure that those $3 billion can actually be deployed and
make sure that no--none of our rural and local providers will
be denied access to the types of support that they need, either
in terms of CapEx or OpEx, to deploy and maintain and manage
their networks.
Senator Peters. Well, thank you. Thank you for the answer.
I think it is important for people to realize the implication
of this.
And Mr. Chair, I would also like to enter into the hearing
record a letter from seven broadband trade associations in
support of funding Rip and Replace. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Congress Must Fully Fund Removal and Replacement of Chinese Equipment
in U.S. Wireless Networks
(``Rip & Replace'')
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has identified a
funding shortfall of $3.08 billion to fully fund the approved
application cost estimates for the Secure and Trusted Communications
Network Reimbursement Program (STCNRP), known as ``Rip & Replace''.
Without immediate additional funding of $3.08 billion from
Congress, the national security goals of the Rip and Replace program
are threatened and affected carriers risk partial or even total shut
down of rural networks, jeopardizing connectivity for millions across
the United States.
The ability to remove all untrusted equipment (some of it
near military bases or other areas of strategic importance)
will be directly and severely limited, posing a national
security risk to American networks;
Any delay of this funding will have a chilling effect on
connectivity throughout America--including roaming in rural
areas and the ability to access emergency services.
Affected carriers have already begun the ``rip and replace''
process at the direction of both Congress and the FCC, committing and
expending significant resources in good faith based on the assurance
that full reimbursements would be available. The FCC does not have the
ability to provide additional resources for this program--Congress must
provide funding.
Failure to fully and immediately fund the Rip & Replace
Reimbursement Program will mean providers cannot entirely remove and
replace offending equipment. The consequence could be completely
shuttering their networks, threatening the availability and security of
advanced communications across the country, particularly in rural
America, where ubiquitous connectivity challenges already abound. Many
of the Reimbursement Program participants are small businesses that
serve a vital role in their communities in terms of competition and
service.
Time is of the essence, as carriers have been largely unable to
service or upgrade their networks for years, increasing chances for
network failure, cutting off communications services for the carriers'
retail customers and roaming coverage for millions of Americans as they
travel in rural areas.
Background Timeline:
March 12, 2020: The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act
of 2019 is signed into law after passing Congress with broad bipartisan
support.
June 30, 2020: Mobile carriers could no longer use FCC Universal
Service Fund (USF) money on equipment deemed untrusted.
December 27, 2020: Congress appropriates $1.9 billion to the FCC
for the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement
Program in the FY 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act also expands eligibility
for the Reimbursement Program to other entities affected not
originally included in the 2019 law but prioritizes companies
with under 2 million subscribers.
October 29, 2021-January 28, 2022: FCC opens filing window for
applicants seeking support from the Reimbursement Program.
February 4, 2022: FCC notifies Congress that they have received 181
original applications from 96 applicants requesting $5.6 billion, and
that current appropriations would not be sufficient to fully fund all
approved applications.
STCNA requires the FCC to approve or deny applications within 90
days of submission but allows the FCC to extend that deadline by up to
45 days if additional time is needed to review. Exercising that option,
the FCC extended the review deadline to June 15, 2022.
June 1, 2022: FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel informs Congress the FCC
determined the gross cost estimate demand for the program was reduced
to $5.3 billion and anticipated further reduction, but that
appropriated funds will remain less than the demand from applicants.
She notes three contributing factors:
The expansion of entities eligible for participation in the
Program by the FY 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act;
Preliminary cost estimates of the Program did not consider
the full range of costs that were ultimately reimbursable under
law;
Providers reported increased costs since the program was
funded due to supply chain issues, inflation, and project
completion requirements by law.
June 15, 2022: FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel updates Congress on the
FCC's progress reviewing ``materially deficient'' applications and
allowing applicants to cure their submissions. She also announces that
absent additional appropriations, the FCC will apply the prioritization
scheme specified by Congress for allocation funding on a pro-rata
basis:
Funding is first allocated to approved applicants with 2
million customers or less;
Then to approved applications from accredited public or
private non-commercial educational institutions with their own
facilities-based broadband services, health care providers, and
libraries;
Finally, to any remaining approved applicants.
July 15, 2022: FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel informs Congress that the
FCC has completed its review of applications to the Reimbursement
Program, and announces in a Public Notice the granted applications for
reimbursement, the approved cost estimates, and the approved prorated
allocations.
FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel notes a shortfall of $3.08
billion to fully fund approved cost estimates.
Chairwoman Rosenworcel announces the Commission will prorate
reimbursement funds equally to each eligible applicant that
have 2 million customers or less. The pro-rata factor is
approximately 39.5 percent.
Approved applicants must submit at least one reimbursement request
within one year of the allocation announcement (7/15/22), and have one
year from receiving approval to submit a reimbursement to complete the
removal, replacement, and destruction of covered equipment and
services. The FCC can grant an extension for 6 months to all applicants
or to individual applicants.
July 27, 2022: The House of Representatives passes H.R. 7624, The
Spectrum Innovation Act which also provides funding for the Secure and
Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Fund utilizing funds from
the 2.5 GHz auction (Auction 108) and if necessary, proceeds from a
future auction in the 3.1-3.45 GHz band.
September 7, 2022: Thirty-four senators sign a bipartisan letter to
Senate Leaders Schumer and McConnell stressing their support for
promptly funding the Rip & Replace Program in its entirety.
Senator Peters. Ms. Siefer, I want to first thank you for
highlighting the great work of digital navigators such as
Detroit's Connect 313 that are able to help guide communities
through the Affordable Connectivity Program.
Connect 313 is part of the reason that Detroit has the
highest rate of enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity
Program of any other metro area in the Nation with 61 percent
of eligible households.
And overall, Michigan's enrollment rate in ACP is almost 44
percent. These high rates of enrollment are due to the tireless
efforts of our State agencies and local organizations, like
Connect 313, to help eligible households navigate the process.
But there is certainly much more that we need to do.
And so my question for you is, can you expand on some of
the things organizations like Connect 313 are doing right to
increase enrollment in ACP? And how can Congress better help
their efforts to continue this very important work?
Ms. Siefer. Yes, that is a fabulous question. So
organizations like Connect 313, they work with those who are in
the community who are already trusted for some other reason. So
it could be food banks, it could be community action agencies,
libraries, schools, but those who already have relationships
with those who are in need of that subsidy.
And because they have those relationships, that is how they
get those high numbers. We need more of that across the
country, right. We shouldn't just be in Detroit where we are
seeing such high numbers. But that requires investment in those
digital navigation services. We also need education of Internet
service providers, customer service agents.
Sometimes there is confusion because this is all confusing
ACP low cost offers. It is all awesome and it is all new and it
is confusing, so we need increased education of those folks.
And we need more database connections so that when folks are
signing up, it is more automatic. Right now, sometimes folks
have to go through a long process.
Senator Peters. All right, thank you. And Mr. Powell,
quickly, I am running out of time, but NCTA represents Charter
and Comcast, which are two major providers in Michigan. Can you
speak to the extent that they and other providers have and will
take steps to improve outreach and implementation of the
Affordable Connectivity Program?
Mr. Powell. Yes, sir. The good benefit of those two
programs and many others of our members is they have been doing
low cost programs, private programs for over a decade, and they
have an enormous amount of experience with what works.
They know that outreach is essential. Having digital
navigators that help people through the process is essential.
Making sure people understand the terms of the program is
essential.
So they have deep rooted expertise and teams dedicated to
those extra efforts, and they work with groups like those
represented today to try to make that effective.
Senator Peters. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Peters. Senator
Blackburn, you are recognized for your questions. One second,
Senator Blackburn. We can't hear her and on her end it is
unmuted. Would you try speaking again, Senator Blackburn, and
see if we can fix that audio?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Yes, absolutely. Are you hearing me now?
Senator Lujan. We can hear you, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Blackburn. OK. Excellent. And I do thank you for
the hearing. As you all know, and with our witness witnesses,
you all have heard from us for years, on this issue of
deployment.
And Mr. Powell, I want to come to you first. When you look
at all the money that has gone out through the infrastructure
bill, through CARES, through the American Rescue Plan, all of
this money that is out there for broadband and you are talking
hundreds of millions of dollars.
And then in Tennessee, our State general assembly put
another $100 million in behind grants for broadband. So it
seems like the funds are there, but yet we continue to hear
these low population areas, they are having trouble getting
people to come in and do that last mile to reach these homes
where there is less population per mile.
So I would like for you to just help me to look at this.
What else do you need when it comes to connecting these areas,
and why is the hesitation there when there seems to be so much
money there? What are we missing on this?
Mr. Powell. Yes, Senator, thank you for the question.
Obviously, money is critical because these are very cost
prohibitive areas, but it is not in and of itself enough. One
of the problems we ran into, we discussed with others today, is
the complexity of permitting in these parts of the country.
A lot of these examples include crossing Federal lands.
Very often, more than one Federal agency will claim the
authority for issuing those permits. There is no lead entity
that a carrier can go to resolve those conflicts.
Those fees--those permits often require very exorbitant
access fees that vary from one Federal program to the other.
Not that we don't hack our way through this process, but it
literally can add years and years to a commitment to build. And
I----
Senator Blackburn. Yes--no, it is a frustration to many of
our County Mayors who are trying to get this done. And I visit
with all 95 of our County Mayors in Tennessee every year. Mr.
Spalter, weigh in on the same question, if you will, please.
Mr. Spalter. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
answer that question, Senator. I agree with Mr. Powell that the
challenges that are--that come with onerous, slow, and
absolutely cumbersome permitting challenges are manifold, and
we need to address them square on if we are going to be able to
access, provide access often to our hardest to reach rural and
unserved and underserved communities.
It is incumbent on us as an industry to continue to put our
shoulder toward this problem, but we are not going to be able
to solve it alone. We have to be able to work with this body,
with Federal Government, and also with State and localities to
ensure that there is going to be a greater consensus of making
broadband service more accessible and more efficiently, more
quickly, by lowering the barriers that come with permitting
challenges.
Senator Blackburn. All right, let me ask you this. Talking
about barriers, when Alan Davidson was before us, I had asked
him about some of the labor laws and practices and if they were
going to require areas to implement those when it is a state
like Tennessee that is a right-to-work state. That is one of
those barriers. So how do you see that playing out?
Mr. Spalter. Let me take a stab at that if I can, Senator.
It is a very important question. I will start by saying that
some of our providers are among the largest employers of labor
in the United States of America.
That said, the IIJA recognizes that broadband funding
programs should not be subject to Davis-Bacon regulations. We
believe that NTIA should scrupulously follow the intent and
spirit of the law without any hesitation.
And this applies not only to Davis-Bacon, but also to the
middle class subsidy requirement that has been advanced by
NTIA, I think outside of the spirit of the IIJA.
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Powell, anything to add to that?
Mr. Powell. I think Mr. Spalter category is right. It isn't
a war between whether, you know, good employee protections or
not are valuable. It is the amount of skilled labor available.
By our measures, even before this program, there was a need for
some 850,000 new skilled workers in this space. These
additional requirements only complicate that pool.
Senator Blackburn. OK. And I know Senator Thune asked you
all about the 100 programs over 15 agencies, which is an area
of concern for us. You kind of batted around a little bit on
that.
So I would like a written response from you all, Mr.
Spalter and Mr. Powell, to talk a little bit about what you see
as a way to do some streamlining to speed up this broadband
deployment and get to the heart of connectivity.
So if you would do that and submit it for the record, that
would be excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Powell. Certainly.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Next, we will
hear from Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and
thank you to the witnesses. Just yesterday, the Minnesota
Department of Employment Economic Development received nearly
$6 million in Federal funds for broadband. We are very excited
about this. We have about 144,000 Minnesotans that don't have
high speed. And we will personally thank the Chair for that
money.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, as well as all the people that have
worked on this. And it has been a high priority of mine since I
have gotten here, because I just view it as the way that we are
going to make it, especially in rural America, easier for
people to continue to live there. And that was very clear
through the pandemic.
We do have workforce issues. My state has the lowest
unemployment rate in the country. About 2 months ago, we had
the lowest unemployment rate in the country in the history of
America, true story. And now we are at like 2 percent or
something.
So, Mr. Spalter, you mentioned in your written testimony
the availability of skilled labor is one of the challenges in
deploying next generation networks. Can you tell us about what
you are seeing on the ground?
I am a big believer in immigration reform, as are many in
this committee, and I think it would be a game changer for us
for deploying some of the technology we need to deploy. Go
ahead.
Mr. Powell. Sure. Thanks for the question, Senator. It is
true that many of our providers are facing real shortfalls in
accessing skilled labor to do the important work of broadband
deployment, be it digging trenches, pulling fiber, managing the
various technical and service requirements that are part of the
process of delivering broadband, which is why we have been
working hand in glove with community colleges, high schools, a
variety of community organizations to develop apprentice
programs, training programs.
I think of, for example, one of our members, Hunter
Communications in Northern California, has engaged a
partnership with the Hoopa Valley Reservation to do apprentice
training. This is just one of hundreds of examples of where we
have been trying to support the workforce pipeline.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Appreciate it. Ms. Siefer, I
am Chair of the Antitrust Subcommittee and I am always
interested in the role competition can play in making high
speed broadband more affordable.
One of the issues in certain areas of our state, there is
only one provider, and I know one of the things we did with
this bill was to direct the FCC to require providers to show us
central pricing and speed information in a simple format so
consumers can make more informed decisions.
But even that doesn't help the 87 million Americans that
have only one choice. I have got a bunch of rural electric co-
ops that have gotten in the game and have been very responsive
when they have. Also, smaller phone companies have tended to
build out more.
And I love the fact that we have a clawback in the law. And
I have talked to Secretary Raimondo, if the money goes out and
the broadband isn't built. So could you talk about what could
be done to increase competition in our broadband markets?
Ms. Siefer. The competition piece is important in terms of
lowering the cost for consumers, but it will only lower it to
where it is affordable for middle class. The lower income folks
are still going to need that subsidy. So we still have to go--
it is a two part----
Senator Klobuchar. I understand----
Ms. Siefer. Yes, increase subsidies.
Senator Klobuchar. That doesn't change that, right?
Ms. Siefer. Yes, exactly. So----
Senator Klobuchar. I am more interested in the providers
and how we can do that.
Ms. Siefer. So we need as many options on the table as
possible. So don't restrict local folks' ability to create
solutions.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Mr. Powell, can you tell us
of ways we can improve coordination and administration of the
funding programs for broadband across Government agencies,
given your experience from the past?
Mr. Powell. Well, I think Congress was smart to require the
FCC and the NTIA and others to go through a process of
developing an MOU for greater coordination. But, you know,
having a meeting is not the same as coordination.
I think one way that would improve that is really create a
set of external criteria that would allow you to measure
whether that coordination and harmonization is effective, as
opposed to just being able to meet the requirement by saying,
yes, we talked three or four times. It is going to take a lot
more than that.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Yes, I think that is going to
be very important. I think also the people involved in it, the
agency heads, who I have respect for, is key as well. Ms.
Sekaquaptewa, thank you so much for being here.
Could you talk about how communities are using Federal
funding to provide devices, which is part of getting at low
income households? And are there ways we can ensure these funds
are used more efficiently?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Sure. The tribal libraries in our
communities play a critical role for Internet access
historically, but also access to devices.
So the participation of these entities in the digital
equity planning, as well as the schools with the emergency
connectivity fund, are critical to providing devices for the
students and community members.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Next, we will
hear from Senator Sinema, and this will be audio.
STATEMENT OF HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Chairman Lujan and thank you to
our witnesses for joining us today. Passing last year's
bipartisan infrastructure law was a watershed moment for
broadband connectivity across the United States. I was proud to
help lead the effort to bring the infrastructure law together,
building on and incorporating ideas from many of my colleagues
on this committee from both sides of the aisle.
The bipartisan infrastructure law's historic investments in
deployment, affordability, tribal access, and digital inclusion
are the first steps toward ensuring all Arizonans will have
high speed broadband. But passing a law isn't enough.
Congress and stakeholders across the country, like our
witnesses today, must ensure the programs are implemented
effectively, funding is distributed quickly, and approvals are
processed appropriately to ensure that we close the digital
divide.
My first question today is for Mr. Spalter. One area of
improvement is with permit approvals by Federal agencies. This
is an area of particular interest for large Western States like
Arizona, where the Federal Government owns 42 percent of the
land in our state.
I recognize Chair Lujan's interest in this as well as he
represents our neighbor, New Mexico. Currently, permit
approvals by the Federal Government, such as the Bureau of Land
Management or the U.S. Forest Service, can take years.
This needs to be improved. Mr. Spalter, have your members
experienced challenges with securing Federal Government
approvals, and do you have any recommendations to streamline
the process?
Mr. Spalter. Thank you for the question, Senator. We are
frequently experiencing sometimes very severe permitting
challenges and delays in deploying. These are expressed not
only for our largest providers, but also and critically for our
regional and local providers as well.
The good news is that there have been steps that have been
advanced to actually address some of these issues. And I just
point to one, for example, under BEAD, states must share their
plans to streamline their permitting and rights of way
processes.
This is going to be at least one way to standardize
permitting approaches on a national and harmonized basis, and
we hope that this will take root and also just raise the
visibility on the need to actually address permitting
challenges fully and finally.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. My next question is for Ms.
Kimball Sekaquaptewa. I hope I said that right. Sekaquaptewa.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Excellent.
Senator Sinema. Was it really?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. It worked. Very brave as well.
Senator Sinema. In the bipartisan infrastructure law,
Congress allocated $2 billion specifically for the Tribal
Broadband Connectivity Program, in addition to tribal broadband
funding from previous laws.
Now, some of this funding has already gone out to tribes.
For example, the Gila River Indian community will use a $4.4
million grant to assist in telehealth expansion, distance
learning opportunities, affordable broadband service, and
economic growth.
The Hopi tribe will use a $13.8 million grant to install
fiber, connecting over 1,000 unserved Native American
households plus 18 businesses and 6 community anchor
institutions.
My question for you is, based on your experience at the
Santa Fe Indian School and as Chair of the Connect New Mexico
Council, could you discuss the importance of the Tribal
Broadband Connectivity Program for tribes in the Southwest and
could you recommend any additional steps Congress should take
to help ensure more tribal communities have fast, affordable
broadband access?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Yes, thank you for that question. I
believe that this Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program is
historic. It is monumental. And it is allowing us tribes to
work toward building our own community solutions.
While $2 billion is a lot of funding, it is not going to
meet all of the needs in our rural tribal communities. In the
Southwest, there has been a number of middle mile projects, as
well as last mile projects that work together in unison.
For instance, my project at the Santa Fe Indian School is
putting in the middle mile, but we work closely with our
sovereign nation consortia partners who have just been
applicants as well for fiber to the home or fixed wireless
solutions.
Together, as we built a cohort and share expertise,
navigate the permitting processes, share technical expertise,
and centralize services for improved gateway services such as
cybersecurity, we are able to build an ecosystem that serves
not just our last mile tribal needs, but our regional needs as
well.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. My last question is for Mr.
Powell. Mr. Powell, with the FCC publication of its
preproduction draft of new nationwide broadband maps, these
draft maps will enable the State of Arizona, as well as our
tribal and local governments and other stakeholders, to provide
feedback on the FCC's analysis.
These maps will enable the FCC to work with the NTIA to
begin the process of distributing broadband funding
appropriated in the bipartisan infrastructure law to State
governments.
Mr. Powell, these FCC maps are just the first draft. As
these maps continue to be improved, do you have any
recommendations for how to best ensure the maps are used to
direct Federal money to unserved and underserved locations,
consistent with the requirements of the law?
Mr. Powell. Yes. Suggestion one is we have to make sure we
have a very robust amount of feedback to the quality of the
maps to get them improved, particularly the January 13th
deadline, which is what NTIA has said is necessary as a
predicate to distributing the funding in June.
I think the second problem I see is, you know, the map is
not universally applicable. We have other large Federal
programs that are not required to use the map. I think that is
potentially problematic.
And I think we have a lot of states that will have
different versions of the map. We would hope that those get fed
into the FCC process, and the FCC process continues to develop
a genuinely authoritative map that all of the communities can
rely on equally.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Sinema. Next, we will
hear from Senator Baldwin for her questions, and then we will
go to Senator Young. Senator Baldwin.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start with
you, mister--not mister, Ms. Siefer. The Affordable
Connectivity Program is responsible for connecting almost a
quarter million Wisconsin households to affordable, high speed
broadband.
And I am proud to have voted for the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, which made that possible. Governor
Evers and the Wisconsin Public Service Commission have done a
laudable job of encouraging Wisconsinites to apply for this
benefit.
But I was really concerned to learn of a recent study
finding that 45 percent of affordable connectivity program
applications to the program are rejected. That is a very
staggering figure.
And so I am asking you, what more can be done at the
Federal, State, and local levels to make applying easier for
eligible families and to encourage more seamless eligibility
verification?
Ms. Siefer. It is a really great question. The computer
matching agreements that State programs have with USAC, we
don't have it for all the programs. We don't have it with all
the states.
So that would speed things up quite a bit because then
there wouldn't be this paperwork. Oh, you didn't give us the
right PDF or whatever, right, that happens. But also the human
aspect of this, having more funding for digital navigators so
there is someone sitting next to the person signing up and
saying, oh, I am sorry, because of your situation, we need you
to submit this instead of this.
Because it is confusing, and so if you don't have that
human helping you, you can think you have submitted everything
and you didn't.
Senator Baldwin. OK. Mr. Spalter, Wisconsin residents
depend on services made possible by the Universal Service Fund,
including rural broadband through the Connect America Fund,
lifeline phone services, and E-Rate funding for school and
library connectivity.
The Fifth Circuit recently heard arguments on whether this
fund, which has been supported on a bipartisan basis for
decades, is unconstitutional. What would be the impact to the
telecommunications ecosystem if the Universal Service Fund was
ruled unconstitutional?
Mr. Powell. Senator, it would be nothing less than a force
majeure that would impact our Nation's commitment to the future
of universal connectivity. We believe in the constitutionality
of the program.
We believe that it is on sound legal footing, and we expect
that the court will agree with us in this regard. But we have
to be very clear eyed about the need to make sure that
universal service can be sustainable. In the long haul, we
believe that we have to expand actually the base of
contributors that are providing support for USF beyond the very
small slice of telephone and voice providers via the Internet
in order to do so.
And we are really looking forward to working with you and
this committee in ensuring the FCC has the authority to be able
to expand that base.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Mr. Powell, I had a very
interesting discussion with some of your coworkers. I am going
to ask you to be a futurist for a quick second. I think about
the global race to develop quantum computing.
And I don't know how far off we are. I don't know whether
the U.S. is going to win it. I certainly hope we do because it
has such important consequences. But that said, what does the
telecom industry do to sort of prepare for that day, for
emerging technologies?
And what should we be thinking of as Members of Congress to
pave the way for safe implementation in the future?
Mr. Powell. Fascinating question. I think there are two
dimensions that I would focus on. First of all, it is literally
a quantum leap in capability. It is hard to foresee conceivably
what it could mean. The first thing from my familiarity with it
is the ability to hack encryption, which is potentially
dangerous.
A lot of encryption is built on the premise that a computer
would take decades and decades to crack it so that it is safe.
If you have a quantum computer that can do those calculations
at a exponentially faster rate, you can have a lot of
vulnerable systems in America to that kind of hacking.
So our members are focused on what will be encryption for
the future, and that is going to be a really, really critical
area. I think the other thing, you know, managing
communications, essentially a mathematical formula. There is
all kinds of algorithms that determine congestion, rooting
patterns.
You know, to the extent that quantum computing can improve
the efficacy and effectiveness, it probably means we could have
ultimately much, much, much faster network with much higher
capacity and much lower latency, which should be the holy grail
for all infrastructure providers.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. Senator Young,
you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank our
panelists for being here today. We have spent tens of billions
of dollars on important infrastructure investments,
particularly broadband funding in recent years, spanning
various Federal agencies.
And this committee has a really important oversight role,
and I commend the Chairman for his leadership in this effort.
The infrastructure bill alone made a $65 billion investment in
broadband deployment and adoption, and established, as has been
noted, a roughly $42.5 billion broadband grant program at the
NTIA.
I want to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Powell and Mr.
Spalter, please. You represent many member companies who would
likely consider participating in the BEAD Program, this grant
program to states.
Do your members want to participate in the BEAD Program,
and how is your industry prepared for this new funding? And
perhaps you could touch on any regulations associated with the
requirements of the BEAD Program or other Government programs
that are of particular focus to your members.
Mr. Spalter. Let me begin, Senator, and thank you for the
question. Our members are, if I could use this phrase, ``loaded
for bear'' to be able to actually deploy these BEAD dollars
responsibly, accountably, quickly, and effectively.
It is our members who have the financial, technical,
operational, and experiential wherewithal to be able to best
apply these funds and put them to their best and highest uses.
We are anticipating broad participation in the BEAD Program.
We are concerned, however, that there are unintended
consequences of the IIJA that need to be dealt with squarely,
including provisions that I don't believe Congress had intended
to be included in the BEAD Program nor its implementation.
Such things as Davis-Bacon, the middle class subsidy that
has been suggested. We need to together collectively deal with
these issues if we are going to foster the kinds of deep
participation that we want, and our members would very much
like to be able to achieve.
Senator Young. Thank you. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. I would just add the tenor of your question
gets at something I think is not fully appreciated. This is a
massive complex undertaking for an ISP. You have teams
dedicated, first of all, just digesting the rules, the
conditions, the parameters, the markets that are going to be
available, which ones are not going to be available.
You know, how is it going to be funded, where the matching
fund is coming from? How do we do this in an inflationary
environment that might lead to recession? How do we do this in
a supply chain constrained environment?
How do you do this in a skilled labor shortage environment?
What are the ways to migrate around those things? So, you know,
this is why the delicacy of unnecessary regulatory mandates
could really derail the incentive to participate.
Senator Young. Yes. Yes, absolutely. So we will note
whatever regulations or provisions you think are already
perhaps unintentional or are not reflective of the intent of
Congress as a whole on an ongoing basis, we will want to be
attentive to some friction that will be associated with
implementation, and I am sure at various points.
One question to again each of you, Mr. Powell and Mr.
Spalter, pertaining to the digital divide, something we in
Congress have indicated that we want to close for some period
of time. But what is closing the digital divide mean to you?
And do you believe that we will officially, through this
spending and implementation initiative, be able to close the
digital divide after, you know, tens of billions of dollars?
Because, frankly, this was the promise of the broadband
investments, which was we would make sure there are no
unserved, and we would significantly narrow the number of
underserved households across the country.
And I expect inflation, which Mr. Powell mentioned, could
have an adverse role on meeting that objective. But what say
you, Mr. Spalter?
Mr. Spalter. To the question of how do we close the digital
divide and what is closure of the digital divide, I think it
has been well expressed by the intent of the IIJA itself, which
is that when all in America who seek--who want access to
broadband can have that access at speeds of 120 throughput at
least, to get to that promised land, I think, you know, it is
tantalizingly close, but it is going to take an all hands on
deck effort to make sure that we can, in partnership with our
Government partners, really machete through a lot of these
encumbrances that make our willingness to participate in
question because of the various regulatory permitting and other
challenges that we know are part and parcel, unfortunately,
right now of broadband deployment.
Senator Young. OK, so your answer is basically we hope we
can close the digital divide. We all need to be working
together and toward that end. But you certainly haven't given
me a confident assertion that it is going to happen, which is
fair. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. Yes. I think closing the digital divide is
every American, regardless of where they live, whatever their
community, has the ability to access broad--high quality
broadband infrastructure at a reasonable rate.
That is the historic commitment of the Nation to universal
service, and we fully realize that dream, that will be the
result. I am more excited and bullish than I have ever been
that we have the opportunity to generally close the divide. I
have also learned that declaring mission accomplished
prematurely is a huge mistake.
A lot of this money could be misdirected, inefficiently
managed. We have seen that before. I think that the history of
that anxiety should produce a much sharper, more vigilant, more
better overseeing program.
If we do that, I think we will be able to celebrate the
closing of the digital divide. If not, we will be wondering 5
years from now what happened.
Senator Young. You have your game face on.
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Senator Young. All right. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Young. Next, we will hear
from Senator Rosen.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Well, thank you, Chairman Lujan. I really
appreciate you for holding this important hearing today. You
know, I am one of the authors of the broadband section of the
bipartisan infrastructure law, including the Middle Mile
Broadband Deployment Act. So I want to ensure that we meet the
law's goals.
Nevada is home to vibrant rural communities like Ely,
Lovelock, and Pahrump, but residents are really counting on the
new infrastructure law to bring long awaited high speed
broadband to our state.
Broadband access is not just a communications issue, it is
an economic issue, it is a workforce issue, it is a public
safety issue, and it is a health care issue. And that is why I
am so severely disappointed by the recent broadband maps
released by the FCC, which vastly overstate current coverage in
rural Nevada.
Broadband funding is directly tied to these maps, so we
need to get this process right. That means ISPs must be
forthcoming about where they actually serve. But it also means
that the FCC challenge process must accept challenges based on
actual engineering and the facts on the ground, not whether
merely an ISP can theoretically serve a particular community.
Actual facts, not theoretical, because our constituents are
counting on us, all of us, to get this right, and I am going to
continue to work with the FCC Chairwoman until we do so. So,
thank you. I am going to turn now for my question to the
witnesses. So, we do want to ensure success in digital equity
programs.
And so to fully participate in our modern world, our
constituents need not just access to affordable, high speed
internet, but also to those connected devices and digital
skillsets to navigate diverse technologies and online services.
Again, as one of the 22 Senators who worked on the
bipartisan infrastructure law, we understood the importance of
taking that tailored approach to digital equity, ensuring that
there are programs for every local communities' unique needs.
Means addressing affordability, digital literacy, digital
hygiene, upskilling all of the above.
So, Ms. Siefer, one of the challenges I have heard from
stakeholders in Nevada is finding community partners in rural
areas. Even communities that receive Federal funding through
the Digital Equity Act State capacity grant we created, they
still need help finding partners with the capacity to implement
digital inclusion programming.
So Ms. Siefer, how do you approach working with these
communities to meet their needs? We want to be sure everybody
gets what they need to thrive.
Ms. Siefer. First, Senator Rosen, I have to thank you on
behalf of the digital equity community for your work on the
bipartisan infrastructure law.
We really appreciate everything you did. In rural
communities, it is more difficult because those resources of
those who are already providing digital inclusion programming
may not be there. So the stakeholder engagement process that
has to occur, that process is a way to find those who can do
the programming.
Some of them may already exist, they may already be doing
digital inclusion work, but you may not know, or we may not
know that they are doing digital inclusion work because they
don't call it digital inclusion. They call it something else.
But also that stakeholder engagement process is a way to
educate those who are already serving the populations, the
covered populations that are supposed to be part of all of
this, and then they can become part of the solution. They can
integrate it into their other programming.
And the reason that that is going to be so valuable is
because of the trust that they already have with those covered
populations. And part of what NDIA does is that training. So we
offer ourselves to your community members.
Senator Rosen. Well, I want to continue on the stakeholder
engagement process, because we want to ensure a success in
digital affordability programs as well, because despite areas
where broadband affordability support is needed most, it could
have the greatest benefit.
Our rural areas sometimes have the lowest participation in
the Affordable Connectivity Program, those enrollment rates.
And so it is available. People aren't enrolling. So how again
do we reach out to everyone, let them know that these programs
are there? What are the strategies you can use to be sure that
we increase enrollment in our rural areas?
Ms. Siefer. It really goes back to those trusted
intermediaries. So the ones that are already talking to the
covered populations. There are those who aren't always trusted,
right. No offense to my colleagues.
Maybe the Internet service provider saying that this is
something available, may not be the right way to go. Because
free doesn't--it sounds like a scam, right. But if your
librarian is telling you about it or your teacher is telling
you about it, or the individual over at the extension center is
telling you about it, that you might trust.
Senator Rosen. Well, thank you. I think we really--I am
going to submit the rest of my questions for the record. But I
really think getting this information out through a trusted
source is up and down our states, urban and rural, it is so
important that everybody gets the digital access that they
need. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lujan. Thank you very much, Senator Rosen. Next, we
will hear from Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Chairman Lujan and Ranking
Member Thune, for having this hearing. And I want to express my
appreciation to the panelists for their testimony. I am going
to start with you, Mr. Powell. You already pointed out that
there is a lot of money, a record amount of money going in to
lay down broadband to get everybody connected up. From your
seat, what is the biggest barrier for Internet service
providers?
Mr. Powell. I think the biggest barriers is you need
critical inputs to actually operate in these parts of the
country. Those critical inputs are permitting, which we have
talked a lot about today.
I would offer some additional suggestions for improving
that, not only trying to create much deeper coordination among
Federal agencies for Federal lands, a harmonized set of access
fees, but I would also add making sure those agencies are
staffed with the people.
We often call these agencies, and we are told we don't have
enough people to work on that, we will do your permit next
year. And that is just kind of unacceptable with the urgency of
this program.
The second area that we have touched on, which I think is
critical, is access to poles at reasonable rates. We do have a
Federal regulatory regime that regulates reasonable rates for
poles, but there are exemptions in that law.
And many of those exempted entities have conflicts of
interest in allowing new entering providers from accessing
those poles. That becomes a very, very, very serious problem
for anybody hoping to reach these areas.
So continued focus by the FCC, the Congress on permitting
and poles, we think is the principal and primary obstacle to
utilizing the money effectively.
Senator Tester. So, we--I think this is a fair statement,
like in a lot of laws and oversight, there are a few folks out
there that create problems for everybody else. And one of the
problems that we are concerned about the, that you are
concerned about and so am I, is building on top of a broadband
that is already there.
My question to you is--and I think because of that, I mean,
we are seeing you have to dot the I's twice and cross the T's
three times, because there are some folks out there that are
going to take Federal dollars and they are going to overbuild
on top of other existing lines.
Well, if testimony was being given today, it occurred to me
that it isn't some of the responsibility on the folks that are
requesting the money, or do you just not know where the service
is, so you are just going to build it out? Answer me which one
of those statements is true?
Do we have companies in--and this is for you, Mr. Powell--
do we have companies out there that are getting the money,
knowing damn well that the services is already there, but they
can get the money and, you know, pocket a little administration
fees and make some money? Or is it a situation where the maps
are so bad that even the companies don't know which areas are
served?
Mr. Powell. I think both can be true. I think the efforts
to make the maps more sophisticated, precise, and granular is
going to significantly diminish or mitigate that consequence.
Look, I have been involved in these programs for 30 years.
I guarantee you there are companies out there who believe
that they can acquire resources and subsidies, find a way to
build in economically sustainable efforts, areas which often
include areas where broadband already exists, pocket that
profit and get away with it successfully.
They have done it in the past, in past programs, without
sufficient rigor and accountability for those kinds of things.
And shame on us if they are able to do it a third time, despite
Congress, at least in the BEAD Program, expressing quite
clearly and intentionally the desire to take care of the
neediest first, and only when that job is done to move to
underserved areas, and only when that job is done, consider
other possible uses of the money.
The question is, will we rigorously adhere to that scheme,
or will it be eroded through the implementation across multiple
jurisdictions over time?
Senator Tester. Right. And look, I think the dollars are
there to get everybody connected up with good service. But if
it is not used correctly, then that is a problem. And I think--
I don't, I can't speak for the agencies because I do oversight,
I don't do their work.
But I think that is probably part of the reason why
permitting is onerous, because they want to try to make sure
that people aren't doing this. I want to move on to something
else. And this is for Ms. Siefer.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill that quite frankly I
helped write and got passed, requires some broadband labels. I
looked at the label. I think it is great if you know what you
are looking at.
But quite frankly, it tells you about download speeds and
upload speeds and all those kind of things, but to a regular
person, that doesn't mean much. Do you think these broadband
labels are going to be effective, or do you think we need to
take another run at it?
Ms. Seifer. I think the broadband labels have an
opportunity, a potential to be effective. But we also need to
be educating all of our community members as to what these
things mean. As this technology keeps changing, we are going to
have to figure out how to keep educating each other. And it is
really complicated, but we can't just be like, well, somebody
else knows all the answers.
Senator Tester. Right on. I just want to thank you guys
very, very much. This is a big, big issue. We have an
opportunity to do a lot of good stuff and create a lot of jobs
in the economy in the process if it is done right. I appreciate
all your input. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Tester. Next, we will
hear from Senator Capito.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
for being here today. I am sure you can tell from the hearings
this is an issue that hits home all the time. And certainly
that is no different for me in a rural area of West Virginia
who has some of the lowest broadband deployment, unfortunately.
So I am going to start with Mr. Spalter. Senator Klobuchar
and I introduced the Rural Broadband Protection Act earlier
this year. This legislation will require a more vigorous
vetting and verification process for Internet service providers
seeking to participate in the FCC high cost programs.
And I think you all are in support of this. The issue is,
for years we have had money go out to certain providers that in
the end can't either, a, provide the service or it gets too
expensive, or for whatever reason, it doesn't get deployed
there. That is what I am trying to get with this bill. Let's
pre-vet before we go ahead. So could you speak to that issue
for me, please?
Mr. Spalter. I think that the Rural Digital Opportunity
Fund in its first iteration is proof positive that we have to
do better and be more aggressive in ensuring that we are
properly vetting providers for their financial, technical,
operational, and even experiential wherewithal.
Which is why we support your legislation that would do more
to pre-vet providers. This is, as we all have expressed, a once
in a generation opportunity to get the work done and we cannot
be doing science experiments with these dollars.
Senator Capito. No. No, we really can't. Mr. Powell, do you
have a comment on that? What you see from your perspective?
Mr. Powell. I would say I really endorse your instincts
here. I mean, I think broadband is way more hard--way more
difficult and complicated to provision than people realize. It
requires deep levels of engineering, technical expertise, and
more importantly, a commitment to the long term.
I think there is a tendency to believe that you dig a hole,
you build a line once, and you are done with this. We spend $19
billion every single year just on upgrades, changes, and
innovations. You have to make sure someone who is entering the
program is able to sustain that for a meaningful amount of
time.
What we often see is they come in and get the money to
build. Constructing it once is one thing and then cannot keep
going for the long----
Senator Capito. Right. And that is one of the concerns I
have. I am not saying every municipality might have an issue
for this, but this could be an issue in certain--we don't have
a whole growth industry in our State or municipalities wanting
to do this because they realize it has to be a regional
approach.
You have to have not just the expertise but the money to
maintain it. It doesn't just stop once you get the delivery. So
I think that is a sort of a side issue to this. If I could talk
about the mapping again, I had a joint meeting, and the Western
New Broadband Enhancement Council has done a great job on
trying to pre-map our state.
But when the maps came out, it looked as though 138,000--we
have 1.8 million, so 900,000 residents or something around that
that, and so 138,000 locations look to have been left out. And
I think this is a national problem.
So when do we expect these to actually be finalized?
Because the money really can't go out by our desire until these
are complete. Is that correct, Mr. Powell, or Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Powell. Yes, that is correct. I mean, the general
expectation is the final maps will come out in the spring. Some
people say March, some people say April. The distribution of
funds, NTIA has said at the end of June.
So we really are in a crunch period beginning now,
particularly submissions that are due on January 13th, in order
to give the FCC a genuine opportunity to produce a next round
of maps that is more accurate and reflects the concerns that
you are raising.
I would want to highlight one thing to clarify. The FCC is
the one determining the locations of the fabric----
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Powell. You know, that is not being provided by the
ISP. So a lot of these problems are in this complex process of
the fabric that we can help with, but that data is being
collected separately from the data we provide.
Senator Capito. Right. And go ahead, Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Well, I would just add to that that the review
and challenge process absolutely plays a critical role in
ensuring that we are going to be actually able to have maps
that will be fully functional.
And it would be a complete undermining of the law if the
NTIA were to move forward with maps that have not been subject
to that rigorous review process. Which is why I think that this
kind of oversight is extremely important in ensuring that we
can actually have maps that are viable, scalable, universal,
and harmonized across the country.
Senator Capito. Right. Yes, we have been really pushing
through our office the website on the FCC where you can
actually put your home address in, and I would encourage people
to do that, especially when you have got--well, in any case but
in the more rural areas it is easy to miss.
Addresses are different, and but we need to get that
granular data. And I am really appreciative that the State data
that is coming forward, with what the ISPs are delivering and
others, is really I think enhances this, but we are still--some
of ours are getting missed.
So I appreciate everything you are doing and thanks for the
answers. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Capito. Next, we will
hear from Senator Lummis for her questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
panel. My first question is for Mr. Powell and Ms.
Sekaquaptewa. Did I get it right? I am so sorry.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Yes you did. Sekaquaptewa.
Senator Lummis. OK. Well, I am from Wyoming. And as you
know, Wyoming and the West face unique challenges that can
impact the availability of broadband services and probably
create additional costs.
You know, sometimes our equipment is in remote areas when
it needs to be repaired, hard to get maintenance to that kind
of equipment in some of our areas, and that can cause
additional costs, so our service goes down.
So what costs disproportionately impact rural and tribal
areas when it comes to deploying broadband services? What are
you seeing out there?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. For the tribal areas, you are absolutely
correct with the rugged nature. If you look at the state of New
Mexico on Highway 40, goes into Arizona in about 60, maybe even
maybe 90 miles. From that border, it is lava.
So constructing in that requires advanced equipment that is
more expensive. And I think that is probably one of the biggest
elements that, you know, we battle when we put in our--when we
design our projects.
The permitting is also a challenge. I will say, though,
that, you know, with the recent Federal efforts with the
permitting council, there is more of a mechanism to coordinate
the Federal agency permits. And that is going to be a huge time
savings, which also can have cost components as well.
But we look forward to working with these new initiatives
that have made broadband projects eligible for this project or
for their permitting council's process and are optimistic that
we can reach our delivery goals for our Tribal Broadband
Connectivity project, whose time-frame had to be extended by
four--was allowed to be extended up to 4 years as opposed to
the initial NOFO which had a 1-year project.
Now for our project cost there, we are going to look at
some administrative costs that were unexpected for that longer
time-frame and that has a lot to do with the supply chain
issues. We are in, I just ordered, you know, a couple of
million feet of fiber with a 2-year delivery date.
Senator Lummis. Is permitting more difficult on--in Indian
Country?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. It is. We also have the Bureau of Indian
Affairs that we need to work with. So that can be--that is
another process that we just have to factor in. So when we look
at, you know, reforms and coordination, the BIA did sign an MOU
work on these on these projects.
But it is time and educational. So within the agencies, you
might have that conversation at the Federal level, and we have
heard some of the witnesses speak to that, but then once the
management down to the people processing or receiving
paperwork, until they are trained and they are meeting their
timeframes, we are going to continue to see barriers.
Senator Lummis. Is BIA--is it necessary to have BIA
involved in this? Is this an area where BIA could be more of an
impediment than help?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Yes and no. I think that BIA does play an
important role here. They--not all tribes are the same. You
know, we are sovereign nations. Some of us have more resources
and more internal capabilities and capacity. And for those
tribes that can move forward, a lighter touch with the BIA is
absolutely fair.
Senator Lummis. And does the BIA adapt itself to the
differences among tribes and their self-governance
capabilities?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Yes, they do. They try to do that. What--
the BIA also has a role, though, I think, for the least
resourced tribes. For instance, with spectrum acquisition. This
is something where tribes have not had access to sovereign
rights over what could be considered a natural resource like
water.
So now as we move forward into the telecommunications space
and we are trying to negotiate in the secondary markets,
perhaps there is a band of spectrum that we would like to
utilize, and we know that it is not being utilized by the
license holder.
There was an order to the effect to allow tribes the
opportunity to utilize that underused spectrum. But where does
a tribe begin, especially if it is a low resourced tribe? How
do we engage in those processes?
We are not going to be able to without additional
structures of support, and BIA has the opportunity to grow and
help us with that process.
Senator Lummis. OK. Well, I hope you will reach out to the
Committee, because you are knowledgeable in this area, and let
us know if there are areas where we should require a lighter
touch of the BIA with regard to regulation and layers of
bureaucracy in this area that might prevent a company from
accessing a broadband project in Indian Country.
Mr. Powell, same question for you. Maybe, maybe a little
less focused on tribal lands.
Mr. Powell. Yes. I think states like yours are the most
challenging. Number one, for geography. These are complex
terrains to wire and connect, and those are unique challenges.
Permitting, as you mentioned. Pole access as we have discussed.
All our significant problems running into those
communities. The availability of skilled labor to work often in
remote regions is challenging as well.
And then I think an area we haven't talked enough about
across the whole country is this continuing backup in the
supply chain, which is really becoming quite problematic, I
think, for all of us.
Senator Lummis. Thank you. I have. I have run over, so I
might submit additional questions in writing. Hey, thank you
all for being here.
Senator Lujan. Senator Lummis, thank you very much. Mr.
Powell, I had asked Mr. Spalter a question about data caps, and
I have the same question for you as well. Yes or no, do some of
your members maintain data caps or data throttling on their
consumer broadband offerings?
Mr. Powell. Not data throttling. Some of our members do
employ data caps. One of the reasons is our networks are
shared. Meaning, in a neighborhood everyone is drinking from
the same broadband network.
If one user were to overuse that broadband, it would
diminish the experience of others in the community, so some of
our carriers use caps to manage and prevent that situation.
Senator Lujan. But if a network is properly built, there is
plenty of data for everybody. To me--just so, you know, data
caps to me are like long distance calling. When my mom is going
to make a long distance call, I encourage her to use her mobile
device so she doesn't have to pay for that long distance call
like she would if she had to use her landline.
There shouldn't be long distance calling in America, and
that is a fundamental flaw with USF. I don't want to get into
all of those problems. But everything that I am aware of from
network buildout and construction, given technological
advances, is there is plenty out there if it is constructed
correctly. Is that an incorrect assumption I am making?
Mr. Powell. I don't want to call it incorrect. Some
networks are fixed connections to a home, and they are not
affected by the use of homes next door.
Cable networks are largely shared, which means the way they
are constructed and designed, one home can affect the quality
of what is available in another home. This also happens in
multi-dwelling units.
So for example, in the days when you had someone running a
BitTorrent server in their basement and were downloading tons
of illegal music, could that degrade the experience of people
sharing that backbone connection? Absolutely, that is true.
That is why those that do have caps, the caps are
extraordinarily high. Very few people ever reach them or ever
will reach them, and they are done for network management
reasons. Now, to be fair, many of our companies don't do them.
It is an individual business decision, so we don't have
some opinion that they are all necessarily or not necessary.
These are decisions companies make to manage their networks in
the communities they serve.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I appreciate the response
that says that, well, if they have them, they are high, so
people may not hit them.
The reason that I am asking this question to you, Mr.
Spalter, and to you, Mr. Powell, is during the last couple of
years with what children were faced with distance education,
educators who were conducting their classrooms from their
homes, especially in the most rural parts of the country where
their technology may have been a line of sight shot from some,
you know, some provider that couldn't get to them maybe because
of easements, things of that nature, but nonetheless, they were
constrained with caps.
I have spoken to a number of teachers and a number of
students whose parents or household thought that they had
purchased a good enough plan so that they would not be hit with
additional fees, things of that nature, and were hit with data
caps.
I was really surprised with the number of educators in New
Mexico, a number of kids, that did hit those caps and then they
could not afford to go higher. And the reason I am asking that
is with the work that we are doing here, it is about equitable
access.
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Senator Lujan. And to me, if a household with students hit
that cap and they can't participate in school, that does not
feel to me like equitable access. And so I introduced a piece
of legislation called the Uncap America Act, looking at this
specifically.
I mean, I think even your largest member did not deploy
data cap plans in all of their states, although there is a
question of, you know, 2021 or 2022, or if in the future if
that may happen. But it was a recognition that it was not
needed everywhere.
And to your point, Mr. Powell, that not all of your members
use that as well. And that is the same with you, Mr. Spalter.
Not all of your members have data cap plans available to
customers as well. But nonetheless, I hope that that is
something that we can look at going forward, given network
buildouts, what we are now seeing with further reaches.
And if data caps continue at the rate that we saw them
during COVID, there is going to be a lot of folks still left
out. And I am hoping that that may be something we can work
toward.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa, how do we best ensure students across New
Mexico and around the Nation have equal access to education,
especially as--and specifically as it pertains to access to
broadband, distance education, responsibilities, things of that
nature?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Well, I think that we learned--and thank
you for that question. I think we have learned through the
pandemic that it is all about residential Internet access.
During the pandemic, when and I am not sure how it is in other
states, but in our tribal lands in New Mexico, we were--
physical barricades were put up at the entrance to our tribal
lands.
This was to prevent traffic for people coming in, you know,
and possibly with the sickness, but it was also to protect us
from going out. And the problem with that was that our students
who were going to the McDonald's and the Starbucks, they could
no longer have that access.
Once the tribal library shut down, we were told to stay,
you know, in our homes, in our bubble, and not even with our
extended families to also protect ourselves. So the Internet
that we had in our homes was the only lifeline we had for
remote learning. And as I mentioned earlier, 89 percent of our
students did not have it.
We cobbled together what we could with the mobile hotspots
once their prices went down. But really, we need affordable,
permanent residential services in our communities. That is the
only way that we are going to be able to ensure adequate
participation for our students in K-12.
Recent leading research is connecting broadband
availability to student attainment and post-secondary pursuits.
With--after the pandemic, we are not going backward. Remote
learning is here to stay. The expectation that students will be
carrying devices and will be completing homework, you know, at
home and collaborating with their peers at night is just the
new normal.
So as we want to prepare students for success, it is to
have their availability to the Internet as a universal service
in their homes. And just real quickly, what we do--how we use
the Internet is also changing in education.
You know, I mentioned the State education networks. We now
have our tribal libraries connected over gigabit connections to
institutions of higher education in New Mexico, to the research
and education networks.
Ours in New Mexico is called the Albuquerque Gigapop, where
they peer with all the higher-ed institutions. So when we have
these residential Internet connections and these high speed
connected anchor institutions, we are now connecting our
educational spaces to international high speed education and
research networks.
So when we talk about workforce training and we talk about
building the next generation of IT professionals, it is all
part of that greater conversation.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And in my familiarity
with those networks, and that is part of the brilliance is you
made a decision based on the lack of connectivity when you were
initially working on the tribal library, I believe, at Santa--
which pueblo was it? The first tribal library that you worked
on?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Santo Domingo.
Senator Lujan. Santo Domingo, which I believe we had a
chance to visit. And then you saw how you could continue to
expand that opportunity, pueblo to pueblo. But by building your
own network, you could get to that Gigapop, if you will, and
you could get to that access point and have the fastest speeds
available to people in the community. So I just want to thank
you and your continued success with your expansion in that
area.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. There has been some specific questions
around the mapping. And while I agree with Chairman Powell that
I applaud that the FCC has moved forward and we have some data
now, we have clearly seen where aspects of the country are
missing from what that was able to capture.
And as I pointed out in my opening, Cochiti Pueblo,
Shiprock, New Mexico, completely left out. And in New Mexico,
the office has said that as many as 37,000 locations in New
Mexico are unaccounted for.
So how best can we enable our local communities to engage
the FCC and take advantage of the challenge process as
intended?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Thank you for pointing out the--some of
our challenges in New Mexico. You know, one of the--when we
moved to the residential based reporting, the granular
reporting, you know, that is good. That is an opportunity. But
it ties into other nuances that also have to be solved for.
In our tribal lands, we don't necessarily have street
addresses, you know, so how are we going to match that that
P.O. Box to that underserved home. So we are having to look at
the systems that we use to build the maps and look at the
methodologies and the challenges that lie therein.
As Chair of the Connect New Mexico Council, we have been
looking at tribal engagement very seriously, and we need to put
together, you know, different teams. It is not just inviting
tribal leadership.
It is also a conversation of GIS specialists. Do the tribes
even have GIS specialists? You know, how are we going to work
then--or with the IT departments, who plays a role to do what?
So it has to be a multi-pronged approach.
And in particular with respect to mapping, we have
solutions. Let's create a helpdesk. You know, people can call
the FCC for help. People can call the State for help. But, you
know, what we need to do is we need to go to each one of the
communities and we need to use our local networks and our
trusted partners to invite them to workshops.
We are planning two in the fall--I mean, one next week and
then one right after Christmas, but we are going to bring
together our tribal teams. We built an offline map that we are
going to have that is interactive, and we are going to zoom in
on our neighborhoods by having the people in those
neighborhoods in the room, and we are going to identify those
missing locations.
Senator Lujan. Well, let me ask you a follow up to
everything you just put on the table. Is the January 13th date
established by the NTIA enough time?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Oh, absolutely not. I mean, we are going
to work like crazy until we hear that there is an extension,
but we need more time to do it right. I know we desperately
need broadband.
I know that people are hurting, and basic human services
are being compromised until we can get broadband deployed as
fast as possible, but also rushing into decisionmaking and
creating funding allocations that might not be in the best
interests of those same communities would be a miss, I think,
for this generational opportunity we have with this funding.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that very much. Now, providers
looking to serve rural markets must typically pay more to
connect each subsequent customer, right, as distances
increases, as there are other challenges surrounding that.
The FCC has interpreted its universal service mandate to
include support for this high cost buildout, as well as provide
a lifeline to low income subscribers. NTIA's BEAD Program and
the Affordable Connectivity Program take these policies to the
next level. They make the market work in these areas with
Federal support for capital, expenditures, and discounts to
qualified households.
Mr. Spalter, your testimony recommends Congress chart a
sustainable future for the Universal Service, and it expresses
support for the Fair Contributions Act, which we voted out of
this committee in charting the path forward.
Please answer whether the future of Universal Service
includes the following priorities, direct support for capital
expenditures in rural and high cost areas?
Mr. Spalter. Yes.
Senator Lujan. Direct support for discounts for eligible
households to cover the cost of monthly access?
Mr. Spalter. Yes.
Senator Lujan. Direct support for telehealth and remote
telemedicine?
Mr. Spalter. Very much so, yes.
Senator Lujan. Direct support for affordable, resilient,
and secure broadband for teachers and students wherever they
access educational tools?
Mr. Spalter. Absolutely.
Senator Lujan. Direct support for digital literacy, digital
inclusion, and digital equity initiatives to ensure adoption
follows closely behind access and affordability?
Mr. Spalter. Yes.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And I agree. And I am
hopeful that as we look for and create and identify together a
permanent solution to close the digital divide, the investment
is historic, but the funding for broadband in the bipartisan
infrastructure bill is not permanent. The digital divide will
not disappear when the funding runs out.
And I think that is an important conversation for all of us
to face. I agree with what was presented by Senator Lummis,
Senator Tester, Senator Young, Senator Thune, with and in your
written testimony, about approval for access for easement
approval, especially among Federal agencies in coordination.
Recently, myself and Senator Barrasso wrote a letter to the
Department of Interior along these lines. And this should not
just be looked at from the perspective of broadband. On the
Navajo Nation in New Mexico, we had a horrific rainstorm and a
flood that resulted. A declaration of emergency was presented
and adopted.
FEMA authorized the funding. Could not secure easement from
BIA. The money was almost lost. Which should have taken a year
or two to get done with reestablishing a road that was dirt,
but a bridge that was torn out because of the flooding, it took
more than a decade.
And that is why I appreciate the conversation of what we
are talking about here. That could not have occurred with this
initiative. So I am hopeful that we can address those issues as
well. And Kimball, the first tribally owned telecom company
began in South Dakota, which I have learned a lot more about,
the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe when they bought a private
company and founded their telecommunication authority.
From New Mexico, Godfrey Enjady of the Mescalero Apache, he
leads the National Tribal Telecom Association. In the past, the
Santa Fe Indian School has leveraged a model where tribal
consortia have worked to build their own fiber networks.
These consortia have reduced broadband costs by up to 95
percent and increased speeds dramatically. Do you believe
tribally owned networks have empowered tribes and pueblos to
build and sustain self-sufficient and thriving communities?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Absolutely. You know, I think that the
success of Matty and the other tribal ETCs just speaks to the
ability for tribal ISPs to participate successfully in the
telecommunications space. You know, in the consortia projects
that I have done, you know, we are new entrants into this
space.
I heard comments and concerns about sustainability after
post grant awards, and that is valid, that is fair. But we also
need to look at how we are going to achieve sustainability as
us tribes now are proving that we can build and maintain these
networks. We have very robust connections, fiber based
connections in these communities that I built in.
The costs did go down by 95 percent plus and the speeds
went up by over 3,000 percent, and that was just turning our
network on low. So I think we can do tremendous work. When we
do look at sustainability, and Godfrey, Mr. Enjady will be the
first one to mention this, we need to work, come back with
Congress and the FCC and look at paths for sustainable funding.
Now, whether the ACP continues, hopefully, but also access to
Lifeline, and if the barrier to that or a challenge is to
become an ETC, maybe we can look at alternative models for--in
the regulatory framework where the ETC designation can be
modified because not all of the tribes want to serve--provide
voice. Broadband only options serve these community needs
adequately.
So if we can look at some flexibility in accessing the USF
funds, then I think that is going to speak largely to the
sustainability of these networks.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Before I come back to the
other members of the panel, Senator Lummis does have another
question.
Senator Lummis. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. It is nice
to be able to take advantage of this panel's expertise while
they are here. Sure appreciate it. Mr. Spalter, quick question
about developing a location fabric. What are some of the
difficulties you faced? We have covered some of them here
today.
Are there any we haven't discussed that the Committee
should be aware of. And then for the entire panel, how can the
FCC best ensure that the broadband maps, which will be used to
allocate BEAD funding, are accurate? So thanks--again, with my
thanks to the panel.
Mr. Spalter. Recognizing the unfortunate history of
previous broadband maps, USTelecom endeavored to undertake a
pilot program to actually evolve and deploy on a pilot basis
location fabrics both in Missouri and Virginia.
We found that we can do so if we were aggressively seeking
the types of data that need to contribute to more refined
mapping processes, including not only open source data sets,
but also proprietary data sets, geocoding, and other
sophisticated data analyzes that can actually inform the maps.
We presented those pilots and the underlying location fabric to
the FCC and are very glad that they have adopted that as a
framework for the existing maps.
We absolutely have an opportunity by, we hope in the short
time so that we can deploy dollars by the end of June, to have
a refined, accurate, and deeply granular set of maps because of
things like the location coding--the location fabric's
geocoding mechanisms that allow each structure to be identified
in serviceable communities, so we will more accurately know
where broadband is, but more importantly, where it isn't.
And so we are confident, and I would even say optimistic,
that the maps will actually be able to iterate to a place where
we can have confidence in them as long as we continue
collectively, not only as industry, but with our community
partners and the States, to work toward ensuring that the
challenge process can move nimbly, quickly, and effectively.
Senator Lummis. Thank you. And would anyone else care to
weigh in on my broader question? Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Thank you. I would think speaking to the
goal of utilizing the map to close the digital divide speaks to
not just the accuracy of what is on the map itself right now,
but how we use the map and how we design it as a tool.
You know, I think that we have different--for instance, I
am speaking from education. In our schools and those anchor
institutions, how are they being categorized on the map? How
are other anchor institutions for health centers, for instance,
how are they being characterized on the map?
Because the map isn't just for baseline data, but it is
also a planning tool. So the more dynamic it is, the more the
anchor institutions are included, then we can design different
broadband strategies that include the different sectors, and I
think that that is what is going to help us realize America's
broadband needs.
Ms. Siefer. Can I add that most communities are not
conducting the kind of challenging process, education process
that Kimball is. So if we had more communities able to conduct
that process, not only are they fixing the maps, they are
learning about broadband while they are there.
Senator Lummis. Great panel. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Lujan. Thank you very much, Senator. To move past
the question I asked Kimball, Mr. Powell, yes or no, do any of
your companies intentionally discriminate when providing
service?
Mr. Powell. No.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Spalter, same question.
Mr. Spalter. Absolutely not.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. If a company were to
intentionally discriminate, would that violate existing statute
prior to passage of the IIJA? Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Powell. Well, I think that would depend. There probably
are gender, I mean, race, gender, other kinds of discriminatory
statutes that might reach that conduct depending on how onerous
or how much animus was involved. I mean, classic redlining in
different formats is prohibited in different ways.
So I am just not familiar enough with all the things that
are available that you could violate. But I do think the IIJA
created a communications deployment architecture specific
focused on that, and that will become more clear with the FCC's
proceeding.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Well, Section 60506 of the IIJA was very
explicit in setting forth an anti-discrimination approach. We
believe that intentional discrimination is the core principle
the FCC has to use to evaluate whether there is any
discriminatory intent. It is a viable one. It must be the basis
for its current proceeding.
We have also found that intentional discrimination, as it
is applied variously to rooting out discrimination in areas
like housing, handicapped Americans and real estate, and I
already mentioned housing, and employment is a viable standard
and can be applied in this instance.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. If I was asked the
question if a company were to intentionally discriminate, if
that would violate existing statute or passage of the IIJA, I
would say yes.
And the reason that I ask that particular question is with
the proceeding now that is taking place, there are a lot of
questions about clarification, things of that nature is, it
seems to me based on, no one is intentionally discriminating,
no one is intentionally discriminating--you represent the
largest members in the particular areas where connectivity,
access to communication across America, that if that is the
case, that it is not a problem and existing statutes already
protect it. Would you agree with that, Mr. Spalter?
Mr. Spalter. I would have to evaluate that with greater
care. But generally speaking, if I could reiterate that under
the context that none of our members have or have any intention
to discriminate. We are confident that the intention of Section
60506 of the IIJA is sufficient to be a basis for the FCC
rulemaking as long as it is based on intentional discrimination
and its core principle.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Mr. Powell, do you have
any feedback there?
Mr. Powell. I would only add, Senator, that we are very
confident that we will pass any test on digital discrimination
because of the nature of the way we build our networks. You
know, we build into our entire footprint and have for many,
many decades, and we upgrade consistently.
I think we have shared data with your office that you can't
find differences very easily between wealthy areas and low
income areas in most of our footprint, and you can't find any
distinguishing factors between Hispanic or African American
communities in those areas. So we feel very good that we build
systematically.
We serve everyone. It is in our DNA. And we will work with
the FCC to have a workable definition that we can all be clear
that we are in compliance with, but we are confident that we
will meet that standard.
Senator Lujan. So as a follow up to that with the passage
of legislation by the House and the Senate, do you believe
Congress gave the FCC the authority to define and prevent
digital discrimination in order to promote equal access to
broadband with comparable speeds, latency, and other quality of
service?
Mr. Powell. Yes, you did give them that authority subject
to technical and economic feasibility, but yes.
Senator Lujan. And the reason I am asking that question is,
as I share with you and we have chatted before the questions
that I had surrounding one of the filings around safe harbors,
with recent rules as well.
And the reason I am asking that is, to me, it is concerning
from the perspective of the history of digital redlining, as we
have spoken about before, rural access to tribal telecom that
shows that companies use of economic and technical feasibility
to not serve entire neighborhoods or entire communities has
been used.
And I am hoping that--Mr. Spalter, did you have a reaction
to that?
Mr. Spalter. No, I was----
Senator Lujan. OK. And what I am hoping that moves forward
here is that if, in fact, the intent, as has been agreed on by
everybody, filings, press releases, public statements, things
of that nature, is to connect to the country, that loopholes
are not created such that they can be hid behind.
You know, in some communities where something is not
economically feasible or not technically feasible--and I think
in a previous filing, even Mr. Powell, NCTA filed that just
because something is not--just because something is not
technologically--I think, technically feasible, that it doesn't
mean that it is not economically feasible. Did I get that
correct? It has been a few years. It was back in 2019 or 2020,
if I remember.
Mr. Spalter. You might have me on that one.
Senator Lujan. We can come back to it. We can come back to
it. Nonetheless, it has been my experience as a--so as you
know, I was a former member of the New Mexico Public Regulation
Commission, which is the equivalent to public utilities of
different parts of America.
And in New Mexico, we were unique because we had insurance
under us, like Vermont had banking underneath them. It was kind
of interesting. Sorry to describe those, but nonetheless, the
work that I did with the PC at the time I was very proud of.
But it was my experience at the time, and even into the
House, that when communities would be told that they could not
be built, that it was not economically or technically feasible,
and then they would just take it on their own, and then someone
would come in and say, oh no, we can do it now. I just don't
want to see that.
I guess that is the point that I am raising here is, a
loophole that lets you say, nope, can't do it, and then someone
does it, and then all of a sudden it is possible, as we work on
these rules. And this is something that I will be looking at
closely with the rulemakings that are there to ensure that we
don't have loopholes like that that are created.
Because to have this investment at the level that it is,
which could cure most of the problem, I am still not convinced
it will cure all the problem, that will cure most of the
problem of not having households connected, businesses, rural
communities, first responders, all the rest in America, for
then there to be loopholes that will guarantee that even though
there is money, that it won't be connected.
And that is one of my ultimate goals with wanting to have a
hearing like this and bringing us all together. You all are
going to be critically important to how this gets done, and I
pray that it will be.
I am very familiar with the work that Kimball has done in
New Mexico, having watched that for years, but especially now
with some of the decisions that have been made, going back to
the 2020 funding at NTIA, some of the spectrum allocations as
well, especially in sovereign indigenous communities across the
country and how we can get that right.
So I pray that we can just get this all done, but you are
all critically important and it means a lot to have you all
here today. I do want to also thank Senator Thune for the work
that he has done over the last few years that I have had--or a
couple of years that I have had the honor of working with him
as well on, on this subcommittee, and I hope to continue
working with him in this and other areas.
While we don't always vote the same, I very much appreciate
the conversations I have with Mr. Thune and his team and how we
have been able to work together. And what is Alex's last name?
I also want to thank Alex. Alex--Sachtjen. Kimball, I have
problems with everybody's name.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lujan. But I also want to recognize Alex for his
work, and not only what he does for helping to prepare Mr.
Thune, but the work that he does for the Subcommittee with all
of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
As we all know, it is incredible staff that we all depend
on every day to make a profound difference. And to all the
staff that are here today, I just want to say thank you to each
and every one of you, and happy holidays. Stay safe.
But you have a lot of work in front of you, so please work
as much as you can.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lujan. Thanks again, everyone. With that being
said, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
National Urban League
December 12, 2022
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Lujan,
Thank you for convening the upcoming ``Ensuring Solutions to Meet
America's Broadband Needs'' hearing. The National Urban League (NUL)
remains committed to ensuring the funds from the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), including Federal support for broadband
access, affordability, and adoption, are equitably distributed to the
communities that remain unconnected, are at risk of being disconnected,
and need increased workforce development and entrepreneurial
opportunities.
As the President of the National Urban League and on behalf of our
92 affiliates across 36 states and the District of Columbia, we have
long fought for the economic empowerment of historically under-
resourced communities across the Nation. That is why NUL was an early
advocate for the IIJA. We issued many recommendations that were
ultimately reflected in this historic legislation. Notably, in our
Lewis Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and Inclusion we provided
comprehensive and detailed analyses and solutions to address unequal
broadband availability, broadband adoption, and access to economic
opportunities for communities of color and low-income communities
across urban and rural America. We are pleased that this Federal
legislation has allocated substantial resources to address these
critical issues, including $42.45 billion to increase broadband access
and support broadband adoption, $14.2 billion toward a national
broadband affordability program, and $2.75 billion for digital equity.
To build on this positive momentum, we have developed a set of
recommendations and best practices on how broadband funding from the
IIJA would be most effectively spent to drive digital equity where it
matters most--connecting unserved and underserved populations while
also increasing broadband adoption and economic opportunities for
workers and businesses. These recommendations include:
(1) Establishing a ``Broadband Adoption Office'' or building staff
capacity and expertise on broadband adoption issues in state
and local broadband offices to focus on the complex needs of
non-adopters in order to get more residents online efficiently
and rapidly.
(2) Engaging underserved and underrepresented communities in
broadband adoption initiatives developed in collaboration with
experienced community-based organizations that can help tailor
programming to meet the specific needs of non-adopters.
(3) Facilitating partnerships with experienced, community-based
organizations, employers, and educational institutions to
promote the recruitment of historically marginalized
populations including people of color, women, underemployed,
and low-income workers for workforce development opportunities
and jobs related to BEAD-funded eligible activities.
(4) Establishing supplier diversity initiatives and goals among BEAD
program grantees so that economic opportunities associated with
broadband deployment projects are available to diverse
populations.
(5) Prioritizing the deployment of timely and cost-effective
broadband solutions to connect unconnected households within
multi-family properties and public housing using BEAD program
funding.
We hope these recommendations will encourage lawmakers, government
agencies, and community partners to work collaboratively to drive
broadband adoption which will ensure all communities can participate in
the digital ecosystem.
We also encourage the Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and
Broadband to mirror these efforts by ensuring Federal agencies,
including the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
continue to prioritize interagency coordination to drive broadband
adoption. More specifically, these Federal agencies will need to
coordinate on how important FCC proceedings on preventing and
eliminating digital discrimination and the broadband ``nutrition
label'' should be applied to the billions of dollars of funding that
will be distributed to states and territories through NTIA.
Additionally, it is imperative that all states and territories are good
stewards of Federal funds and are held accountable if they fail to meet
the mandates. We are primarily concerned with states being inclusive by
ensuring the participation of diverse stakeholders in state broadband
planning processes because we know that the way a problem is analyzed
impacts the way the problem is solved. Funds must be equitably
distributed in order to make progress in closing the digital divide.
Also, while the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is a more
permanent Federal subsidy than its predecessor, the Emergency Broadband
Benefit (EBB), which provides eligible households with affordable
connectivity and discounts on connected devices, there must be a
sustainable funding mechanism for ACP to make the program truly
permanent. ACP has already connected more than 15 million households
across this Nation to affordable broadband and remains a stellar
example of what a whole-of-nation approach to addressing the digital
divide looks like. For example, the Biden-Harris Administration secured
commitments from Internet service providers to either reduce prices or
raise speeds to offer ACP-eligible households a high-speed Internet
plan at 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) for no more than $30 per month,
which means millions of people can now get more attractive connectivity
options at no cost to them when the ACP subsidy is applied. Failure to
extend ACP will mean failing the millions that already benefit from
this program and threatens the ability of households to thrive in the
digital age, therefore we urge the subcommittee to explore creative
options to ensure this critical program receives continued funding.
Additionally, we encourage the subcommittee to increase funding for ACP
outreach efforts so third-party intermediary organizations working on
the ground to secure communities with other critical services such as
housing, employment, and health care, can continue our efforts in
getting households connected to the Internet which remains equally as
important.
Access to the Internet is an economic security issue, not only for
individuals and families but for our Nation. The digital age has
clearly demonstrated that access to affordable, reliable broadband is
indeed a civil right because it impacts one's ability to get an
education, find work, obtain healthcare, and even start or sustain a
business. It also remains a critical tool for organizing for social
justice and civic engagement. The National Urban League looks forward
to continuing to work with members of the subcommittee to ensure IIJA
broadband funds are equitably distributed, interagency coordination is
facilitated to promote broadband adoption, and proposals are developed
to secure continued funding for critical programs that address access
to economic opportunities, affordability, and broadband adoption.
Sincerely,
Marc H. Morial,
President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Urban League.
______
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table of Contents
FOREWORD
A CALL TO ACTION: STATEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1 Where Do We Go from Here with Broadband: Chaos or
Community?
CHAPTER 2 The Economic Case for Digital Equity and
Inclusion
CHAPTER 3 Closing the Broadband Availability Gap
CHAPTER 4 Closing the Broadband Adoption Gap
CHAPTER 5 Closing the Affordability Gap
CHAPTER 6 Closing the Access to Economic Opportunity and
Participation Gap
CHAPTER 7 Closing the Utilization Gap
CHAPTER 8 Workforce Development
CHAPTER 9 Health Care
CHAPTER 10 Reimagining Connected Education
CHAPTER 11 Higher Education and a Research and Development
Agenda
CHAPTER 12 General Government Services
CHAPTER 13 Civic Engagement
CHAPTER 14 Institutionalizing Digital Equity and Inclusion
in the Policy Process
CONCLUSION The Fierce Urgency of Connecting Now
ENDNOTES
FOREWORD
MARC H. MORIAL
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE
For decades, the National Urban League has warned of dangers of a
persistent digital divide, some obvious and others more subtle but
equally troubling. We've reinforced those warnings with our Digital
Inclusion Index, providing statistical evidence related to one
foundational question: ``Are the new job, business and educational
opportunities created by increased digitization of our world being
equally shared?''
The answer, sadly, remains no. But despite that evidence and those
warnings, government actions to address the divide have been at best
modest and intermittent.
Then COVID-19 hit. The pandemic has accelerated an already-speedy
migration to ``remote everything,'' particularly for such essential
activities as employment, health care, and education. The benefits of
being connected grew even faster, as did the costs to communities who
were not connected.
COVID-19 proved that broadband was no longer a nicety. It had
become a necessity.
2020 also witnessed the brutal murder of George Floyd. Tens of
millions of Americans saw with clearer eyes what the National Urban
League and the people it serves have long known: that the legacy of
slavery and systemic racism still plagues America.
These two crises flowed together in demonstrating how acutely the
costs of disconnection disparately impacted communities of color. To
its credit, many Americans raised their voices in calling on not just
their neighbors, but also political actors, policymakers, and corporate
leaders, to all address the need for digital equity and inclusion.
Recognizing that America needed a comprehensive plan to address the
problem, the National Urban League called upon dozens of experts in a
wide range of fields and collected their recommendations for how
America could use the tools of the information economy to create a more
equitable and inclusive economy and society, solving the problem those
same tools had, in part, created.
The result is the Lewis Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and
Inclusion. It is named for, and inspired by, the life of Lewis Howard
Latimer (1848-1928), a Black American draftsman, who made
groundbreaking contributions in his work with, among others, Alexander
Graham Bell and Thomas Edison. Just as telephony and electricity
changed the world in Latimer's time, digitization is changing ours, and
we should act to assure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute
to and benefit from that change.
This plan addresses ``the three A's''--availability, adoption, and
access to economic opportunity. Availability means that a home
broadband service is available to all communities, including
communities of color. Adoption means that households in these
communities have subscribed to a broadband service. Access to economic
opportunity means the industry must employ a diverse workforce and
provide business opportunities to communities of color. Millions of
American homes, businesses and other enterprises cannot fully
participate in 21st-century society because we as a country have not
adequately addressed those three A's.
Our goal in producing the Latimer Plan is to offer not only a
comprehensive and detailed analysis of the problems of digital inequity
and exclusion but, more important, to provide specific, detailed, and
pragmatic solutions to these harms, organized as an integrated set of
both strategic and tactical plans. Our proposals require action and
collaboration across multiple institutions, public and private, and
across all levels of jurisdiction. But there is no silver bullet.
The Latimer Plan, though comprehensive, will not be the last word
or the only approach worthy of consideration. But whatever elements
make up the ultimate solution, government must act quickly to assure
that the essential goals of digital equity and inclusion are met: that
there are broadband networks everywhere, that everyone can use and
afford them, that we utilize those networks to improve the delivery of
essential services, and that everyone has access to new economic
opportunities and the ability to participate in the continuing growth
of the digital economy. We offer the Latimer Plan to serve as the
foundation for accomplishing those critical and urgent goals and
accelerating their achievement in the next few years.
______
A CALL TO ACTION:
STATEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
EDWARD ``SMITTY'' SMITH
SENIOR DIRECTOR OF THE LEWIS LATIMER PLAN FOR DIGITAL EQUITY AND
INCLUSION
Our nation's vast resources and technological capabilities have
never been greater, nor has the need for all Americans to be connected.
It is time for us to acknowledge and embrace the reality that achieving
digital equity and inclusion in the United States is not optional, nor
is it charity. It is an existential imperative for a healthier, better
educated, economically stronger country. The plan we outline herein is
one step in the policy process toward achieving this goal, but it is
only part of a much greater effort that will require us to marshal
forces across government, non-profits, academia, and private
enterprises to use technology to finally deliver on some of the old
promises that our Nation has failed to keep.
My father was a District of Columbia public school teacher who, in
the early 1980s, taught himself COBOL, an old computer programming
language, launching him into a career in government as an IT specialist
and network engineer. At a time when computers were a rarity in the
D.C. public schools, he realized early that computer literacy would
soon become an indispensable skillset in our classrooms and beyond. At
home, he taught himself how to program and then how to build entire
computer systems and networks--our home was always filled with modems,
motherboards, and monitors. At school, he started offering computer
literacy classes to other teachers, most of whom had never used a
computer before, and developed materials and curricula for those
teachers to teach computer literacy themselves.
From as early as I can remember, I was taught that computers and
connectivity were essential technologies that could help create
opportunity for anyone who could access them, afford them, and knew how
to use them. This lesson has resonated with me throughout my life and,
nearly three decades later, when I joined the Obama Administration, I
had the opportunity to put these teachings to work designing and
implementing programs that would help provide broadband to millions.
However, years later, one of the broadband grants we funded during
my time in the Administration generated a report on the state of the
digital divide in my hometown of Washington, D.C. What that 2015 report
found was that, even in the heart of the Nation's capital, over 160,000
residents remained without broadband at home. Furthermore, adoption
rates in the poorer, largely Black American parts of the city where I
grew up and where my father taught, trailed rates in more affluent
parts of the city by over twenty percent. D.C. had grown larger and
more prosperous but, as always, the poor were left behind.
Today, the rates of adoption have improved in my old neighborhood,
but not nearly enough. Failings of digital equity and inclusion
persist, and, in our country's lower-income communities, both rural and
urban, those without broadband continue to languish in a state of
digital poverty that compounds preexisting inequities and prevents them
for fully participating in our increasingly connected society. My
father saw both the opportunity of connectivity and the danger of being
unconnected before the Internet revolutionized how we work, learn,
play, and communicate. Larry Irving saw the danger in the 1990s when he
coined the term the ``digital divide.'' The team that drafted the
National Broadband Plan in 2010 presented a prescription for how to
close the divide. And Tom Wheeler leveraged the Federal Communications
Commission's resources and expertise to help make parts of that plan a
reality.
But, for all of our efforts, of millions still remain unconnected,
even as the consequences of digital poverty are greater than ever.
Today's crisis is the COVID-19 pandemic and economic and social
turmoil. Tomorrow's crisis will test us further. But what is certain is
that, from now on, the cost of being unconnected will be your
livelihood and may be your very life. That is a price that no American
should have to pay when we have the means and the knowhow to connect
everyone.
What we present in this plan is a not simply a blueprint, or a
prescription. It is a call to action. The time to act is now and the
costs of inaction are grave. However, the real answers will not come
from the pages of any report but, rather, from our ability to work
together across sectors to direct our collective expertise and
resources towards solving a broader societal problem that harms all of
us, both the connected and unconnected. This plan intends to set in
motion a greater effort, realized through legislation, regulation,
executive action, corporate investment, and public-private
partnerships.
Some of the plan's proposals will become new programs, others will
be transformed into something better, and some will end up on the
cutting room floor. But what is clear is that we can no longer afford
halfway solutions that exclude tens of millions of our fellow citizens.
All our communities and neighbors need to be connected and they need to
be connected as soon as possible. Thank you for having this
conversation with us. We look forward to working together.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was, in every way, a collaborative effort, drawing on
a diverse and deep wealth of experience and expertise in the many
different fields discussed in the Latimer Plan. In light of that
collaboration--designed to enhance the discussion of how to best
advance the goals of digital equity and inclusion--it is important to
note that the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the
National Urban League and the authors of the specific chapters, and not
any sponsors of this plan or any others who assisted in this effort.
Further, the views expressed in the chapters are the views of the
authors in their individual capacity, and should not be attributed to
any institution with which they are affiliated.
The first acknowledgements must go to the team at the National
Urban League itself. Marc H. Morial, the CEO and President of the
National Urban League, provided critical leadership in framing and
pressing the project forward. Nicole Lazare, the former General Counsel
of the League, initiated the discussions and structured the Plan, while
Clint Odom, the former Senior Vice-President for Policy and Advocacy,
shepherded the project through its initial drafting. Joi Chaney, the
League's Executive Director for its Washington Bureau and Senior Vice
President for Policy and Advocacy, assisted by Danielle Davis, the
League's Tech and Telecom Fellow, took the project over the finish
line. The League's Cara Morris and Robert Pierre provided additional
support.
The project also benefitted enormously from the support provided to
the League by Edward ``Smitty'' Smith, a partner at the firm DLA Piper,
who served as the Senior Director of the Plan.
Of course any discussion of digital equity and inclusion builds on
the foundations laid by many others, including, but not limited to,
Larry Irving, the former head of NTIA who warned of, and coined the
phrase, the ``digital divide'' more than two decades ago, Brookings
Scholar Nicol Turner-Lee, the work of certain Think Tanks, particularly
The Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC), founded
by David Honig and now under the leadership of Maurita Coley, and the
Joint Center for Economic and Political Studies and its President
Spencer Overton. In addition, this document was constructed on various
analyses of these issues by many at the FCC but most particularly
former Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and current Commissioner Geoffrey
Starks.
Larry Downes, the author of several best-selling books on business
and technology, served as the Editor-in-Chief, and performed an
extraordinary service in pulling together a diverse set of
contributions and making them all better. Melissa Turcois, an associate
at DLA Piper, also assisted with the drafting and editorial functions,
particularly in weaving together feedback and suggestions from a number
of outside readers.
While all the chapters reflect the input of a number of sources,
there were principal authors for each of the chapters. These were as
follows:
Chapter 1: Blair Levin, Senior Non-Resident Fellow,
Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Project
Chapter 2: Larry Downes
Chapter 3: Paul de Sa of Quadra Partners and Carol Mattey of
Mattey Consulting
Chapter 4: John B. Horrigan, PhD, and Angela Siefer,
Executive Director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance
Chapter 5: Blair Levin
Chapter 6: Melissa Turcois
Chapter 7: Blair Levin and Larry Downes
Chapter 8: Marcella Gadson, formerly with MMTC (now with
CTIA)
Chapter 9: Kerry McDermott, MPH
Chapter 10: Steve Midgley, Elise Kohn, and Whitney Whealdon
of Learning Tapestry and Derek Mitchell of Partners in School
Innovation.
Chapter 11: Lev Gonick, Chief Information Officer, Arizona
State University
Chapter 12: Rob Atkinson and Daniel Castro of the
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Chapter 13: Blair Levin
Chapter 14: Professor Matt Perault and his Duke University
class on technology policy, including Mihir Bellamkonda, James
Eide, Lee Foster, Charlie Graham, Zachary Silverman Guffey,
Abdur Rehman, and Niharika Vattikonda
Conclusion: Blair Levin and Larry Downes
We received helpful comments, criticisms, and ideas from a number
of different sources. These include, but were not limited to, New
Street Research, particularly Jonathan Chaplin and Philip Burnett, who
helped us understand market trends related to both the availability and
the adoption gap; CTC Technology and Energy, particularly Joanne Hovis
and Jacob Levin, who provided insight into state and local efforts to
close the availability and adoption gaps, as well as the importance of
credit issues; MMTC, particularly David Honig and Maurita Coley, who
provided insight on the overall plan and particularly helped review the
sections on adoption and workforce development; Peter Bowen and his
colleagues at Bain & Company, Patrick Dupree, Mark Bower, and Austin
Beck, who shared important insights into the broadband speeds and
quality of service metrics that consumers were relying on in the COVID
era; the Heartland Forward Foundation, particularly Angie Cooper, John
Bailey and Matt Yale, who shared their insights from their own work on
similar issues; Common Sense Media, particularly Daniel Weiss and Amina
Fazllulah, and EducationSuperhighway, particularly Evan Marwell,
provided significant data and insights about digital education
generally and addressing the ``homework gap'' specifically; Shira
Hollander, Samantha Burch, and Ariel Levin of the American Hospital
Association assisted with understanding the state of healthcare in
light of COVID-19; and the Back to Work Project, and particularly John
Schnur, who assisted with the workforce development analysis. Professor
Stuart Brotman, of the University of Tennessee and the Wilson Center,
provided his expertise on privacy issues. We also benefitted from the
insights of a number of former FCC officials who had worked on these
issues, including Tom Wheeler, Gigi Sohn, Ruth Milkman and Roger
Sherman, and Jim Kohlenberger, who had worked on these issues in two
previous administrations.
In addition, Robert F. Smith, of Vista Equity Partners, and his
Chief of Staff Ami Desi helped shape our approach and assisted in a
number of outreach efforts, Jonathan Chambers of Connexon shared his
considerable knowledge of the state of play of broadband in rural
America, Tom Kalil of Schmidt Futures assisted in thinking through
improving research and job training through AI, Dori Glanz of Manatt
Consulting assisted in developing ideas about Medicaid, Karen Kornbluh
of the German Marshal Fund and Professor Ellen Goodman of Rutgers Law
School provided their expertise on civic engagement, and Hannah Levin
provided the research for the recommendation on online tutoring. Peter
Christy provided expertise in Internet engineering and network
architecture. The economists Professor Greg Rosston of the Stanford
Institute for Economic Policy Research and Scott Wallsten of the
Technology Policy Institute were generous in sharing ideas based on
their recent research on adoption. Bruce Mehlman, one of DC's premier
experts on the intersection of technology and policy and the Co-
Chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance, graciously used that
expertise in helping us road test some of the ideas in the Plan. We
also are grateful to the Aspen Digital team, particularly its Executive
Director Vivian Schiller, for their advice and for hosting a session
with a wide variety of stakeholders to discuss the issues raised in the
Plan.
The development of the Plan would not have been possible without
the generous funding of the following organizations: Alphabet, Amazon,
AT&T, Charter Communications, Comcast, Crown Castle, DISH, Facebook,
Google, Microsoft, Nokia, Qualcomm, Schmidt Futures, Starry, T-Mobile,
and Verizon. In addition, we benefited from the contribution of
substantial pro bono support from the law firm of DLA Piper. The Glen
Echo Group, particularly Ellen Satterwhite, also provided pro bono
support in a variety of ways. Again, the views expressed in this paper
are those of the National Urban League and the authors of the specific
outside advisors to this plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ten years ago, the National Broadband Plan observed that as ``more
aspects of daily life move online and offline alternatives disappear,
the range of choices available to people without broadband narrows.
Digital exclusion compounds inequities for historically marginalized
groups.'' In light of these trends, that plan warned ``the cost of
digital exclusion is large and growing.''
Unfortunately, only modest efforts to address those costs have been
expended in the last decade. Now, as the COVID-19 pandemic accelerates
a shift to ``remote everything,'' the costs of exclusion have grown
even larger. The need for policymakers to act has become even more
urgent, compelling us to ask, how can the tools of the information
economy be employed to create a more equitable and inclusive society?
The answer lies in accomplishing four big, but achievable, goals:
Deploying networks everywhere.
Getting everyone connected.
Creating new economic opportunities to participate in the
growth of the digital economy.
Using the networks to improve how we deliver essential
services, in particular in workforce development, health care
and education.
The National Urban League, working with other civil rights
organizations and public policy experts, has commissioned the Lewis
Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and Inclusion (the ``Plan''), a
detailed and comprehensive agenda to reach these goals and erase
several persistent and dangerous gaps:
The Availability Gap. For millions of American homes, businesses
and other enterprises, there is no available broadband network capable
of allowing them to participate fully in 21st century life. This is
generally a rural problem, where higher capital costs are required to
reach fewer customers. In sparsely populated areas of the country,
private capital alone is unable to economically justify the investment
needed to build high-speed broadband infrastructure.
Currently, the Federal government has not gathered the necessary
data to accurately define and identify what constitutes an unserved
area, nor does it have a good map of the locations where no networks
are available. Further, the current system of subsidizing high-cost
deployments is under significant stress, unable to fund the necessary
build-out for many years, if not decades.
To Close the Availability Gap, the Plan recommends that Congress
provide the FCC with sufficient appropriations to fund capital expenses
necessary to deploy broadband networks to all Americans.
The Plan also recommends that the FCC:
Re-examine, based on network usage during the COVID-19
crisis, the performance standards below which an area is deemed
unserved by broadband at home, and above which subsidized
networks are required to perform in order to qualify for
capital funding support;
Produce an accurate map of broadband availability,
pinpointing unserved by broadband services;
Eliminate the Eligible Telecommunications Company (ETC)
requirement, which disqualifies existing and future broadband
providers who could otherwise deliver service quickly and
efficiently;
Produce a set of best practices for reducing deployment
costs and times; and
Hold a series of reverse auctions to allocate subsidies
necessary to close the Availability Gap. These investments
should be based on technology-neutral criteria, supporting a
mix of solutions that can be rapidly deployed. Further, the FCC
should adopt stronger guardrails for the short form process to
examine more closely whether an entity seeking to bid has the
actual technical, operational, and financial resources
necessary to meet its commitments. Enterprises should not be
allowed to bid on the basis of unproven technology.
In addition, the Plan recommends that the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which has
information on its website about dozens of federal programs that
support broadband deployment efforts, provide a search engine that
enables stakeholders to more effectively find the programs that serve
their needs, and, to the extent feasible, create a common application
that enables those applying for funding from more than one program to
save time and effort on the application process.
The Adoption Gap. Even among those Americans for whom a broadband
network is available, there are still tens of millions who have not
adopted broadband in their homes. Indeed, in terms of number of
Americans affected, the Adoption Gap is approximately three times
larger than the Availability Gap. There are two principal causes of the
Adoption Gap. One is a lack of digital readiness. A second, and more
significant cause, is the unaffordability of entry level broadband
services for a significant portion of the American population.
To Address Digital Readiness. Digital readiness refers to the
skills and equipment needed to effectively use information and
communications technology to find, evaluate, create, and communicate
online. The lack of such skills is a significant barrier for certain
demographic groups, hindering their ability to adopt and fully utilize
broadband at home.
The Plan's principal recommendation for addressing digital
readiness is to create a national Office of Digital Equity to help
coordinate training targeted to demographic groups with the lowest
rates of adoption.
Among specific recommendations for the Office, the Plan proposes:
Establishing a Digital Navigators Corps to help unconnected
persons solve a wide range of adoption issues;
Creating an Online Digital Readiness Portal to provide every
American with access to free, age-appropriate curricula that
teaches digital skills and enhances digital readiness, offered
in multiple languages;
Issuing reports on the effectiveness of different digital
readiness strategies.
To Address Affordability. The principal government program
addressing broadband affordability today is Lifeline, which provides a
$9.25 monthly subsidy to qualifying low-income households for
communications services. There is a broad consensus that Lifeline is
deeply flawed, with too small a subsidy, ineffective distribution, and
reliance for funding on an unsustainable model that is based on a
regressive tax on traditional telephone services. Given these limits,
Lifeline today is used almost exclusively for mobile, rather than in-
home broadband services.
While mobile services have significant value, broadband at home
creates better opportunities with enormous public benefits, benefits
that today are not being captured. We all gain, for example, when the
unemployed can train online for new careers, and use the same tools
everyone else does to search, apply for, and interview for new jobs,
getting them back in the workforce quickly. Likewise, everyone benefits
when at-risk communities can receive telehealth at home, improving
community health outcomes and lowering costs for government medical
programs. Finally, everyone wins when all children have the tools to do
their homework and engage in online learning in their homes, improving
educational achievements.
To capture these benefits, the Lifeline program requires
substantial overhaul. The simplest solution, and the approach we favor,
would be for Congress to appropriate funds for the FCC to create a
permanent version of the Emergency Broadband Benefit that Congress
passed earlier this year, which the FCC is currently implementing.
Alternatively, Congress could create a new program to address both
mobile and broadband at home needs to assure access to essential
government services for workforce development, healthcare, and
education. While the program we propose would not have the simplicity--
an important virtue in public policy design--of making the EBB
permanent, it would have advantages in terms of distribution and cost
savings.
The new program, which we call Lifeline+, would include a mobile
benefit and a broadband a home benefit, which consists of three related
programs:
1. LifelineMobile, which would continue the current Lifeline subsidy
for basic voice and mobile functions with some limited data,
albeit with comprehensive reforms; and
2. LifelineHome, composed of:
a. LifelineJobs, which would provide broadband at home to the
unemployed, empowering them to utilize online programs to
upgrade their skills, as well as search, apply and
interview for jobs;
b. LifelineMed, which would provide broadband at home to low-
income persons, to utilize the full suite of telehealth
services; and
c. LifelineEd, which would provide broadband at home to low-income
families with K-12 schoolchildren and members of their
households, to utilize all forms of digital learning.
All eligible families or individuals would be eligible for both the
mobile and one broadband at home benefit. Use of the broadband at home
benefit would not be restricted, so that regardless of the specific
service, the person or family could use broadband for any purpose.
The Plan proposes that LifelineMobile and LifelineEd be funded by
direct Congressional appropriations. LifelineJobs and LifelineMed
should be funded through mandates added to existing government
unemployment and medical insurance programs. Providing beneficiaries of
these programs with broadband would, if properly designed, largely pay
for itself in the form of savings to the delivery of critical services
currently provided only through in-person activities.
Broadband provided through one of the LifelineHome programs will
likely support several program goals. For example, approximately 70
percent of school children without broadband at home and who would be
eligible for a benefit under LifelineEd are also covered by Medicaid,
and would therefore already be eligible for LifelineMed. Providing
broadband through Medicaid and other government health insurance plans
would also improve the distribution of the benefit.
As with infrastructure support, the Plan recommends eliminating the
ETC requirement for Lifeline service providers, and recommends that
support be provided directly to beneficiaries in the form of any
efficient means, such as a debit card, to enhance consumer control and
choice and to reduce the possibility of waste and fraud. We note that
the FCC will gain experience through the Emergency Broadband Benefit
program, and such experience should inform any ultimate permanent
broadband benefit.
The Access to Economic Opportunity and Participation Gap. Several
decades ago, famed venture capitalist John Doerr said the personal
computer industry's growth from zero to $100 billion in 10 years was
``the greatest legal accumulation of wealth in history.'' Subsequently
he had to amend his comment. Noting that the Internet dwarfed the PC
revolution by going from zero to $400 billion in five years, Doerr said
``There are waves and then there is a tsunami.'' That tsunami has
continued. Today the top five American companies by market
capitalization (Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook) all
rode the tsunami Doerr described.
Unfortunately, opportunities for wealth accumulation are not
equitably distributed. Jobs, especially the higher paying jobs in the
technology industry, have not been filled by Blacks and Latinxs in any
significant way. The National Urban League's 2018 State of Black
America Report found that of the 40,000 employees of four major Silicon
Valley technology firms, only 1,000 were Black; the number for Latinx
is paltry. Moreover, business inclusion and opportunity in the growing
tech sector has lagged miserably for Blacks and Latinx.
This is not a new problem. The person for whom this Plan is named,
Lewis Latimer, was a free Black patent-holder and the son of slaves,
whose achievements were critical to the success of his employers,
Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. Unfortunately, but typically,
while Latimer was a key contributor to Edison's and Bell's seminal
wealth-creating inventions, he had no ownership stake in the vast
businesses they spawned.
We need to break that historic pattern. While much of the Latimer
Plan is focused on assuring that all Americans, regardless of race,
income, or location, have the tools and skills to fully participate in
the economy and society of the 21st Century, we also want to close gaps
that limit opportunities to participate meaningfully in the business of
value creation as broadband and broadband-enabled enterprises continue
to innovate, grow, and prosper. We must also ensure that job
opportunities are available for the country's growing Black and Latinx
communities at every level in the technology and technology-related
business sectors.
The causes of limited access to economic opportunity and inclusion
are complex, but the gap can be closed with public and private
intention, leaving our Nation stronger, more equitable, and more
prosperous. In truth, this gap was created by legal and historic
barriers to capital access and legal barriers to full citizenship and
opportunity. In the last decades of the 20th century, government and
industry began to address some of these barriers, but these efforts
lack sustainability or face legal challenges that raise the specter of
``reverse racism.'' The televised murder or George Perry Floyd, Jr. and
the Black Lives Matter movement have prompted a renewed interest in a
holistic government response and intentionality by many corporations to
close the economic opportunity and participation gap. Corporate
America, in a number of ways, has accepted accountability to ingrain
diversity, equity, and inclusion into their corporate DNA, including
creating racially and gender diverse corporate boards, staffing, C-
suites, procurement, philanthropy, and community investment.
Civil rights organizations, led by the National Urban League, have
pioneered the negotiation of written memorandums of understanding with
several communication companies to set forth goals, timetables, and
initiatives to achieve greater diversity, equity, and inclusion. As a
nation, we should move forward with new vigor and intentionality in
utilizing these techniques to drive towards greater economic
opportunity for those who have historically been left behind.
To close the economic opportunity and participation gap, industry,
government, and community organizations must work together to improve
and increase commitments to racial equity in corporate board
membership, staffing, the C-suite, procurement, philanthropy, and
community investment. To facilitate this collaboration, the Plan
recommends:
Infrastructure. As part of any future infrastructure
legislation, Congress must include mandates for companies that
will directly benefit from increased Federal investment in
infrastructure to improve their performance in providing access
to economic opportunity and participation in the categories
noted above.
Measure Diversity. The Department of Commerce and the FCC
should collect information that allows the government and the
public to understand and evaluate how the private sector, and
the technology and related sectors in particular, are improving
economic opportunity and participation in the categories noted
above.
Incentivize Diversity. The Department of Commerce, the FCC,
the Small Business Administration, and the Securities and
Exchange Commission should evaluate annually and report to
Congress on measures that could be adopted to enhance the
performance of private enterprise in improving economic
opportunity and participation in the categories noted above.
Highlight Sustainable Success. The Department of Commerce,
the FCC, the Small Business Administration, and the Securities
and Exchange Commission should publish an annual report on best
practices for enhancing the performance of private enterprise
in improving economic opportunity and participation in the
categories noted above.
The Utilization Gap. Deploying networks everywhere and assuring
that everyone has the skills and means to connect are necessary first
steps. But they are not sufficient to achieve digital equity and
inclusion. We also need to increase the utilization of digital
platforms, which requires substantial improvement to essential
government services offered online. The COVID-19 crisis has forced our
economy and society to run a massive--if unplanned--experiment in
``remote everything.'' While that experiment has produced some positive
trends, including greater utilization of telehealth, it has also shown
that we have a long way to go in other areas, such as education. We
need to be more intentional in developing new capabilities, to assure
that they lift up, rather than disadvantage, low-income persons and
communities of color. The Plan details recommendations on policies that
can, in conjunction with universal availability and adoption, improve
the delivery of essential services.
Workforce Development. Governments should improve digital tools
that enable people interested in every job type to upgrade their skills
and to search, apply, and interview for jobs, and ensure that small
businesses can use broadband-based tools to improve their prospects.
The Plan makes several recommendations, including:
The White House and Congress should expand access to digital
resources and technical assistance for enterprises located in
rural areas and among communities of color;
The Department of Labor should develop more broadband,
technology, and communications sector-related registered
apprenticeship training programs;
The Federal government should provide incentives for
companies, states, municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and
the private sector to create and scale new workforce
development and digital skills training programs;
Federal agencies should increase and improve data collection
related to workforce development; and
States should modernize their unemployment benefits systems
to more effectively offer unemployed citizens access to
opportunities for future employment.
Health Care. With healthcare services are increasingly provided
online, government must assure that everyone has access to user-
friendly, health-enabling tools that connect them to high-quality,
affordable health services and medical information they can understand.
To do so, the Plan recommends that Federal and state governments
act to reduce disparities in access to health care services by:
Adopting consistent policies across state Medicaid programs;
Removing geographic and originating site restrictions;
Removing limitations on eligible services, providers, and
facilities, and removing unnecessary restrictions on
practitioners eligible to provide telehealth services; and
Funding programs supporting digital health care
infrastructure and technical assistance, digital health
literacy, and workforce diversity.
In addition, the Plan recommends:
The Department of Health and Human Services should allocate
funding to develop, recruit, and retain health care
professionals from underrepresented groups; and
The FCC should a modify the Connected Care Pilot Program and
the Telehealth Program to focus more on improving health
outcomes for low-income communities and communities of color.
K-12 Education. Technology is creating a new educational
infrastructure with a vast expanse of new, diverse, and relevant
opportunities. Unfortunately, uneven implementation of these
technologies is widening rather than narrowing existing gaps in
educational outcomes. We must assure that new educational
infrastructure provides all students with equal access to the tools and
content of fast-evolving digital learning. Further, we need to provide
teachers the support they need to enable students to maximize the value
of digital content.
To do so, the Plan proposes to:
Ensure students have support for digital learning from
teachers and other appropriately trained adults, such as online
tutors;
Invest in a Federal research and development agenda focused
on advancing new models of technology-empowered teaching and
learning that promote equity and improve outcomes for all
students;
Invest in culturally responsive and relevant online learning
tools;
Reform funding systems to ensure adequate and equitable
distribution of resources, particularly to advance digital
learning;
Improve access for students of color and others to
educational experiences that improve their ability to utilize
technology; and
Develop a National Strategic Agenda for Education Technology
Research & Development, focused on improving outcomes for
students of color.
Higher Education and R&D. Colleges and universities, with some of
the best broadband networks in the world, remain an underutilized
resource for digital equity and inclusion. We also underfund research
and development in improving teaching and training.
To address those shortfalls, the Plan recommends:
Using university resources to help institutions servicing
those who have been disadvantaged by failings of digital equity
and inclusion;
Focusing future research on understanding how digital
education can improve outcomes and overcome persistent
performance gaps;
Understanding and promoting best practices for using digital
education to build a more equitable and inclusive society; and
Increasing efforts to identify, develop, test, and deploy
applications of digital educational technologies that foster
economic and social mobility.
Government Services. Low-income and minority communities would
benefit significantly from greater online access to government
services. Many government information systems, however, are outdated.
Further, budget gaps lead to failures in upgrading and maintaining
digital infrastructure. Overall, governments must systematically
improve their ability to use technology to deliver services.
To address these issues, the Plan recommends that federal, state,
and local governments:
Optimize government websites for mobile use;
Establish a one-stop-shop for citizens to access and control
personally-identifiable information held by government
agencies; Improve automated online government customer support;
Take steps to eliminate data poverty, the social and
economic inequalities that result from a lack of collection or
use of data about an individual or community:
Require all government forms be provided digitally for data
entry, signing, and submission; and
Modernize and secure existing government systems, and
facilitate low-contact and remote access to government websites
and services.
Civic Engagement. Failings of digital equity and inclusion limit
many Americans from full engagement in the political and civic lives of
their communities. Misinformation is overwhelming accurate information
and poisoning the digital conversation, particularly for communities of
color. Online platforms have created new problems related to micro-
targeting in advertising, algorithmic bias, digital redlining, and
other uses that make the Internet problematic for communities of color.
To address these problems, the Plan recommends that:
Congress:
Hold a series of civil rights-focused hearings with high-
level executives from companies that have been major
repositories of disinformation;
Increase investment in reliable, relevant, and trusted
information for underserved communities by grants through the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to local noncommercial
stations, for journalism by and for underserved communities;
and
Restore funding to the Office of Technology Assessment.
The White House:
Empanel a commission to study how information on COVID-19
was made publicly available, how this information affected
societal response, and what should be done to limit the impact
of false and dangerously misleading information moving forward,
while preserving First Amendment rights and values;
Promote the establishment of a private industry-led
information accuracy certification body.
The FTC:
Establish social media best practices;
Propose recommendations with respect to limiting the
potential damage of political microtargeting; and
Mandate real-time ad transparency and access to archives.
Institutionalization. Achieving digital equity and inclusion
requires a sustained, systemic, and appropriately resourced effort that
is highly reliant on intergovernmental coordination and collaboration.
Currently, policymakers do not have the tools or data to monitor and
evaluate efforts to close the gaps identified in the Plan. To address
these needs, the Plan recommends that the Federal government:
Examine biases that could affect its existing collection,
analysis, and interpretation of data;
Collect the data necessary to review use of governmental
information and digital services by each population it serves,
and track how constituents interact with each agency;
Partner with state and local governments to collect relevant
data, including as part of efforts to expand broadband
availability, adoption, and utilization carried out at the
local level; and
Convene an annual National Digital Inclusion Summit to
review progress, determine key barriers to progress, and adjust
policies, as necessary.
Conclusion. While the COVID crisis appears to be ending, the need
for digital equity and inclusion is not. Indeed, the economic and
societal trends the health crisis accelerated make the task more
urgent. We need a surge of government action that produces sustainable
results.
______
Chapter 1.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE WITH BROADBAND: CHAOS OR COMMUNITY?
In 1967, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King isolated himself in a
house in Jamaica to write about the crossroads he believed the Civil
Rights movement faced. The resulting book, tragically his last, is
titled: Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? While King
thought the movement could look back with pride on its many
accomplishments, he candidly acknowledged the mountains yet to climb,
and the fissures in the movement that might prevent future progress, or
even lead the movement backwards.
Written in the wake of substantial legislative victories, including
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, King
soberly acknowledged that ``Laws only declare rights; they do not
deliver them.'' The book attempts to chart a path for America, and the
world, to move from a society that continued to degrade and exclude
millions to a society comprising a ``beloved community'' that valued
and offered opportunity to all.
Much has changed in the United States since then, but the battles
that King fought so valiantly continue to rage. As he said then, and as
he might say today, ``The fight is far from over, because it is neither
won, as some assert, nor lost, as the calamity-ridden declare.''
The battlefield, however, has changed. One of the most significant
shifts from King's time is how broadband has emerged as the commons of
collaboration in our modern economy, in our society, and in obtaining
access to critical services such as health care, education, and job
training.
Those skilled in using that commons have enjoyed extraordinary
gains in the past several decades. But those who have been kept off the
digital platform have experienced exactly the opposite. Ten years ago,
the National Broadband Plan observed that as ``more aspects of daily
life move online and offline alternatives disappear, the range of
choices available to people without broadband narrows. Digital
exclusion compounds inequities for historically marginalized groups.''
In light of these trends, that plan warned the cost of
``[D]igital exclusion is large and growing. For individuals,
the cost manifests itself in the form of lost opportunities. As
more aspects of daily life relocate online and offline
alternatives disappear, the range of choices available to
people without broadband narrows. Digital exclusion compounds
inequities for historically marginalized groups. People with
low incomes, people with disabilities, racial and ethnic
minorities, people living on Tribal lands and people living in
rural areas are less likely to have broadband at home.''
The Plan further projected that ``our accelerating reliance on
digital technology appears to be driving greater disparities; left
unaddressed, those gaps will likely grow.''
Sadly, despite inspiring public and private efforts to close the
gaps, disparities in digital life have grown. Worse, the costs to the
digital have-nots have become even more evident with COVID-19. A
growing ``homework gap,'' which kept millions of school children from
being able to use the Internet to complete schoolwork at home, has
become a total ``education gap,'' where they are unable even to attend
classes. The traditional summer slide in educational achievement--which
could be mitigated through a thoughtful summer online tutoring
program--is becoming a catastrophic COVID slide, with unconnected
students falling even farther behind.
A similar story can be told about healthcare. We see the problem in
the specific problem of Inequality in broadband access leading to
inequality in obtaining the vaccine for COVID-19. But the relationship
between access to broadband and access to healthcare is not a short-
term story but rather, part of what will be a critical long-term trend.
Telehealth, which has become a critical necessity since the start
of the COVID-19 pandemic, putting health care out of reach for those
without home broadband. A recent study found that only 38.6 percent of
the people who live more than a 70-minute drive from a primary care
physician subscribe to an Internet connection capable of handling
telehealth services.
Another illustration of how our country is paying a cost for our
failure to close broadband gaps was the scene in Florida at the outset
of the health crisis, with hundreds of people risking their safety to
line up to obtain an unemployment form, because the state's website
crashed. In employment, as well as other critical government services,
we could point to other, similar examples, all of which make painfully
clear that the public sector is still far behind where it should be in
terms of providing services over the Internet.
As these examples suggest, ten years since the publication of the
National Broadband Plan, it is undisputable that Internet services and
applications have evolved to provide significant benefits, general and
specific, to millions of users. In key areas of daily life, broadband
service is quickly becoming a necessity, a reality made more urgent
amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Those who, for whatever reasons, are not
active Internet users are not just missing out on the latest
innovations in entertainment, home automation, and electronic commerce.
Increasingly, they are shut out of basic access to essential
applications in education, health care, and employment services, among
others.
While access to broadband is the latest challenge in the struggle
for equal opportunity, the technology itself offers new and innovative
avenues to achieving it.
Broadband can be a platform for significant economic, cultural, and
social transformation, overcoming distance and transcending the
limitations of one's physical surroundings. Because of how it scales,
the best applications for one can become available to everyone.
Ironically, however, Internet technologies, which have always
demonstrated tremendous potential to level playing fields and lower
costs, are disproportionately benefiting the most affluent Americans,
widening rather than closing social, economic, and political divides.
Digital equity and inclusion offers a means to achieve the more
perfect union our founders envisioned, and for which we must constantly
strive. By ``digital equity and inclusion,'' we mean the full
participation in digital life by virtually all Americans, using a home
broadband Internet service that is available, adopted, and affordable.
This document lays out an agenda for achieving that vision. It
recommends policies, programs, and strategic plans directed to a wide
range of public and private stakeholders, aimed at closing the gaps.
Our goal, quite simply, is to achieve digital equity and inclusion.
This Plan starts by asking how can we use the tools of the information
society to create a more equitable and inclusive economy and society?
It then answers with a comprehensive set of recommendations. It also
makes abundantly clear that if we do not act on this Plan our failure
will not simply leave us where we are today. It will result in the
situation getting much worse, not just for the digitally disconnected,
but for everyone.
The case for digital equity and inclusion is animated by the same
moral and political philosophy engrained in our country's founding
philosophy: that all are created equal, having the same rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is also grounded in an
economic understanding of the common good that King touched on in
writing that:
From time immemorial men have lived by the principle that
`self-preservation is the first law of life.' But this is a
false assumption. I would say that other preservation is the
first law of life. It is the first law of life precisely
because we cannot preserve self without being concerned about
preserving other selves. We are in the fortunate position of
having our deepest sense of morality coalesce with our self-
interest. In a real sense, all life is interrelated. The agony
of the poor impoverishes the rich; the betterment of the poor
enriches the rich. We are inevitably our brother's keeper
because we are our brother's brother. Whatever affects one
affects all directly.
While King uses the language of morality and biblical texts, there
is evidence to support his view embedded in the economics of networks.
The value of any network grows, according to Robert Metcalfe,
``proportional to the square of the number of nodes in the network.''
That is, the more users there are, the faster overall value increases
for everyone. Conversely, the exclusion of millions decreases the
potential value of the network many-fold, including if not especially
for those who are already connected.
While the Plan we propose is bold in its call for changes, we take
comfort in knowing the new Administration recognizes the importance of
equity in access to services and opportunities. As a recent Executive
Order mandates, the Federal government is now committed to pursuing ``a
comprehensive approach to advancing equity, including for people of
color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized,
and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.
Affirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal
opportunity is now the responsibility of the whole of our government.
Because advancing equity requires a systematic approach to embedding
fairness in decision-making processes, executive departments and
agencies (agencies) must recognize and work to redress inequities in
their policies and programs that serve as barriers to equal
opportunity. By advancing equity across the Federal government, we can
create opportunities for the improvement of communities that have been
historically underserved, which benefits everyone.'' The Executive
Order further mandates that ``each agency must assess whether, and to
what extent, its programs and policies perpetuate systemic barriers to
opportunities and benefits for people of color and other underserved
groups.''
Such an assessment will inevitably find that today, and to an even
a greater extent in the future, those opportunities and benefits are
either best or exclusively provided online. It is not surprising that
in a report by the Partnership for Public Service on ``Federal Success
Stories from the COVID-19 Pandemic'', the exemplars of improving
service to customers all involved an online innovation. One example was
the Veterans' Administration developing a COVID-19 ``chatbot'' to
triage veterans based on their specific questions and needs. Another
was the CDC developing a coronavirus ``self-checker,'' used by over 13
million users, that assists people in checking their symptoms and
instructing them what to do next, reducing the burden on health care
systems across the country. These models, while deserving of praise,
are not available to those who are not online. Therefore, as discussed
throughout this Plan, a foundation stone of the efforts called for in
the Executive Order should be universal access to the tools of the
digital economy and society.
Businesses have also come to recognize that equity and inclusion
are critical for sustainable growth. Chapter Two describes in more
detail the economic imperatives to close persistent and significant
gaps in Internet use by Americans of color, those with lower
educational levels, lower income, and those who live in sparsely
populated areas of the country.
What are the critical gaps? We focus particular attention on four
distinct but interrelated challenges. While the pandemic has shined a
glaring spotlight on each of them, these gaps have persisted for at
least the past decade:
The Availability Gap. Broadband network availability is the most
basic pre-requisite to achieving digital equity and inclusion.
Unfortunately, millions of American homes, businesses, and other
enterprises cannot connect to a broadband network capable of allowing
them to fully participate in the economy, obtain an education and
health services, train, search, and apply for a job, and otherwise
participate in society. In Chapter 3, we propose a number of policies
that, if implemented, would close this gap within three years.
The Adoption Gap. Even among those Americans for whom a broadband
network is available, there are still tens of millions who have not
adopted broadband in their homes. In Chapter 4, we review the causes of
that gap, including digital literacy and digital readiness, and how
they can be overcome to assure that all families can both have and
benefit from broadband in their homes.
The Affordability Gap. For millions of Americans who do not
subscribe to broadband, the cost of service remains an overwhelming
obstacle to adoption. Though the current Lifeline program has been
adapted to subsidize broadband for the poorest households, legacy
features and other limitations of the program's basic design make it a
poor fit as a long-term and sustainable solution. In Chapter 5, we
propose more efficient funding and distribution mechanisms to close the
affordability gap within three years through a new program we call
Lifeline+.
The Access to Economic Opportunity and Participation Gap. While the
digital economy has created the greatest opportunity for wealth
accumulation in history, those opportunities are not equitably
distributed throughout society. This means that the jobs especially the
higher paying technology industry have not been filled by Blacks and
Latinxs in any significant way. The National Urban League's 2018 State
of Black America Report found that of the 40,000 employees of four
major Silicon Valley technology firms, only 1,000 were Blacks; the
number for Latinx is paltry. Moreover, business inclusion and
opportunity in the growing tech sector has lagged miserably for Blacks
and Latinxs. In Chapter 6, we address ways that the public and private
sectors, working together, can help close that gap.
There is an additional challenge, which while it receives less
attention in public policy debates, nonetheless presents a serious
obstacle to digital equity and inclusion. That is the challenge of
improving how we actually utilize the digital platform to improve
essential services for all. COVID-19 has forced our economy and society
to run a massive--if unplanned--experiment in ``remote everything.''
That experiment is yielding some positive trends, such as in the
utilization of telehealth, while also showing that we have a long way
to go to use the new capability more effectively, such as in education.
We need to be more intentional in developing these new capabilities
to assure that they lift up, rather than disadvantage, low-income and
communities of color. In Chapters 7 through 13, we propose specific and
detailed public and private actions to utilize broadband networks and
the applications that run on them to deliver essential services more
effectively and efficiently in health care, education, workforce
development, general government services, and civic engagement.
In designing policies to overcome the gaps, we have approached the
challenge in a technology-neutral fashion. We believe the availability
gap, for example, may be addressed through a number of different
technologies, including fiber, cable, hybrid wired networks, fixed
wireless, mobile or fixed cellular, Wi-Fi, and satellite. So long as
they facilitate digital equity and inclusion, and meet defined
standards for broadband service, we should be agnostic as to the
technology or technologies of preference.
The Plan is also provider neutral. ISPs can be commercial,
governmental, public/private, utility, or community-based, so long as
they deliver broadband that enables full participation.
While we see the Plan as critical for making progress towards a
more equitable and inclusive America, we recognize that the lack of
home broadband Internet services is only one of the many severe
challenges experienced by the poorest Americans. Millions today have
difficulty, especially during times of economic downturns, paying their
rent or mortgage or of having enough food to eat. Many live in
substandard housing. According to the U.S. census, 1.6 million
Americans still live in homes that do not have running water. Home
electricity is a prerequisite for using any Internet service. Yet many
low-income households cannot afford electricity, if not on an on-going
basis, then during times of particular economic hardship. According to
a recent survey, in the early months of the COVID-19 crisis, ``13
percent of respondents had been unable to pay an energy bill during the
prior month, 9 percent had received an electricity utility shutoff
notice, and 4 percent had had their electric utility service
disconnected.'' Such homes are unlikely to be able to enjoy a home
Internet service at any price.
These and other social and economic challenges are outside the
scope of this Plan, though they play a significant part in our ability
to fully close the remaining broadband gaps. Over half a million
Americans are homeless, for example, rendering ``home'' Internet
service impossible. And 43 million U.S. adults are functionally
illiterate, creating a severe if not complete obstacle to deriving the
benefits of Internet connectivity.
The inability to solve every problem, however, is not an excuse for
failing to solve those we can, particularly problems for which the kind
of targeted policies we propose can quickly and efficiently generate
significant and sustainable improvements. The recommendations in this
Plan do not take away from efforts to solve other problems. Rather, to
a significant extent, they lay the groundwork for addressing a number
of problems that have their roots, for example, in inadequate access to
quality education, health care or job training for jobs of the future.
Further, while the policies proposed here will accelerate the
availability of networks everywhere, with everyone connected and
utilizing broadband Internet at home to access essential services more
effectively and efficiently, we also know that achieving these goals is
not a straight path. What King wrote about the Civil Rights movement
applies here: ``We will err and falter as we climb the unfamiliar
slopes of steep mountains, but there is no alternative, well-trod,
level path.''
In that light, we need institutional capacity to experiment,
evaluate and, when necessary, course correct. In Chapter 14, we propose
ways the government can build that capacity, and continually improve
how it facilitates digital equity and inclusion. As the National
Broadband Plan stated less eloquently than King but in the language of
the technology ecosystem, ``this plan is in beta and always will be.''
King closed his book with words that ring true for this effort:
``We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are
confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum
of life and history there is such a thing as being too late.''
We don't think it is too late. But given the speed with which our
economy and society is now moving towards ``remote everything,'' we
need to move swiftly on this Plan. Otherwise, we risk increasing rather
than decreasing the dangerous chasms that have already formed. We have
the capacity to move much closer to the community King envisioned. But
if, instead, technology continues to breed a society and economy that
is less equitable and less inclusive, chaos will be the inevitable and
tragic outcome.
Chapter 2.
THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR DIGITAL EQUITY AND INCLUSION
Achieving digital equity and inclusion is, first and foremost, a
moral imperative. But beyond issues of human rights and racial justice,
there are potent economic reasons to ensure that broadband service at
home is available to all Americans, and for helping those who remain
offline for whatever reasons to overcome the obstacles that keep them
from participating in digital life.
An extensive literature on digital equity and inclusion has
persuasively established the social value of universal adoption, as
well as the systemic and personal obstacles that make it an elusive
goal. As noted in Chapter 1, the 2010 National Broadband Plan laid out
the economic case for solving the ``digital exclusion'' crisis, noting
how the cost of digital exclusion is large and growing and that cost
``imposes inefficiencies on our society as one-third of Americans carry
out tasks by means that take more time, effort and resources than if
they had used broadband. Since government agencies must maintain both
offline and online systems for transactions, many government services
are not as effective or efficient as they could be.''
As the National Broadband Plan and the supporting literature
suggests, economic rationales for sustained and increasing public
investment in digital equity and inclusion can be summarized into three
main arguments:
The Rising Tide. Universal broadband can produce positive public
externalities, creating a more just, educated, and affluent society.
The Magic of Network Effects. Increasing returns to scale, via
network effects, of a more complete, robust, and equitable digital
society.
The E-Government Win-Win. Decreasing the costs and increasing the
benefits of government services.
This chapter briefly reviews each of these arguments.
2.1. RISING TIDE
As the pandemic has brought into sharp relief, universal broadband
connectivity is a goal that would benefit not only those who do not
currently use the Internet, but also those who are already online. In
that sense, it is similar to public education, which provides benefits
even to taxpayers without children. The more educated a society is, the
lower the incidence of poverty and crime, for example, and the lower
the costs of public health. Education, moreover, boosts earning
potential and overall economic output, providing in turn a more stable
tax base for services useful to everyone, including national defense,
police and fire departments, basic research and development, and the
social safety net. Broadband adoption, to use an economic term,
generates positive externalities.
Even at the time of the National Broadband Plan in 2010, it was
already clear that broadband Internet, both directly as infrastructure
and as a platform for delivering services in better and cheaper ways,
had the potential to generate substantial, even revolutionary, positive
externalities. By now, value generated by the network and its growing
range of incremental and disruptive innovations far exceeds even the
immense costs already spent in its construction and continuing
improvement. While over two trillion dollars has been spent building
modern broadband networks in the U.S. alone, the market value of just
the top twenty Internet companies--most of which didn't exist twenty
years ago--is more than double that amount. From an economic
standpoint, that is a profound example of a positive externality for
the country.
Meanwhile, the virtual nature of digital information generates
further positive economies of scale. No matter how many people are
searching on Google, binge-watching the latest video content, or
participating in video conferences for work, education, or family life,
the information and software being ``used'' does not diminish in value
or usefulness by simultaneous or future users. (Indeed, as noted below,
it likely increases in value the more it is used).
The same could not initially be said for the network itself. In the
early days of broadband, many of the delivery technologies, as well as
the network protocols themselves and the limits of early server
capacity, constrained the number of simultaneous users who could be
supported in the same local area or accessing the same websites,
without performance degrading noticeably for everyone.
These capacity constraints, however, have been significantly
reduced for many locations and applications. Three factors contributed
to the solution: higher-capacity network technologies, including fiber-
optic cable throughout the network and advanced mobile networks (4G LTE
and now 5G), better-optimized networking protocols, notably DOCSIS 3.1,
which is used by most cable providers, and improved applications and
architectures, including data compression, streaming media, content
delivery networks, and Internet exchange points. Each of these
innovations have been the result of massive private investments,
enabled by effective policy frameworks for most of the last quarter
century. Device capabilities have also increased, in parallel with
capacity enhancements.
The specifics of these innovations are not relevant here. What is
relevant is the end-result: vastly improved efficiency and expanded
capacity on broadband networks. Regardless of the last-mile technology
on which broadband is delivered, nearly all broadband users have seen
dramatic increases in speed. Today, the average is 157 Mbps, an
increase of 3,825 percent. As network performance during the COVID-19
crisis has made crystal clear, even if the remaining millions of
unconnected U.S. homes suddenly went online, broadband capacity could
easily handle the volume. Similar durability--let alone upgrades--have
not been seen in other infrastructure, such as power and water, which
have deteriorated in quality in many parts of the country.
At the same time, the fixed cost of service per subscriber has
declined, as capital and operating expenses are spread among millions
of additional consumers every year. The result has been dramatic
decreases in unit prices for transit, processing, and storage. For the
last several years, the price of each gigabyte of cellular data usage
has fallen approximately 50 percent each year. (Of course, most users
are now sending, receiving, processing, and storing vastly increased
amounts of data, so those declining prices do not necessarily translate
to lower bills.)
The net result is that we are now living in a world of abundant
broadband capacity, enough to assume that the processing, storage, and
transportation of all the information on the Internet can be used by
millions of additional users in the near future without noticeable
degradation.
This means there are compelling economic reasons, beyond
profitability, to expand coverage and adoption as widely as possible.
The benefits to broadband providers, as well as to society as a whole,
favor universal adoption. More users mean more contributors to network
fixed costs--the majority of the providers' cost of service--and
opportunities to lower marginal operating costs through economies of
scale. For the U.S. as a whole, more importantly, universal adoption
means a more equitable society with, as has been shown with
correlations to education and income, lower rates of crime, poverty,
incarceration, and civil unrest.
Even if many of those users are unable to afford retail prices for
broadband services, there are ample reasons for private, public, and
private-public partnerships to subsidize costs through reduced rates,
tax incentives, and direct government support to individuals. When
marginal costs are low, and decreasing with scale, subsidizing costs
for lower-income customers can benefit all users. That has been the
theory behind public and private broadband support programs that have
operated in the last decade. Though the design of the program has
substantially limited its effectiveness, Lifeline provides subsidies
for 7 million American homes, with an estimated 31 million more
households who have not applied qualifying even under current program
rules.
2.2. THE MAGIC OF NETWORK EFFECTS
The second economic argument for digital equity and inclusion is
related to the characterization of broadband applications as public
goods. As noted above, a non-rivalrous good, of which digitized
information is a particularly good example, does not diminish in value
through simultaneous or serial use. Everyone can read the same digital
texts, search the same databases, watch the same streaming content, and
make use of the same video conferencing, e-commerce, and government
services applications all at once. The use neither degrades nor
diminishes the integrity or future value of the information.
In fact, digital information has an additional property that makes
it even more valuable than other non-rivalrous goods. In many cases, as
digital information sources are accessed, searched, annotated, and
viewed, the underlying information not only retains its value but can
actually become more valuable for subsequent uses and users. Economists
refer to this phenomenon as network effects.
For information networks in particular, network effects offer
perhaps the most potent economic argument yet for universal adoption.
Consider the work of computer networking pioneer Robert Metcalfe, who
in 1993 calculated positive returns to scale in computer networks in a
formula known today as ``Metcalfe's Law.'' The value of a computer
network, Metcalfe said, was equal to the square of the number of
connections, whether those connections were of devices, users, or any
other component.
In networks governed by Metcalfe's Law, including today's
broadband, the overall value of the network doesn't increase linearly
by adding more possible connections. That's because each new node adds
not just one potential new connection. A new user or computer can use
the Internet to interact not just with its immediate neighbor, in other
words, but with every other user or computer already online. The
million-and-first Internet user adds a million new possible
connections. The billion-and-first device attached to the Internet of
Things adds a billion new possible connections.
In fact, Metcalfe may have understated the possibilities of network
effects, as his formula assumes only connections between two end users.
But many broadband applications, including video conferencing, and
social networks, to name just a few, are n-way connections. You can
video conference with all or any subset of your colleagues or students
or family members. And each new connection adds that many more new
possibilities, each with its own unique potential to create non-
rivalrous value.
Metcalfe's Law goes a long way toward explaining where all the
trillions of dollars of new value the Internet has created has come
from, and why the possibility of connecting all the people, places, and
things that are currently offline is so powerful, exerting almost a
gravitational force on investors, policymakers, and society in general.
For our purposes, however, the essential point of network effects
is that it makes digital equity and inclusion an even more urgent
imperative. Not only does achieving digital equity and inclusion
improve outcomes and reduce overall social costs, it actually generates
new value--and does so at an accelerating rate the more people we can
connect.
Diversity is also critical to network growth. The on-going digital
conversation, which has become more robust on a daily basis as
broadband infrastructure and applications improve, is missing essential
voices. In the U.S., some communities--communities of color, older
Americans, rural Americans, Native Americans, those with less
education, those with lower incomes--are disproportionately absent.
Their insights, their perspectives, and their needs are not being heard
online.
Without them, the Internet risks becoming increasingly insular,
parochial, and even fragile--a digital bubble. We need those who are
offline to join the conversation just as much as they need the services
connectivity makes possible. From an economic perspective, in fact, the
Internet needs the disconnected even more than they need it.
2.3. THE E-GOVERNMENT WIN-WIN
Even before the COVID-19 crisis accelerated our reliance on the
Internet, digital technology was quickly becoming a basic tool for
economic and social well-being. That was particularly true for a wide
range of both public and private activities, including shopping,
entertainment, lifelong learning, and maintaining family and community
connections, to name just a few.
The pandemic, however, has highlighted several acutely painful
inequities and missed opportunities in applications central to
government and government-supported initiatives, including education,
public health, employment, housing, and the social safety net. The
Internet has become critical for students to attend class, for seniors
to receive timely and safe health care, and for everyone to exercise
such basic rights and necessities as job training, preparing to vote,
and accessing government programs and services, including unemployment
insurance, SNAP, public housing, consumer protections, law enforcement,
health insurance, and social security, among many others. For now, and
the foreseeable future, those without broadband, quite simply, cannot
effectively participate.
The growing importance of these services. particularly for members
of at-risk communities, and the dangers, if not impossibility, of using
them in person, has erased any remaining doubt about the importance or
relevance of the Internet in the lives of those who have remained
offline. Tragically, those who most need these services are also the
least likely to subscribe to a broadband connection at home to access
them.
That reliance is unlikely to disappear with the eventual end of the
current COVID-19 related health crisis. For better and for worse, the
pandemic has revealed an astonishing range of inefficiencies,
inequities, and lost opportunities in pre-crisis systems, both those
physically based and those already available in digital form. Despite
trillions of dollars in both private and public spending on
infrastructure over the last twenty years, key agencies and industries
have not invested enough in basic digitization of their core services,
nor have they begun to look for innovative ways to do more for current
and future users. We need only remember the embarrassment of several
governors having to put out urgent calls at the start of the crisis for
retired COBOL programmers to work on antiquated benefit systems that
could not handle sudden surges in volume. Or, at the start of the
COVID-19 outbreak, of Floridians risking their health to stand in line
for paper unemployment forms when the state's online system crashed and
could not be repaired.
Under and mis-investment in IT, for a variety of reasons, create
more serious problems for government supplied and supported services
than they do for any industry in the private sector. And the painful
irony is that it is precisely the members of communities least likely
to have broadband connections who are the most reliant on government
services, who may be deterred from subscribing in part because the
essential services they need are often not available in efficient,
reliable, secure, and easy-to-use digital forms. Americans who are the
least likely to have broadband--older, rural, less-educated and lower-
income--are all heavy users of government services. For example, 53
percent of benefits go to persons 65 and older.
Any program aimed at solving problems of digital equity and
inclusion, as noted in the following chapters, must include not only
support for individuals without available network services or the
ability to adopt them but also to improve the applications that digital
have-nots most require. Deploying e-government apps quickly would not
only increase online adoption, it would simultaneously improve
government performance and lower its cost.
Though doing so will of course require considerable up-front
expenditures of public funds, the result will be systems that can
deliver basic entitlements and services more efficiently. As in the
private sector, modern information systems can dramatically lower on-
going operating costs, generating surplus that can pay back the capital
costs many times over during the lifetime of new and upgraded e-
government systems.
Better systems will also ensure that those who today cannot gain
meaningful access to government services for which they qualify, as
well as such basic rights of democratic citizenship as voting and
public education, will be served in a manner that is safer and more
dignified, with fewer opportunities for waste, fraud, or abuse.
In that regard, a revitalized plan to achieve digital equity and
inclusion offers policymakers a profound opportunity both to reduce the
costs of delivering government services, and to maximize the benefits
of those services for those who need them most. By making government
more accessible online, moreover, newly-connected Americans will
quickly see the full potential of existing public and private online
applications and services, giving them powerful incentives to embrace
fully their new digital lives--a truly virtuous cycle of economic
improvement, reversing a long history of failed efforts.
For example, the Department of Labor today funds nearly 2,500
American Job Centers to help the unemployed search for work. But due to
the pandemic, many of these Centers are temporarily closed or have
shifted to online-only access. Other employment-related services
offered by government agencies, including some specific to older
Americans, Native Americans, farmworkers, and refugees, are likewise
only accessible online.
It is also worth noting that, to date, different Federal and state
government agencies provide these benefits, and in many cases some
information is already on-line. To achieve digital equity and
inclusion, we urgently need e-government apps that pull together
relevant information across local, state, regional, and agency
boundaries, and which are built with design principles focused on
convenience for the user. It is one of the best ways to convince those
who have not adopted the Internet in part because they do not see the
value in doing so.
To jump-start digitization and adoption of these essential
services, we need to harness entrepreneurial talent that today is
focused on building the next great gaming or social media sensation.
That is precisely the mission of the U.S. Digital Service, which
recruits top designers, engineers, product managers, and policy experts
and pairs them with forward-thinking civil servants, deploying high-
powered teams ``to untangle the most important government services.''
There's also Data.gov, which has released hundreds of thousands of
government datasets, open to ``civic hackers, tech entrepreneurs, data
scientists, and developers of all stripes.'' Using Data.gov, hundreds
of helpful apps have already been built, but there is much more to do.
And data sources must be populated by information relating to the
entire population, not just those who are already online. As more
Americans adopt online services, the more complete--and therefore
valuable--these datasets will become.
Chapter 3.
CLOSING THE BROADBAND AVAILABILITY GAP
3.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Despite a decade which saw private, public and hybrid organizations
investing nearly $2 trillion in broadband infrastructure, the
unfortunate fact remains that millions of American homes, businesses
and other institutions have no available option to connect to a
broadband network capable of supporting full participation in the
modern economy. That includes the ability to use the Internet to train,
search, and apply for employment, obtain an education and health
services, and otherwise benefit from life in an increasingly digital
society.
Broadband availability and devices with which to access the
Internet are the most basic pre-requisites to achieving digital equity
and inclusion. We seek to close the broadband availability gap, which
is generally found in less densely populated areas. Most of these areas
are populated by low-income communities, including communities of
color.
3.2. VISION
Every home, anchor institution, and business location in the United
States should have available to them at least one broadband network
capable of providing the benefits of current and future economic,
social, civic, educational, medical, commercial and entertainment
applications.
3.3. GOALS
To close the broadband availability gap, the Federal government
should take the following actions:
By the end of 2021, the FCC should define the
characteristics of Internet access that are necessary in order
for a location to be considered as ``served with broadband''
and the minimum level of Internet service that government funds
should support in efforts to bring broadband to an unserved
area, based on reasonable prediction of excess capacity and
future application requirements over the next 10 years, with
``excess capacity'' and ``application requirements'' to be
defined by the FCC, following analysis of user requirements for
current and emerging applications and their technical and
utilization characteristics.
By the end of 2021, the FCC, in consultation with other
federal, state, and local governments, should publish best
practices for public entities to reduce the costs of, and time
required for, broadband deployment.
By early 2022, the FCC should produce an accurate map of
broadband availability in America, including the
identification, on a granular level, of those locations without
an available network, based on the updated definition of
broadband, so that public funding can initially be prioritized
for areas lacking any option for broadband. The map should be
updated frequently and distinguish different levels of
broadband service. By 2022, Congress should provide additional
funding to be used by the FCC or other government entity to
hold one or more competitive processes to obtain for Federal
subsidies to deploy additional broadband infrastructure,
closing the availability gap to less than 2 percent of American
households.
In 2022, the FCC or other government entity should hold a
competitive process for Federal subsidies, utilizing the FCC's
improved map of broadband availability to target unserved
locations.
By the end of 2023, deployments from authorized winning
bidders should be underway to provide broadband to at least 98
percent of premises in America.
By the end of 2023, the FCC should update its map of
broadband availability in America, again identifying on a
granular level those areas still without an available network,
now or scheduled for completion, so that public funding can be
prioritized for the remaining areas lacking any option for
broadband.
The FCC should evaluate, on an on-going basis, the status of
new delivery technologies, including but not limited to, low
earth orbiting satellites, 5G mobile and fixed wireless, and
any other new wireless technologies, and develop a plan to
connect the final 2 percent of premises in the United States.
By the end of 2024, the FCC or other government entity
should hold another competitive process designed to assure
deployment of a network capable of providing broadband to any
remaining unserved premises in the United States.
3.4. THE CURRENT SITUATION
3.4.1. BROADBAND IS STILL UNAVAILABLE TO MILLIONS OF AMERICAN HOMES.
In January 2021, the Federal Communications Commission declared in
its 14th Broadband Deployment Report that, at the end of 2019, 14.4
million Americans lacked any option for subscribing to home broadband
using a ``fixed terrestrial'' service with speeds of at least 25 Mbps
download and 3 Mbps upload (``25/3 Mbps''). Of a total evaluated
population of 328.2 million, the FCC estimated 304.3 million had 25/3
Mbps service available using wired technology (principally fiber and
cable, and to a lesser extent DSL), and an additional 9.5 million with
25/3 Mbps service available only using fixed-wireless technology.
There are data that one could use to argue that the number of
Americans lacking any option for home broadband may be, at least
theoretically, much lower. For example, the FCC reports, but does not
count towards its annual assessment of whether broadband is available,
deployments of broadband that use non-terrestrial technologies,
including cellular and satellite networks, many of which offer speeds
that meet or even exceed the FCC's current definition of broadband (or
``Advanced Telecommunications Capability'' (ATC)). According to the
Broadband Deployment Report, for example, ``. . . deployment data for
satellite broadband indicate that satellite service offering 25/3 Mbps
speeds is available to nearly all of the population.'' The agency does
not count these deployments, however, because ``satellite services have
a relatively low subscription rate despite their apparent widespread
availability.''
There may be other reasons to exclude, at least for now, mobile and
satellite technologies from any calculation of broadband availability.
For purposes of this Plan, we will follow the FCC's analysis, and
include as meeting the standard for ``available'' service only those
premises that can be served by fixed terrestrial broadband, with speeds
of at least 25/3 Mbps.
Using that criteria, the actual number of Americans lacking any
option for fixed terrestrial service may in fact be significantly
higher than the reported 14.4 million. Congress and the FCC both
acknowledge that under the agency's long-standing data collection
methodology, if a broadband provider tells the FCC that it can offer
service to a single customer in a given census block, the agency treats
that entire census block as served. This assumption overstates actual
availability, particularly in rural areas. In addition, the FCC does
not routinely verify or audit provider-supplied data, allowing, for
example, one company to overstate its service coverage by tens of
millions of people and another to find that it had overstated its
coverage in thousands of areas.
A sampled check of availability by an independent group in 2020
compared actual availability findings to the assumptions made in the
FCC's analysis of the data it collects, and found considerably greater
gaps in availability. Their report concluded that the actual number of
Americans without an available option for broadband network was
probably closer to 42 million Americans, a number more than double the
number estimated by the FCC based on the data set available at that
time.
Criticism of the FCC's broadband mapping process has been offered
on a bi-partisan basis, including in a report by the GAO. In response,
Congress in March 2020 passed the Broadband DATA Act, directing the FCC
to collect data and prepare maps that report broadband availability in
the United States much more precisely. In December 2020, Congress
appropriated the FCC's requested funding to accomplish that task, and
the FCC subsequently adopted final rules in January 2021.
While the precise number of Americans lacking any option for home
broadband using fixed terrestrial service is not certain, it is clear
that, given significantly higher costs of infrastructure deployment,
the vast majority of homes lacking broadband availability are in rural
areas. This does not mean, however, that availability is not a
substantial issue in some urban communities of color. There are also
significant areas in the United States that lack broadband that are
populated by Black Americans, Latinxs, and Native Americans.
It may also be the case that the FCC's current 25/3 Mbps definition
is no longer sufficient. Indeed, there is currently a debate--one that
has intensified with the increased use of broadband caused by COVID-
19--as to whether those speeds are sufficient for a nation that has
moved so much of its work, education, shopping, entertainment, civic
engagement, and social connections online. Since the outbreak of the
COVID-19 pandemic, more and more U.S. homes can be characterized as
broadband-dependent, with multiple users relying daily on broadband for
simultaneous video calling, streaming entertainment, shopping and
maintaining social connections. Even once the current crisis eases,
there is reason to believe that user behaviors will not revert to
previous patterns. Americans have learned the value of broadband
applications they may not have been familiar with, and will continue to
rely on them, and at an accelerating rate.
More broadly, the agency has made little effort in the last decade
to justify the speed standards it has adopted, or why download and
upload speeds should form the basis--let alone the sole basis--for
determining what constitutes ATC. Download and upload speeds capture
only the connection from the ISPs closest node to and from the home.
But many other factors determine the quality of a user's interaction
with any given Internet service, including the design of the website,
app, or Internet service being accessed and the demand on it at any
given time, the kind of transit the Internet service utilizes, the
performance of intervening services, such as cloud security
intermediaries, and other network optimization technologies, which are
constantly being introduced and updated.
3.4.2. BROADBAND AVAILABILITY IS ALSO A PERSISTENT AND UNIQUE CHALLENGE
FOR TRIBAL LANDS.
Tribal lands present an important, persistent, and unique set of
challenges. Ten years ago, the National Broadband Plan noted that the
FCC had found, ``[b]y virtually any measure, communities on Tribal
lands have historically had less access to telecommunications services
than any other segment of the population.'' The Plan noted that:
[M]any Tribal communities face significant obstacles to the
deployment of broadband infrastructure, including high buildout
costs, limited financial resources that deter investment by
commercial providers and a shortage of technically trained
members who can undertake deployment and adoption planning.
Current funding programs administered by NTIA and RUS do not
specifically target funding for projects on Tribal lands and
are insufficient to address all of these challenges. Tribes
need substantially greater financial support than is presently
available to them and accelerating Tribal broadband deployment
will require increased funding.
Unfortunately, the situation has not materially changed over the
past decade. According to the FCC, as of December 31, 2019, fixed
terrestrial 25/3 Mbps broadband service was deployed to 79.1 percent of
Americans on Tribal lands, well under the 95.6 percent level for the
entire U.S. population.
The FCC has concluded that the challenging geography and population
density of Tribal areas means that addressing the broadband needs of
Tribal areas is most likely to be accomplished with non-terrestrial
networks, but tribes have not had the ability to control radio spectrum
in their jurisdiction. The problem has its roots in the Federal
``Reservation Era'' policies of the late 1800s, which gave the Federal
government the power to sell Tribal frequency resources, along with
other natural resources, to for-profit corporations, without Tribal
consultation.
Unfortunately, today's policies still are grounded in that history.
As the GAO found in a 2018 study, while the FCC has taken some steps to
promote and support Tribal entities' ability to license and utilize
spectrum, these efforts were not sufficient to address Tribal spectrum
needs. Among other problems, the FCC does not collect key information
related to spectrum over Tribal lands or communicate it to Tribal
entities, even though FCC has the information--including broadband
availability data from providers, and information on geographic areas
covered by spectrum licenses--that could be used for such analysis.
Moreover, the GAO found that the tribes faced barriers in participating
in spectrum auctions, as well as in purchasing spectrum rights in
secondary market transactions.
3.4.3. MULTIPLE FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT.
While the FCC Universal Service Fund is by far the largest source
of funding for addressing the availability gap, the NTIA's Broadband
Funding Guide identifies nearly 60 direct and indirect Federal
programs, located in more than a dozen Federal agencies, that also
support broadband deployment efforts. In addition, there are several
programs that either have been initiated or expanded through various
COVID-19 relief legislation that provide broadband assistance. Most
states also have their own broadband deployment programs. While there
is information about all of these, there has been to date no
coordinated effort that enables service providers, communities, or
other stakeholders to efficiently determine which programs they may be
eligible for, or to what extent these programs may serve their needs.
3.4.4 CONGRESS HAS APPROPRIATED FUNDS THAT CAN BE USED FOR BROADBAND
DEPLOYMENT.
As we were concluding the writing of this Plan, Congress passed the
``American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.'' Two provisions related to
broadband deployment. First, Congress appropriated $350 billion to
state, local and tribal governments for a variety of uses, but among
the eligible uses are ``to make necessary investments in ``water, sewer
or broadband infrastructure.'' Second, Congress appropriated $10
billion to the Department of Treasury to distribute to states,
territories and tribal governments to ``carry out critical capital
projects directly enabling work, education and health monitoring,
including remote access. . .'' These appropriations provide significant
new funding for states, localities and tribal governments that maybe
used to directly address availability gaps in their jurisdictions.
3.5. KEY CHALLENGE TO OVERCOME
Universal availability is necessary--but not sufficient--for full
digital equity and inclusion. The fundamental challenge to achieving it
is primarily one of economics. As is true with other networked
infrastructure, such as electricity, water, sewage, and telephony, the
costs of making service available to any individual household is
largely a function of density. As one would expect, the broadband
availability gap is greatest in areas of lowest density. Because
service providers in these areas must build over larger areas, while at
the same time earning revenues from fewer subscribers, as density
declines it becomes less likely that providers can earn enough revenue
to cover the costs of deploying and operating networks, including
expected returns on capital, to justify the necessary private capital
investments.
For over two decades, U.S. policymakers have understood that
private capital alone cannot close the availability gap in the most
sparsely populated areas of the United States. Federal, state, and
public/private partnerships aimed at subsidizing capital and operating
costs to overcome these economic realities have, to date, provided more
than $100 billion to extend broadband availability to high-cost areas,
through a variety of grants, subsidies, loans, and other incentives to
private, public, and private-public providers.
Continual upgrades in the performance, and reductions in the costs,
of emerging access technologies may, on the plus side, continue to
improve the business case for some areas, making private investment
more likely. Still, deploying broadband networks similar in performance
to those that are currently serving the vast majority of homes in the
United States to areas that currently do not have them will require
additional and significant public funding, beyond what Congress and the
FCC have established to date for this purpose, including the $20.4
billion currently budgeted for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.
How will we fund the closing of the availability gap? Currently,
the most significant source of funding for government-assisted
deployments comes from the Universal Service Program, administered by
the FCC, which supports deployment in rural areas, connectivity for
schools, libraries and health care institutions, and subsidized service
for low-income households. That program is funded by communications
companies, which pay a percentage of their interstate and international
voice revenues, and certain revenues associated with other services, to
the FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF). This percentage is called the
contribution factor. The contribution factor is adjusted as necessary
on a quarterly basis, and is increased or decreased depending on actual
and expected participation by qualifying users of all Universal Service
programs.
The contribution factor has several problems. One is that, as
interstate telecommunications revenues go down, the contribution factor
must of necessity go up. In the second quarter of 2021, the
contribution factor rose to a new high of 33.4 percent. Five years ago,
the percentage was only 17.1 percent, and ten years ago, it was 13.6
percent. At some point, the factor will be so high that the system will
collapse. Second, some view the fee as a regressive tax, as it applies
equally to both high-income and low-income subscribers.
There are also significant challenges in determining just how much
public funding will be needed to close the availability gap and how,
where, and when funds should be distributed. These challenges are
addressed, respectively, in Sections 3.6 and 3.8, below.
3.6. COST TO DEPLOY NETWORKS TO UNSERVED AREAS
The cost to close the availability gap will vary depending on
policy choices and actions in four areas that we discuss below.
However, given the ever-growing importance of broadband in daily life,
we would urge decision makers to adopt and fund the most ambitious
goals possible to assure digital equity and inclusion.
3.6.1. SETTING THE FLOOR ON SERVICE: BELOW WHAT PERFORMANCE STANDARD IS
A HOUSEHOLD DEEMED ``UNSERVED'' BY BROADBAND SERVICE?
Unlike telephony, electricity, or water--infrastructure-based
services that are, by and large, either ``available'' or
``unavailable''--the evolving nature of broadband makes the task of
calculating the number of ``unserved'' Americans a significant policy
choice in itself. This is inherent in the Congressional mandate which
requires that the Universal Service system assure all areas of the
country have ``reasonably comparable'' service at ``reasonably
comparable'' prices. That statutory language implicitly recognizes that
some variation across the country is acceptable, but policymakers do
not agree on where to draw the line.
There is no disagreement that the demands of everyday applications
on broadband networks have grown over time, and that consumer
expectations for service quality have increased. Consequently, the
minimum download/upload speeds used by the FCC to determine whether
fixed terrestrial service is deemed available have been regularly
increased as part of the agency's annual report on deployment. This
floor has risen over time from 0.2/0.2 Mbps in 1999, to 4/1 Mbps in
2010, to the current standard of 25/3 Mbps, adopted in 2015. Further,
it has also become increasingly important to consider aspects of
service quality other than speed to ensure that an available service
can indeed meet users' needs.
As the speed requirements have been raised, a number of locations
transitioned from ``served'' to ``unserved,'' increasing the
availability gap. For example, a location with only 10/1 Mbps broadband
service counted by the FCC as served under a 4/1 Mbps standard became
unserved when that standard was raised to 25/3 Mbps. Under the 10/1
Mbps standard in effect pre-2015, over 97 percent of the U.S.
population would currently be deemed to have an available fixed
terrestrial service.
More generally, a rising standard means that even as actions are
taken to reduce the availability gap, its closing may only be
temporary, as the gap may reemerge if the standard is later raised.
Indeed, this has occurred repeatedly, as the Federal government has
provided funding to service providers to deploy networks using delivery
technologies that could not easily and/or cost-effectively be upgraded
as the standard increased. As discussed in the recommendations, policy
makers should seek to avoid this treadmill, and to achieve digital
equity and inclusion in a more sustainable manner.
3.6.2. ASSESSING THE AVAILABILITY GAP: WHERE ARE THE UNSERVED LOCATIONS
AND HOW MANY ARE THERE?
To assess the availability gap under a particular definition of
``broadband,'' policymakers need accurate and frequently updated data
indicating where the unserved locations both are and will likely remain
given expectations about future deployments, both subsidized and
otherwise. A process to generate such data is discussed in detail in
Section 3.8.1. Here we highlight that the size of the gap will vary
greatly based on the performance standard adopted and whether some
complying technologies (e.g., satellite service and some high-speed
cellular services) nonetheless continue to be excluded for other
reasons in calculating ``unserved'' areas.
Based on FCC deployment findings released in January 2021, as of
2019 the current 25/3 Mbps standard translates to an availability gap
that ranges between 0 and 24 million people--24 million if only fixed
wired offerings (principally fiber and cable) are counted, 14 million
if fixed wireless offerings are added, and no availability gap at all
if satellite offerings are also included (Exhibit 3.1).
If download and upload speeds were to be raised, however, the
availability gap increases significantly. For example, at 100/10 Mbps,
the gap in 2019 would have been 27-30 million people, growing to 42-43
million at a standard of 250/25 Mbps. At the same time, however,
improvements over the next three to five years in fixed-wireless
performance and, more speculatively, low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite
constellations that may be able to offer higher speeds (and lower
latency) than current high-earth orbit satellite service, could change
the availability equation dramatically in the other direction.
Likewise, including cellular offerings that already meet today's
standard and potential increases (including some LTE and 5G offerings),
but which are currently not counted by the FCC's availability findings,
could likewise have a dramatic positive impact on the availability gap.
This makes setting and regularly revisiting an appropriate standard, as
noted above, increasingly critical, particularly in determining how
best to spend limited public funds to support future deployments in
unserved areas of the country.
3.6.3. SETTING THE FLOOR ON SUBSIDIZED DEPLOYMENTS: WHAT IS THE MINIMUM
SERVICE QUALITY THAT SUBSIDIZED NETWORK DEPLOYMENTS MUST BE
ABLE TO OFFER?
Though the speed standards for what the FCC considers as service
that constitutes available broadband and the minimum speeds the FCC and
other agencies set to qualify for eligibility for public infrastructure
funding are often conflated, policymakers may and in fact have used
different standards for the two. For example, a rational policy choice
may be to consider locations without access to 25/3 Mbps as unserved,
but then to subsidize only deployments of higher speeds than the
current standard to serve them. Indeed, such a ``network leapfrogging''
policy could supercharge the broadband-based benefits that closing the
availability gap would bring to unserved communities and prove a more
cost-effective use of public funds over the medium-to-long term.
3.6.4. DETERMINING THE COST CURVE: HOW MUCH SUBSIDY IS REQUIRED TO
CLOSE--OR NARROW--THE AVAILABILITY GAP?
The cost to close the availability gap in a given geographical
area, either entirely or partially, will largely be determined by the
three drivers discussed in Sections 3.6.1-3 above, namely: (i) the
standard below which broadband is deemed unavailable; (ii) accurate and
frequently refreshed mapping to determine the location and number of
unserved locations; and (iii) the standard at or above which subsidized
networks are required to operate in order to receive funding support.
Assuming analytically sound and evidence-based choices for (i) and
(iii), as well as adequate execution of (ii), an allocation mechanism
that roughly aligns subsidies with actual costs, and which prioritizes
locations that require the lowest subsidy to achieve deployment and
sustain ongoing operation,\1\ lessons learned from prior broadband
deployments lead to two important conclusions about the cost of closing
the availability gap:
1. Tradeoffs are necessary between universality and quality.
Ideally, the budget allocated to close the availability gap
will be sufficient to achieve universal deployment, with room
for future network upgradability to support expansion of the
essential services that must be supported (see Exhibit 3.2). If
this is not possible, policymakers face a choice between
decreasing deployment to something less than 100 percent or
lowering the standard at or above which subsidized networks are
required to operate. As noted above, however, subsidizing
deployments that may be difficult or impossible to upgrade
creates long-term risks, including the risk of stranded assets,
and that public funds are not put to their best and highest
use.
2. Tradeoffs should be based on a conscious policy choice. The most
sparsely populated and geographically remote locations to serve
are, by definition, the most expensive to serve on a per-person
basis. As shown in Exhibit 3.3, variations in density
distribution within any reasonably large set of unserved
geographies means that the cost per location to close the
available gap increases substantially as one gets closer to
eliminating the gap entirely. Funding deployment to these
locations would require a disproportionately large share of the
total budget. Though the ideal policy is to fully close the
availability gap, depending on the size of, and potential
alternative uses for the deployment budget, a pragmatic second-
best alternative may be to close less than 100 percent of the
availability gap, while funding cheaper options for the
highest-cost areas.\2\
Policymakers have at times ignored these trade-offs and funded
connections at the high end of the cost curve. For example, in 2020,
the Rural Utility Service awarded Beehive Telephone Company Inc. a $2.3
million ReConnect grant to deploy a fiber-to-the-premises network to
four residents, four farms and four businesses in Washington County,
Utah, and a $2.7 million grant to deploy a fiber-to-the-premises
network to connect 147 people in Elko County, Nevada. These average out
to be more than $33,000 per home passed.
This is not just a Federal problem. For example, the California
Advanced Services Fund (CASF), administered by the state's Public
Utility Commission, provides grants to network operators, covering up
to 100 percent of their total capital costs, for construction of
broadband infrastructure in unserved areas of the state. One such grant
of nearly $11 million that went to Frontier Communications in 2019
covered only 222 homes, for an average price per household of over
$49,000.
To further illustrate the tradeoffs that should be examined at the
national level, we note that a January 2017 FCC White Paper \3\ found
that with (i) a performance standard defining ``unserved'' as lacking
access to at least 25/3 Mbps-capable fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) and/
or cable service, and (ii) using then-current FCC's deployment data for
residential and small business locations, there were approximately 22
million unserved premises. Adopting (iii) a policy of subsidizing only
FTTP deployments going forward, the paper found that the total upfront
capital expenditures required to fully eliminate the availability gap
would be approximately $80 billion. Critically, however, approximately
85 percent of the gap could be closed while still holding to a FTTP
policy for about half that amount. That is, to connect the first 85
percent, or 19 million premises, would cost about $40 billion, or
$2,100 per location. To connect the last 15 percent of the unserved
premises, or 3 million premises (approximately 2 percent of all
premises) using FTTP, would cost another $40 billion, or $12,800 per
location.
Alternatively, connecting the first 90 percent of the gap, or 20
million premises, would cost $45 billion, or $2,200 per location, with
the last 10 percent, or 2 million premises, costing another $35
billion, or $15,600 per location. Further illustrating the shape of the
curve, connecting the first 95 percent of the gap, or 21 million
premises, would cost $55 billion, or $2,600 per location, with the last
5 percent, or 1 million premises, costing another $25 billion, or
$22,300 per location.
In addition, while the first 85 percent, according to the White
Paper, would only require a subsidy for capital expenses, the last 15
percent, even if the capital expense of the network deployment were to
be completely subsidized, would require ongoing support for shortfalls
in operating expenses.
Though not technology neutral in its viewpoint, a September 2019
study \4\ by the consulting firm Cartesian, on behalf of the Fiber
Broadband Association, a trade group whose mission is ``to accelerate
deployment of all-fiber access networks,'' \5\ found that with (i) a
performance standard defining ``unserved'' as lacking access to FTTP
(i.e., both using a higher standard than the FCC study, and excluding
other access technologies, most notably cable broadband), there will be
(ii) approximately 70 million unserved households by 2025. Adopting
(iii) a performance standard of only subsidizing FTTP networks, the
total investment required to close 80 percent of the gap was estimated
to be $86 billion, but 63 percent of the gap could be closed for about
half that amount. (The study did not assess the cost of entirely
closing the gap, i.e., it excludes the last 20 percent of households
that would be most expensive to connect with FTTP).
3.7. CURRENT PLANS FOR FUTURE NETWORK DEPLOYMENTS
With private and public network operators announcing proposed or
planned deployments of new and upgraded broadband infrastructure, it
may seem that significant portions of the availability gap will be
closed within a few years, largely without the need for public funding
support. This section provides a high-level analysis of planned
deployments by private and public operators.
1. Existing telephone companies have significant plans for fiber
deployments, but even taken together, these plans would leave
at least half the customers currently served by these providers
using DSL technology without a higher-speed telephone-based
offering.
2. Cable operators have already upgraded significant portions of
their networks to offer gigabit downstream services and have
plans to extend their networks further, but their networks are
unlikely to reach more than 90 percent of the U.S. population
at the end of decade.
3. The most ambitious plans for extending next generation mobile
wireless networks--those stemming from the government
requirements on T-Mobile as part of its merger with Sprint--
involve an expansion of its 5G cellular network to offer 100
Mbps speeds to 90 percent of the population by 2026. This 90
percent is likely to roughly match the geography of the area
covered by cable. Additionally, after recently doubling its C-
Band spectrum holdings, Verizon predicts that its mobile
wireless networks will cover 175 million people by the end of
2023 and over 250 million people after 2024.
4. Municipalities, utilities companies and other public/private
partnerships using a wide range of technical and business
solutions plan to bring Internet coverage to specific local
areas. Taken together, however, these deployments are unlikely
to decrease the number of homes without a fixed terrestrial
broadband option by more than 1 percent.
5. A promising technical and business initiative aimed at closing
the availability gap, based on currently planned future network
deployments, involves the launch of thousands of LEO
satellites. While satellites have long been used for rural
broadband, the distance between the home and the satellite has
been a key impediment for the service, with speeds relatively
slow and latency relatively high compared to terrestrial
technologies. LEO service has the potential to overcome those
limitations and satisfy the requirements of broadband service
at home, but there is a level of uncertainty as to its ability
to provide an acceptable level of service, particularly if LEOs
are used to address the availability gap of a large population.
6. Some believe that 5G fixed-wireless technology offers a
compelling new technology for providing rural broadband.
Proponents of the technology believe that it can provide 1
gigabit per second service over 4 miles from a cell site. One
promising aspect for lowering the cost of 5G deployment, and
therefore lowering the price for the service, is the
development of Open Radio Access Networks (ORAN). In Chapter
11, we discuss how the government can help can support and
accelerate ORAN deployments through R & D efforts.
3.8. OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
In Section 3.6, we noted some of the trade-offs policy makers have
to make to address the availability gap. Here, we note a few others
policy considerations.
3.8.1. FUNDING SOURCE.
In Section 3.5, we noted that the current mechanism for funds to
close the availability gap is under considerable stress, as it is based
on a shrinking revenue stream. With the other programs funded by USF
becoming more important in the era of COVID-19 and an economy of remote
everything, USF is facing increasing demands. There are several options
that have been proposed to address the issue. These include:
Change the current funding mechanism. Alternatives to the
current funding mechanism include changing the methodology to
assess feed based on phone numbers or connections, or
broadening the base of assessable revenues to capture a smaller
percentage of a larger total. Any effort to reform the funding
mechanism for Universal Service will probably take years.
Contribution reform effort could also face lengthy legal
challenges.
Keep the current system but set a cap on total USF annual
funding. Given the shrinking revenue base, this would mean a
longer process for closing the availability gap, and could
reduce the effectiveness of other Universal Service programs.
Keep the current system but do not set a cap on spending.
Given the necessary increase in the contribution factor for
this option, this will likely lead to a collapse of the system.
Use spectrum revenues. In the recent debate on authorization
for the C-Band auction, and in previous Congressional debates,
there were bi-partisan suggestions that the government's share
of auction proceeds should be allocated to closing the
availability gap or addressing other Universal Service
challenges. The idea is that the communications ecosystem that
is paying for the spectrum should benefit from the use of those
funds to provide services that market forces cannot. Spectrum
auctions have produced tens of billions in revenues for the
government but, it should be noted, they are not a routine or
dependable source of funds.
Use direct Congressional appropriations. Many economists
argue that USF should be funded, like other Federal programs,
through direct Congressional appropriations. While there are
efficiency and fairness arguments for such a change, there is a
fear that a future Congress could simply stop funding the
program, either as a conscious choice, or due to a political
stalemate on unrelated budget issues.
Use a combination of funding sources. These would include
direct Congressional appropriations, special appropriations,
such as proceeds from a spectrum auction, and gradually
changing the current contribution factor base to something more
sustainable in light of market trends.
3.8.2. ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE FUNDING.
Providing government funding, whether for a network to address the
availability gap, or to subsidize broadband service for a low-income
person to close the affordability gap, raises the policy question of
who should be eligible to receive the funds. At first blush, it might
appear that the same criteria could be used to determine both who
should qualify for infrastructure support and for the provision of
subsidized service to low-income households. There is, however, a big
difference between the two.
First, deployment funding carries an execution risk that the
project may not be completed, while the low-income subsidy only goes to
firms already offering a qualified service. Second, deployment funding
creates a network that likely will not be subject to significant
competition, while the low-income subsidy is likely to be used in
markets where there are several firms competing for the consumer. We
will address the low-income subsidy requirements in Chapter Five, but
here we address the requirements for network providers to receive
support for infrastructure deployment.
Currently, service providers seeking USF support for infrastructure
deployments must be certified as Eligible Telecommunications Carriers
(ETC), a designation that essentially limits funding to regulated,
facilities-based telephone service providers. Under current law,
providers obtain ETC designation from their state, or from the FCC in
cases where the state lacks legal authority over the provider.
Governing bodies must certify annually that allocated funding is being
used as granted by ETCs within their jurisdiction.
The primary justification for the ETC requirement is that
government funding should not go to operators who do not meet the kind
of requirements that historically applied to common carrier telephone
companies, including public interest obligations, in exchange for
obtaining a local monopoly to provide telephone service.
The ETC requirement has been criticized as outdated, excluded many
providers who are otherwise qualified to deploy infrastructure but who
cannot meet the technical definition of an ETC, potentially increasing
costs and lowering performance for consumers. Critics of the ETC
requirement note that as part of the process of awarding funding, the
FCC already conducts an extensive review of the provider's ``long-
form'' application, which ensures the provider is technically and
financially capable of fulfilling all relevant funding obligations.
Further, those accepting funding are legally bound by the provision
that the funds may be ``used. . .only for the provision, maintenance,
and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is
intended'' (see 47 C.F.R. Sec. 54.314) and are obligated to provide
service (subject to milestones) of a specified performance level, for a
specific number of years, to the locations for which funding is
awarded. Assuming a robust audit and/or oversight process, failure to
meet these obligations will result in penalties. In that light, the ETC
designation or ongoing oversight by states may be redundant, though
others argue that having multiple regulators provides additional
assurance that companies are complying with the rules.
As a middle ground, relevant ETC requirements could be incorporated
into the FCC's long-form review process, making it possible to
eliminate a separate ETC requirement. In particular, a service provider
seeking FCC funding could be required to certify to the FCC:
Compliance with applicable service requirements.
Safeguards to facilitate continuing operations during
emergencies, including back-up power sources, the ability to
reroute traffic around damaged facilities, and being able to
manage traffic spikes during emergencies.
Compliance with applicable FCC consumer protection and
service quality standards.
Compliance with any specific requirements regarding the
terms and conditions of broadband service supported by the
government funding.
Compliance with requirements that it has advertised the
availability of the services and the charges for those services
using media of general distribution, as required by the FCC.
Carriers' existing ETC designations and obligations--particularly
legacy designations and obligations--should also automatically sunset
once their funds terminate to avoid imposing costly and discriminatory
obligations and burdens on providers. Such legacy obligations can
effectively limit budgets that could otherwise support the deployment
and maintenance of broadband services.
3.8.3. AUCTION DESIGN AND RULES.
In the last decade, the FCC drew on its long history of spectrum
auctions to design rules and procedures to award funding to close the
availability gap through competitive auctions. In 2011, the FCC first
adopted the strategy of awarding funding on a competitive basis, after
an initial period during which incumbent telephone providers would be
offered a set amount of money to make relatively modest network
upgrades. In areas where the incumbent turned down that initial offer,
among others, the agency planned to accelerate competitive auctions.
The FCC then finalized rules to implement this strategy for the Connect
America Fund.
The FCC conducted the Connect America Fund Phase II auction in
2018, with winning bidders to be awarded approximately $1.48 billion
over a ten-year term, based on commitments to cover about 750,000
unserved homes and small businesses, or about 1.875 million people.
That auction focused on areas where incumbents had turned down the
initial offer, as well as those areas of the country that the FCC
believed would require the highest subsidy.
The Connect America Fund program's 6-year initial support period
was scheduled to end in December 2020, but carriers could elect to
receive an optional 7th year of transitional funding. The FCC then held
an auction for Phase I of the renamed Rural Digital Opportunity Fund
(RDOF) in late 2020, which will provide funding over a ten-year period.
Nearly 400 entities qualified to bid in the auction, including large
and small incumbent telephone companies, competitive fiber providers,
cable operators, electric cooperatives, fixed wireless providers, three
satellite companies, and consortia. Like the Connect America Fund Phase
II auction, the RDOF auction was a multi-round, reverse, descending
clock auction with bidders competing nationwide, with some local
competition among bidders offering a lower price.
Bidders in the RDOF auction could offer service in one of four
speed tiers, with either high or low latency. The speed tiers were 25/3
Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/20 Mbps, and 1 Gigabyte/500 Mbps. By design,
bidders in all performance tiers competed against one another, at least
in the initial rounds, with a preference built into the auction design
for faster service and lower latency. The rules included a complicated
system of ``weights,'' which effectively reduced the amount of support
provided for slower speed and/or higher latency service.
Only census blocks that were unserved according to the FCC's 2019
broadband availability data by 25/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial broadband
were eligible for bidding. Eligible areas also had to be deemed ``high
cost,'' meaning the estimated cost to serve was above a threshold that
assumed a set level of cost would be covered by end user revenues. The
maximum level of funding available for any given area and reserve
prices were based on the estimated cost to deploy fiber in the area.
Bids represented a percentage of the reserve price, with the weights
reducing the effective amount of subsidy for individual bidders.
Ultimately, over 180 entities placed winning bids for $9.2 billion
of the $16 billion budgeted for Phase I. Collectively, winning bids
promised service to over 5.2 million homes and small businesses
(roughly 13 million people), which covered more than 99 percent of the
locations in the auction. More than 85 percent of the locations
received winning bids at the highest speed tier, and virtually all of
the remaining locations received winning bid that committed to deliver
100/20 Mbps.
Winning bidders now must undergo a more thorough review of their
financial and technical qualifications, and meet certain other
requirements, before they receive funding. In January 2021, a bi-
partisan group of 157 members of Congress asked the FCC to thoroughly
vet winning bidders to ensure that they can deliver the broadband
service they have promised to unserved consumers.
For the Connect America Fund Phase II auction, the first group of
winning bidders were authorized six months after conclusion of the
auction, with other bidders authorized on a rolling basis over the
following two years. Once authorized, RDOF winning bidders have six
years to complete their deployments, with interim milestones beginning
at the end of the third year.
The FCC currently plans to hold a second RDOF auction, RDOF Phase
II, to address partially served areas and those areas for which there
was no winning bid in RDOF Phase I. The FCC said that it would only
hold the Phase II auction after it improved its broadband availability
data and maps. In December 2020, the FCC announced that funding not
allocated in the RDOF Phase I auction would be allocated to the RDOF
Phase II auction, creating a budget of up to $11.2 billion.
3.9. POLICY OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While we are generally supportive of several current and proposed
efforts to close the availability gap, there are additional policy
considerations that should be considered in the interest of achieving
digital equity and inclusion.
3.9.1. THE FCC SHOULD CONDUCT AN EXPEDITED PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE
CRITICAL BENCHMARKS FOR BROADBAND.
As noted above, the FCC's determination of service levels that
constitute Advanced Telecommunications Capability (ATC) profoundly
affect the determination of which areas are deemed ``unserved,'' and,
consequently, how limited funds are allocated to help close the
availability gap. The FCC should commence an expedited proceeding to
determine:
What has COVID-19 taught the United States about broadband
usage and how that should affect the threshold standard for
what the FCC considers the definition of broadband? While we do
not express a specific recommendation in this plan for what the
definition should be, we believe the evidence is highly likely
to demonstrate that the current definition is too low. Since
the FCC last upgraded the definition in 2015, broadband usage
has significantly increased and the COVID crisis accelerated
those usage trends.
What do technology and market trends indicate about future
broadband usage?
What is the level of broadband service necessary today to
utilize essential services, such as education, health care and
workforce development today? How might requirements change
going forward?
In light of those findings, what is the level of broadband
service below which an area should be considered unserved by
broadband?
In light of those findings, what is the minimum level of
broadband service the government should require in funding
efforts to bring availability to an unserved area?
In completing this analysis, the FCC should look for guidance to
Section 254 of the Communications Act, which defines the principles of
Universal Service the FCC is directed to implement. That section states
that ``consumers in all regions of the Nation . . . should have access
to'' communications services ``that are reasonably comparable to those
services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that
are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in
urban areas.''
``Reasonably comparable'' does not necessarily mean identical, but
the FCC should choose a level of service below which it cannot be
fairly said that consumers are receiving reasonably comparable service.
Section 254 also direct the FCC, in establishing the ``evolving level''
of service that constitutes universal service, to consider, among other
factors, ``the extent to which'' retail services have ``through the
operation of market choices by customers, been subscribed to by a
substantial majority of residential customers.''
In establishing and revising the level of broadband service that
the government should fund to support an unserved area, the FCC should
also seek to balance the objectives of both Sections 254 and Section
706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As noted above, Section 254
promotes the concept of ``reasonably comparable service,'' and directs
the FCC to define universal service in part with reference to retail
services that have been subscribed to by a substantial majority of
residential consumers.
Under Section 706, Congress directs the FCC to act to ``encourage
the deployment'' of ATC to ``all Americans'' on ``a reasonable and
timely basis.'' Congress defines ATC as ``with regard to any
transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband
telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and
receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video
telecommunications using any technology.''
In assessing a forward looking element into the service levels that
constitute ATC for purposes of infrastructure funding support, the FCC
should include provisions for excess capacity that would reasonably
accommodate predicted growth in use and application requirements over
the next 10 years, with ``excess capacity'' and ``application
requirements,'' to be defined by the FCC following analysis of user
requirements for current and emerging applications and their technical
and utilization characteristics. In defining these elements, the FCC
should place particular emphasis on service levels necessary to utilize
essential services in education, health care and workforce development,
as detailed in succeeding chapters.
Through this and related proceedings, the FCC should then establish
a set of minimum standards for deployments that qualify for government
funds, referred to herein as ``Qualifying Networks.''
3.9.2. THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AND THE STATES SHOULD UTILIZE THE NEW
APPROPRIATIONS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THIS PLAN.
As noted above, Congress appropriated funds in the America Rescue
Act of 2021 directly to States, territories and tribal entities, as
well as to local governments and counties that can be used for
broadband infrastructure. Congress also allocated funds to the
Department of Treasury to distribute to the states funds that appear to
be specifically designated for broadband infrastructure. We recommend
that the funds be used in a manner consistent with this plan,
including, but not limited, to the following:
The priority for funding should be to serve unserved areas,
according to an upgraded definition of what constitutes
broadband, with further prioritization of areas that were
unserved under the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps definition of broadband. We
note that there are a number of areas where private enterprises
already have publicly announced plans to deploy gigabit capable
fiber networks. While such areas might currently meet the new
definition of unserved, the priority should remain funding in
areas where, but for the government funding, Qualifying
Networks would not be built.
The minimum service level required of awardees should be
consistent with an updated definition of Qualifying Networks;
The funds should be awarded through a competitive process
with guardrails to ensure that an entity seeking funding has
the actual technical, operational, and financial resources
necessary to meet its commitments;
Eligibility to compete for the funds should be consistent
with the principles discussed in this Chapter;
The FCC and NTIA should assist the Department of Treasury,
as well as all the different government entities eligible to
receive funds for broadband infrastructure projects, with
issues related to mapping, definitions, and structuring
competitive processes.
3.9.3 THE FCC SHOULD IMPLEMENT THE BROADBAND DATA ACT.
In December 2020, Congress appropriated funding for the FCC to
implement the Broadband Data. The FCC should produce maps of fixed
terrestrial broadband service availability consistent with the Act by
early 2022. While taking care not to harm any privacy rights or
confidential business information, the mapping effort should make
greater use of existing data private enterprises already have and,
where appropriate, use crowdsourcing techniques that provide more
accurate and granular information about broadband availability than the
FCC currently has. Further, in light of the Congressional
appropriations to states and other government jurisdictions for
broadband projects, the FCC should seek to accelerate its mapping to
assist those governments with their own decision making. While mapping
is underway, at the same time, the FCC should complete the necessary
proceedings to adopt rules and procedures for the next auction. Upon
completion of the mapping, the FCC should release an updated map of
areas eligible for funding, solicit applications, and hold an auction
to deploy broadband based on the findings of the updated maps.
3.9.4. CONGRESS SHOULD ELIMINATE THE ETC REQUIREMENT AND SIMILAR
REQUIREMENTS THAT SUPPRESS SUPPLY.
Congress should instruct the FCC to eliminate the requirement that
infrastructure funding recipients be designated as ETCs, and
automatically relinquish the designation for existing ETCs in the
serving area once their funding ends. Congress should further direct
the FCC to incorporate those elements of the existing ETC designation
process that remain relevant into its applicant review process, as
discussed in Section 3.8.2, and authorize the FCC to consult with
appropriate state and local officials, such as state broadband offices
familiar with conditions on the ground, so that the FCC is able to
develop meaningful audit and oversight capabilities over funding
recipients to ensure they perform as expected.
3.9.5. THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHOULD STREAMLINE ITS PROCESS
FOR GRANTING ACCESS TO FEDERAL RIGHTS OF WAY (ROW).
In the same way that the ETC requirement has suppressed the supply
of enterprises interested in obtaining Federal assistance to deploy
networks, current Department of Transportation policy that limits
access to Federal ROW to certified utilities and communications
companies adds unnecessary costs for non-traditional providers who wish
to lay fiber or other conduits. The Department of Transportation should
create a national policy that (1) provides streamlined access to
Federal ROW (e.g., Interstate highway system) for non-utilities or non-
certificated operators; (2) simplifies and improves transparency around
the permitting process; and (3) creates one point of contact for all
approvals required to deploy communications infrastructure.
3.9.6. CONGRESS SHOULD PASS LEGISLATION AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO BE
DISTRIBUTED BY THE FCC OR OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES THROUGH A
SERIES OF COMPETITIVE PROCESSES TO CLOSE THE AVAILABILITY GAP.
We believe the best way to close the availability gap is with a
significant one-time appropriation. The following guidelines should be
included:
1. The FCC should allocate the funds through multiple competitive
processes as described below.
2. Any appropriated funds left over after all auctions are completed
should be redirected to Universal Service programs aimed at
closing the adoption and affordability gaps, as discussed in
Chapters 4 and 5. Congress should consider the appropriation as
a unified effort to achieve digital equity and inclusion. In a
well-designed reverse auction, market forces will encourage
efficiency, so providing a cushion will not lead to over-
expenditures. That cushion, however, should be spent on other
programs to address digital equity and inclusion and in
particular, to relieve pressure on the Universal Service Fund.
3. Congress should require that the FCC report to Congress on the
extent to which it is appropriate to rely on LEOs, next
generation VDSL, fixed and/or mobile cellular, or other
alternative technologies to completely close the availability
gap, or if other technologies will be required to meet the
needs of the most remote premises. That report should take into
account what the FCC learns from the performance of alternate
technologies funded to date.
3.9.7. THE FCC SHOULD HOLD SEVERAL REVERSE AUCTIONS.
The FCC should hold multiple reverse auctions. There are several
reasons why this is the preferable approach:
First, it would allow the FCC to gain real-world experience
with the performance of the networks it has financed to date,
informing its determination of the service levels alternative
technologies are capable of delivering.
Second, it would provide the agency with market insight into
the performance of 5G fixed and mobile networks, as well as the
potential of other emerging technologies, such as low earth
orbiting satellites.
Third, a series of auctions will provide a second chance for
communities to consider alternatives in the event there is no
winning bidder for their area. Unserved communities that are
desperate for available service are at different stages of
organizing themselves to solve the problem. For some, the
answer may be to work more closely with existing or nearby
service providers to develop a more attractive business
proposition to encourage entry. For others, it may be necessary
to explore alternative approaches, including ways to leverage
multiple sources of funding from federal, state, and local
options.
The FCC should maximize the reach of the Congressional
appropriation by considering an auction design that awards funding
based on dollar-per-location basis, rather than a bid-to-reserve price
ratio. It should prioritize those areas that require the least amount
of funding per home.
To close the availability gap as quickly as possible, the FCC
should adopt the following schedule:
In 2022, the FCC should hold a reverse auction designed to
assure deployment of a Qualifying Network to 98 percent of
premises in the United States. The 98 percent goal is
appropriate as it is the point at which the cost curve for
connecting each additional premise begins to rise
significantly.
In 2023, the FCC should examine the performance of new
delivery technologies, including but not limited to, low earth
orbiting satellites and 5G fixed and mobile cellular networks,
and develop a plan to provide the final 2 percent of premises
in America with a Qualifying Network. To the extent that plan
requires additional funding from Congress, the FCC should
request, and Congress should appropriate, such funding.
In 2024, the FCC should hold a reverse auction designed to
assure deployment of a Qualifying Network to the final 2
percent of premises.
The FCC should continually upgrade its availability maps, as
noted above, to determine with greater accuracy which areas
remain unserved by a Qualifying Network.
3.9.8. THE FCC SHOULD ADJUST ITS PROCEDURES FOR QUALIFYING TO
PARTICIPATE IN REVERSE AUCTIONS.
We agree with bi-partisan criticism of the FCC's handling of the
recent RDOF Phase I auction. To prevent the risk of having winning
bidders who are likely to default on their commitments, we recommend
the FCC adopt two additional principles in refining the its
requirements for qualification in the next auction.
The FCC should adopt stronger guardrails for the ``short
form'' review process to ensure that an entity seeking to bid
has the actual technical, operational, and financial resources
necessary to meet its commitments. In the most recent RDOF
auction, the FCC allowed entities to bid anywhere in the
nation, subject only to a limitation that their bids not exceed
the nationwide auction budget. The FCC used a case-by-case
approach to assess the qualifications of applicants to bid. The
short-form process--in which applicants seek to qualify to bid
in specific states at specific performance tier(s)--should be
modified to include more bright-line rules designed to ensure
the applicant can to realistically meet the selected
performance tier in the desired area(s) of interest. For
example, the FCC could establish that no bidder is eligible to
bid on more than a specified number of locations or for more
than a given dollar amount of support, absent demonstration of
operational history meeting a specific threshold. Absent that
operational history, the short-form applicant could be required
to demonstrate that project financing has been secured up to a
set dollar amount, contingent on winning a specified level of
support.
The FCC should not allow enterprises to bid on the basis of
unproven technology. In the most recent RDOF auction, the FCC
qualified companies to bid that were not existing broadband
providers and proposed to use technologies without a proven
track record of being commercially offered in the marketplace
at required RDOF service levels. In future auctions, the FCC
should not allow applicants to bid on selected performance
tiers in the absence of real-world market place experience as
an existing broadband provider or with those technologies in a
variety of relevant markets. At a minimum, there should be some
limits on the ability to bid using technologies that lack
operational experience.
3.9.9. THE FCC AND CONGRESS SHOULD INSTITUTE POLICIES TO CONNECT TRIBAL
LANDS.
3.9.9.1. Congress should establish a Tribal Broadband Fund to support
sustainable broadband deployment and adoption in Tribal lands.
Grants from a new Tribal Broadband Fund would be used for a variety
of purposes, including bringing high-capacity connectivity to Tribal
headquarters and other anchor institutions, as well as support for
deployment planning, infrastructure buildout, feasibility studies,
technical assistance, business plan development and implementation,
digital literacy, and outreach. In addition, a portion of the fund
should be allocated to provide small, targeted grants on an expedited
basis for Internet access and adoption programs. The goal should be
deployment of high-capacity infrastructure on Tribal lands that enables
users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and
video telecommunications using any technology.
As part of this effort, Congress should also provide ongoing
funding for Federal facilities serving Tribal lands to upgrade and
maintain their broadband infrastructure. Consistent with the widely
held view that government entities actively seek out and leverage ``dig
once'' coordination opportunities in all areas of the country, all
Federal agencies that upgrade network connectivity on Tribal lands
should coordinate such upgrades with Tribal governments and the Tribal
Broadband Fund grant-making process, exploiting opportunities for joint
trenching, laying of conduit, or construction of additional fiber optic
facilities. As part of that effort, the FCC, in consultation with
relevant stakeholders, should develop a set of best practices that
expedite review when infrastructure deployment utilizes existing rights
of way, such as highways, utilities, and rail. In addition, we note
that the two appropriations mentioned above in the American Rescue Act
of 2021 provide funding to Tribal governments that can be used for
broadband infrastructure. The fund we recommend here should be designed
in light of the needs after an evaluation of how the Rescue Act funds
were utilized.
3.9.9.2. Congress should amend the Communications Act to provide
discretion to the FCC to allow anchor institutions on Tribal
lands to share broadband network capacity that is funded by the
E-rate or the Rural Health Care program with other community
institutions designated by Tribal governments.
In recognition of the unique challenges facing Tribal communities,
Congress should amend the Communications Act to provide discretion to
the FCC to define circumstances in which schools, libraries and health
care providers that receive funding from the E-rate or Rural Health
Care programs may share broadband network access and capacity that is
funded by the E-rate or the Rural Health Care program with other
community institutions designated by Tribal governments.
3.9.9.3. Congress and the FCC should develop policies that allow Tribes
significant influence over the use of spectrum over their
lands.
Congress and the FCC should work together to allow Tribal
communities to have an increased ability to utilize spectrum over their
lands. This should be based on three principles:
Require Tribal consultation and approval regarding the use
of spectrum over their lands. Because of the way the FCC has
allocated spectrum, wireless companies often license the
spectrum that lies above Tribal lands, yet do not deploy
networks in those areas, allocating their capital to build in
more densely populated areas. Native Tribes were promised a
level of sovereignty over their lands, and given the importance
of spectrum and wireless communications, they should have the
right to control that spectrum and deploy it in ways that best
suits their needs. Congress should end the FCC's ability to
license Tribal spectrum resources without Tribal consultation.
Require a Tribal Priority Filing Window for every spectrum
auction. To the extent that there are frequencies and uses for
which automatic Tribal control is not practical, the FCC should
create a Tribal Priority Filing Window for licenses over Tribal
lands in advance of every spectrum auction, granting Tribes the
right to license the spectrum on an exclusive or priority
basis.
Institute a build it or lose it process for future licensees
of Tribal spectrum. Because of earlier allocation and licensing
of spectrum, private entities hold licenses for significant
portions of spectrum over Tribal lands. Often, the economics of
serving these lands licensees from building out networks. As
noted above, Congress should authorize the FCC to conduct a
reverse auction or otherwise determine and provide the support
necessary to incent existing spectrum holders to build out
their networks over Tribal lands. For future spectrum auctions,
the FCC could, with advance notice to all potential bidders,
make build-out on Tribal lands a clear and explicit condition
of spectrum auctions over these lands.
3.9.10. IMPROVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT FEDERAL AND STATE BROADBAND
PROGRAMS AND IMPROVE THE APPLICATION PROCESS.
As noted above, according to the NTIA's Broadband Funding Guide,
there are 59 direct and indirect Federal programs, located in more than
a dozen Federal agencies, that support broadband deployment efforts. In
addition, there are several programs that have either been initiated or
expanded through COVID-19 relief legislation that also provide
broadband assistance.
The multitude of these programs raises questions of whether they
are being effectively used. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of
this effort. But there are obvious problems with current efforts that
could be easily addressed and which, if addressed, would improve
broadband access.
3.9.10.1. Provide a search engine that enables stakeholders to
effectively find the program that serves their needs.
NTIA currently has a search tool, but it only allows one to search
for programs to the extent that the parties know the specific program
they are looking for. It would be far better if the search engine
allowed the party doing the search to enter certain relevant criteria,
including the nature of the recipient (schools, libraries, non-profits,
local governments, hospitals, etc.), the purpose of the funding
(planning, capital expense, adoption, training, etc.), the location of
the recipient (rural, exurban, suburban, metro as well as by zip code,
as some programs, such as the Appalachian Regional Council, only
service specific regions), and then the search engine would identify
relevant programs. In other words, the search engine should be designed
to do the searching, rather than forcing the person doing the inquiry
to review all 59 programs to determine whether each program's mission
and eligibility criteria fit their situation.
3.9.10.2. Require agencies to update their information.
A quick review of the information makes clear that many entries are
out of date. There should be a requirement for agencies to periodically
update the information and to do so immediately when there is a
significant event, such as Congressional action allocating new funds,
that affects the nature of their programs.
3.9.10.3. For programs other than the those supported by the Universal
Service Fund, create a common application that enables those
applying for funding from more than one program to save time
and effort on the application process.
The FCC process is unique in a number of ways but there is
significant overlap between many of the other Federal programs. NTIA
should review the applications for those programs and develop a common
application so that the applicant can fill out one, instead of multiple
forms, and apply for multiple programs simultaneously. Further, NTIA
should standardize, to the extent possible, the application process to
ease the administrative burden on applicants. As an illustration, the
Department of Education has an online Financial Aid Form application,
known as the FAFSA, that is common to all eligible institutions.
3.9.10.4. The website should be designed so that states can also add
their broadband related programs to the database.
Several states have programs that subsidize broadband deployments.
To assist communities seeking assistance, it would be useful to enable
states to add links to their programs, so that potential providers can
assess the full menu of available support.
Chapter 4.
CLOSING THE BROADBAND ADOPTION GAP
4.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
The COVID-19 pandemic has wrenched much of our day-to-day life,
learning, work, and socializing from the familiar world of the physical
to digital equivalents many users had never heard of only a few months
ago. One pernicious side-effect of the crisis has been to expose both
the extent and the growing cost of persistent digital inequities. It is
hard to live your life online if you do not have or know how to use a
computer, and don't subscribe to a broadband service that connects it
to the rest of the world.
The previous chapter reviewed gaps in broadband availability and
the mechanisms that would solve them once and for all. But solely as a
function of the number of people affected, the biggest divide remains
that of adoption. The Federal Communications Commission estimates that
at the end of 2019, the number of Americans with no available broadband
service was less than 14.5 million, though other sources suggest the
number may be as high as 40 million. Even at the higher end of that
range, however, the number of Americans with available service who do
not subscribe to broadband is significantly greater. This adoption gap
afflicts a wide range of people and geographies, but is most acute
among low-income households, those with lower education levels, older
adults, Black Americans, Latinxs, and Native Americans.
Extensive public and private surveys suggest that, since 2010,
there are three principal causes of the adoption gap, broadly speaking:
problems of affordability, digital readiness, and perceived relevance.
The first is obvious. Thirty-four million Americans living below
the poverty line struggle with the most basic necessities of life--
rent, food, electricity and water, transit, and basic communications.
Adding the cost of monthly broadband service makes adoption untenable,
even as it becomes increasingly clear that Internet service is more a
necessity than a luxury. Issues of affordability are discussed in the
next chapter.
Digital readiness constitutes a more complex and interconnected set
of issues. For many, including some who can and some who cannot afford
a retail broadband service, adoption is complicated by a lack of
computing equipment and training. This includes the ability to use a
computer or tablet device, to access and use specific services on the
Internet, and to set up and maintain connectivity equipment, including
modems, routers, and home Wi-Fi networks. It also includes having the
training necessary to overcome the fears, many of them justified, of
personal and financial security while using online services.
Longitudinal surveys from both the NTIA and Pew Internet Research
have consistently shown that a significant obstacle to broadband
adoption is the belief, well-founded or otherwise, that the Internet is
not ``relevant'' to the lives of many non-adopters. But on the problem
of relevance, we think the pandemic has changed the environment,
perhaps permanently. For now, and perhaps well into the future,
education at all levels will take place online. Health care, crucial
for all Americans but especially for poorer and older residents and
those living in remote locations, has suddenly and irreversibly moved
to virtual platforms, with doctor visits, prescriptions, and basic
wellness services being delivered largely without physical interaction.
Employment opportunities--everything from job training to applying for
work and, in many cases, performing one's job--require broadband.
Government services and civic engagement are also increasingly more
easily and effectively accessed online, not to mention social
engagement, entertainment, shopping, news, and information. Any
remaining doubts about the relevance of digital life, and the
importance of digital equity and inclusion, have been largely erased.
But the COVID-19 pandemic has not so much created these new
realities as it has accelerated paradigm shifts in daily life that were
already well underway. The computer is a source of continual disruption
across nearly all industries and activities precisely because it offers
the promise, if used wisely, of lowering a remarkable range of costs,
of improving efficiency and capacity, of equalizing quality of service
and opportunity, and of opening doors to new forms of human creativity,
innovation, and interaction. In the reaction to many unfortunate but
undeniable negative side effects of the digital age, we may forget just
how much the technology has and can continue to improve the quality of
life, especially for the most disadvantaged populations.
The pandemic, too, has brought that truth into stark focus. With
the attention of both policymakers and their constituents acutely fixed
on the importance and promise of digital equity and inclusion, the
stars have aligned as never before for bold action to close the
adoption gap. We must seize it.
4.2. VISION
The Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of
1996 both articulate a vision for communications policy that has taken
on renewed importance today: universal and affordable communications
services that are widely available.
Those acts were written in an era in which voice communications was
dominant. Today, of course, voice is only a small part of the
communication ecosystem. That, too, was a shift contemplated by
Congress. As the 1996 Act noted ``Universal service is an evolving
level of telecommunications services that the Commission shall
establish periodically under this section, taking into account advances
in telecommunications and information technologies and services.'' The
Act also says that the definition of universal service should be
functional, based on what is essential to education, health, and public
safety, as well as whether a ``substantial majority'' of the public has
subscribed to certain telecommunications services.
Our vision, therefore, is to reach levels of adoption among low-
income households, less educated adults, older Americans, Black
Americans, Latinxs, and Native Americans, and other groups who suffer
from persistent digital inequity and exclusion, that equals adoption
rates seen today among those for whom affordability and digital
readiness are not barriers.
4.3. GOALS
By the end of 2023, all K-12 students should be active users of
broadband services at home that enables them to attend virtual classes
and complete their homework. They should also have devices capable of
facilitating all learning activities.
By the end of 2023, all low-income persons on government health
plans should be active users of broadband service in their residence
that enables them to access the full range of telehealth services.
By the end of 2023, all persons who become unemployed should be
active users of broadband service in their residence that enables them
to engage in job training, job searching and applying for a job.
By the end of 2021, the Federal Government should establish an
Office of Digital Equity (discussed further below in Section 4.5.1)
with a mandate to coordinate across agencies and initiatives to
increase home broadband adoption, and otherwise advocate for policies
designed to achieve digital equity and inclusion.
By the end of 2023, all Americans should have access to programs
and services that enable persons to be digitally ready.
4.4. THE CURRENT SITUATION: UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL ADOPTION GAPS
4.4.1. DEFINING BROADBAND ADOPTION.
We define ``broadband adoption'' to mean subscribing to an
available Internet access service, where an individual or family lives,
that is always available, offers full access to all parts of the
Internet, is secure, and with speed, data, latency and other technical
characteristics sufficient to use essential applications such as, but
not limited to, education, health care, and employment, along with the
necessary equipment and training to benefit from their full potential.
That definition suggests the need for policymakers to devise,
enact, and fund solutions to address the persistent adoption problems
noted above: affordability, digital readiness, and perceived relevance.
Ensuring that today's non-adopters have the economic means to subscribe
to broadband will erase a major obstacle; untangling and solving the
many elements of digital readiness ensures that the newly connected can
reap the same benefits of digital technology as long-time users, and
will likely address remaining questions of relevancy.
A few features of adoption are worth highlighting. Together, fixed
terrestrial broadband and large-screen computers or tablets allow users
to carry out most online tasks with little or no constraints. But there
is also the question of what kind of data package is sufficient to
enable a household to achieve that full participation in digital life
we discussed in Chapter 1. A 2018 study on low-income households who
use Wi-Fi hotspots for schoolwork shows that they consume 60 gigabits
of data per month--above the 50 GB monthly threshold that many mobile
carriers have before slowing access speeds for non-unlimited data
plans. Wireline broadband plans generally have either no limits or
limits of 1,024 GB per month- well above the average data usage of 344
GB per month they experienced at the end of 2019. Since the pandemic,
some mobile data plans have eased constraints on data caps, including
within the context of ``single payer'' agreements between localities
and service providers. These solutions are neither generally available
nor guaranteed to be permanent but, as discussed later, next generation
cellular and other wireless services may at some point change the
analysis. In addition, we cannot lose sight of the fact that mobile
network wireless hotspots offer unique advantages, including ease of
set-up and pack-and-go Internet for students with multiple home
locations.
We also believe that non-smartphone devices are an important
element of adoption. Though widely adopted and constantly improving
their functional abilities, smartphones today are not a full cure for
problems of digital equity and inclusion. As the pandemic unfolded and
citizens sought unemployment benefits, for example, 86 percent of state
unemployment websites failed tests for ``mobile friendliness.''
4.4.2. CURRENT DATA.
In chapter 3 we analyzed the state of broadband deployment and
relied largely on FCC data, which, as discussed, has significant flaws
but still provides some insight into the availability gap. For this
chapter, we are focused on understanding adoption gaps across socio-
economic lines. For these purposes we believe the American Community
Survey offers the best information to analyze these gaps and we explain
the choice to emphasize wireline connections below.
According to the American Community Survey's analysis of 2019
census data, 70.8 percent of U.S. households have adopted broadband at
home using a wired service--using either cable, fiber, or DSL. This is
captured in the ACS question that asks whether ``you or any member of
this household have access to the Internet using a . . . broadband
(high speed) Internet service such as cable, fiber optic, or DSL
service installed in this household?'' It is worth noting that a
``yes'' answer to this question does not necessarily mean that the
respondent has service that meets the FCC's current definition of ATC,
which requires speeds of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. DSL, an
older technology that some providers are hoping to phase out, may not
satisfy the FCC's definition.
The 2019 ACS figure of nearly 71 percent represents an increase
from 67.3 percent in 2016, when ACS first began to report on broadband
adoption. ACS also reports on non-wired services, finding in 2019 that,
including cellular and satellite-based broadband services, adoption
levels reached 86.4 percent, an increase from 81.4 percent in 2016. In
addition to the 70.8 percent of those who have wireline subscriptions,
cellular-only users make up nearly 12 percent of Internet adopters,
with satellite and other broadband technologies making up the rest.
This means that as of the end of 2019, ACS data suggest that nearly
36 million households, or approximately 96 million people, were not
subscribing to broadband at home using a fixed terrestrial service
(henceforth ``broadband at home''). As noted in Chapter 3, of course,
the lack of an available service plays a significant role in that
finding.
Incomplete network availability data make it difficult to say with
precision how many non-subscribing households could have broadband at
home but currently do not. If between 80 percent and 90 percent of all
households have access to at least one available fixed terrestrial
service, however, then between 29 to 32 million households, or
approximately 69 to 78 million people, do not subscribe to broadband at
home for reasons other than network availability.
4.4.2.1. Socio-economic factors and geography.
According to 2019 ACS data, six demographic characteristics
correlated strongly to whether or not a household adopts broadband:\6\
Income. One of the most highly correlated variables in adoption of
broadband at home is household income. For households with annual
incomes of $50,000 or less, 54.1 percent have adopted broadband at
home, compared to households with annual incomes exceeding $75,000,
where 84.3 percent have adopted broadband at home. Non-adopting U.S.
households with annual incomes below $50,000 (representing 42 percent
of all U.S. households), equate to 21.9 million households, or
approximately 59 million people. [FIGURE 1]
Age. Only 59.0 percent of individuals aged 65 and older have
adopted broadband at home, with a particularly sharp drop off for those
older than 74, where only 48.7 percent have adopted broadband at home.
This leaves 21.6 million older Americans without broadband at home, or
13.3 million households. [FIGURE 2]
Households with school-age children. 77.3 percent of households
with children under the age of 18 have adopted broadband at home. This
is higher than the national average, reflecting in part the relative
youth of these households. Some 16.9 million children under age 18 are
estimated to live in households without broadband at home--or
approximately 8.4 million households.
Geography. Fewer rural Americans have adopted broadband at home, in
part, as noted in Chapter 3, due to a lack of an available fixed
terrestrial service. In non-metropolitan areas, only 62.4 percent of
households have adopted broadband at home, compared to 72.3 percent for
those living in metropolitan areas. In 2019, 7 million households in
non-metro areas had not adopted broadband at home.
Given the concentration of population in metro areas however, there
are far more urban households who have not adopted broadband at home--
an estimated 29 to 32 million households, or approximately 69 to 78
million people,
Race and Ethnicity. Broadband adoption has historically been
adopted at higher rates by white Americans relative to Black Americans,
Latinxs, and Native American/Alaskan Natives. The 2018 ACS data show
this trend continuing. Compounding the problem, adoption rates for
Black American, Latinxs, and Native American/Alaskan Natives are
significantly lower even when controlling for household income, age,
educational attainment, and other factors. [FIGURE 3] Specifically,
broadband at home has been adopted in the following percentages:
82.2 percent of Asian Americans
72.2 percent of whites
65.7 percent of Latinxs
61.8 percent of Black Americans
60.3 percent of Native Americans or Alaskan Natives.
Educational attainment. Broadband adoption also correlates strongly
with higher levels of educational attainment. Those with higher levels
of educational attainment may, for example, have jobs that require
digital skills, not to mention the income to afford broadband at home.
For those with high school degrees or less, their jobs or income levels
may contribute to lower levels of adoption for broadband at home. Each
of the three groups below make up about one-third of the adult
population. The data shows [FIGURE 4]:
54.4 percent of those with high school degrees or less have
broadband at home.
72.5 percent of those with some college experience or an
associate degree have broadband at home.
84.8 percent of those with college degrees or more have
broadband at home.
4.4.2.2. Other demographic groups of special interest.
Government services are increasingly available and essential as
Internet applications. But in many cases, those who would most benefit
from the timesaving and convenience of e-government services have not
adopted broadband at home. As of 2018, adoption rates lagged behind the
average among beneficiaries of the most important government programs:
Health insurance. For Americans using Medicare as their health
insurance, 57.9 percent have adopted broadband at home, a figure which
tracks with the adoption rate for those age 65 or older. 52.1 percent
of Medicaid beneficiaries have adopted broadband at home. Military
personnel and their dependents with Tricare health insurance show
higher rates of adoption of broadband at home, at 74.4 percent.
Veterans have adopted at a lower rate, at 65.3 percent. [FIGURE 5]
Government benefits, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These benefit
programs are available to households whose gross incomes are no more
than 130 percent of the poverty level (for SNAP), while SSI eligibility
depends on age, income, and disability status. For adults eligible for
either of these programs, only 52.5 percent have adopted broadband at
home.
People with disabilities. Computers and many web-based interfaces
are difficult if not impossible to use by people with certain visual,
movement, and learning disabilities. Adults with disabilities have low
rates of adoption, with 54.4 percent having broadband at home.
4.4.2.3. Broadband in Urban America--an analysis of cities
As noted in at home. As a result, much of the attention and funding
directed to closing the availability and adoption gaps in recent years
has been focused on rural America.
But given the higher concentration of population in urban areas,
far larger numbers of non-adopting households are located in cities
than in the more sparsely populated areas of the country. For example,
a recent analysis of broadband adoption in Baltimore, Maryland showed
that 40 percent of residents had not adopted broadband at home as of
2018. Among the poorest (those with annual household income of $25,000
or less), 66 percent had not adopted. And one in three Baltimore City
households did not have either a desktop or laptop computer.
One common denominator in these and other examples is poverty.
Urban areas with high rates of poverty have low rates of broadband
adoption.
There are also data that suggest lower adoption rates occur in
neighborhoods that are more segregated. A possible explanation for that
result pertains to network effects--or how behavior by others in one's
social networks influence behavior. The likelihood of someone adopting
broadband at home is higher if nearby peers have already adopted. This
dynamic first emerged for computer adoption generally in the late
1990s, when research showed that people were more likely to buy
computers if a large share of their friends had one, even when
controlling for demographic and socio-economic factors.
The following table shows broadband adoption at home in the 50
cities with the lowest adoption rates, along with rates of poverty and
residential segregation. The data on residential segregation comes from
the Diversity and Disparities project at Brown University; a
residential segregation figure of 50 or more indicates high levels of
residential segregation. Figures on poverty use table S1701 from the
Census Bureau. The Appendix presents data for 100 of the largest U.S.
cities. For all 100 cities, the average adoption rate for 2019 is 72.2
percent, and the poverty rate for 2019 is 15.9 percent. The broadband
adoption rate for all 100 cities is 68.1 percent for 2016.
Table 1: 50 cities with lowest broadband adoption at home
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White-
Wireline Wireline Poverty 2019 White-Black Hispanic Number of
City Broadband Broadband 2016 Rate residential residential households
2019 segregation segregation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8Birmingham, Alabama 52.4% 55.7% 25.2% 62.6 52.4 93,3000
Detroit, Michigan 53.7% 42.7% 30.6% 59.2 59.4 267,139
8Cleveland, Ohio 54.0% 50.8% 30.8% 69 37.5 171,6320
Memphis, Tennessee 55.8% 50.1% 21.7% 67.9 54.5 254,423
8Newark, New Jersey 58.6% 53.5% 25.2% 71.2 47.4 102,1550
Rochester, New York 59.3% 56.5% 25.3% 51.6 54.1 87,679
8Baltimore, Maryland 59.4% 58.4% 20.2% 68.9 45 242,6940
Des Moines, Iowa 62.8% 64.0% 15.5% 36.5 34.4 91,045
8New Orleans, Louisiana 63.0% 56.9% 23.2% 67.6 40.6 151,7530
Stockton, California 63.0% 60.8% 15.4% 37.2 40.5 96,149
8Knoxville, Tennessee 63.4% 63.3% 21.8% 47.8 25.9 83,4920
Toledo, Ohio 63.9% 61.2% 25.2% 53.4 33.9 121,022
8Glendale, Arizona 64.0% 65.1% 18.9% 39.1 48.1 81,0650
Winston-Salem, North 64.5% 66.5% 19.7% 50.4 48.2 94,884
8Little Rock, Arkansas 65.2% 57.9% 12.3% 58.6 57.7 80,0630
St. Louis, Missouri 65.6% 62.2% 19.1% 65.3 35.5 146,779
8Indianapolis, Indiana 65.8% 59.2% 15.8% 62.3 18.8 340,6390
Irving, Texas 65.9% 70.2% 10.3% 36.6 33.6 83,345
8Milwaukee, Wisconsin 65.9% 57.9% 22.4% 70.1 60.7 232,1760
Buffalo, New York 66.2% 57.8% 28.8% 65.9 43.4 109,163
8Las Vegas, Nevada 66.6% 68.7% 14.9% 32.4 48.3 235,6280
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 66.6% 64.0% 23.7% 66.9 38.1 82,097
8Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 66.7% 66.0% 15.8% 46.7 51.6 249,6150
Dallas, Texas 66.8% 57.7% 17.5% 66.1 61.1 518,998
8Louisville, Kentucky 66.9% 68.8% 15.4% 66 36.2 252,7840
Fresno, California 67.1% 63.9% 23.2% 42 42.4 172,815
8El Paso, Texas 67.3% 62.9% 18.6% 30.8 39.7 223,0760
Tucson, Arizona 67.6% 66.4% 19.1% 25.6 47.2 217,993
8Richmond, Virginia 67.7% 58.4% 18.9% 63.5 60.8 89,8780
Jacksonville, Florida 67.9% 68.0% 14.1% 47.5 22.4 349,171
8Lubbock, Texas 67.9% 68.2% 20.6% 47.2 39.5 99,1040
Kansas City, Missouri 68.3% 64.4% 15.3% 62.2 47.1 209,768
8Chicago, Illinois 68.3% 64.1% 16.4% 82.5 60.9 1,080,3450
Tulsa, Oklahoma 68.4% 63.7% 18.6% 49.8 44 163,801
8Norfolk, Virginia 68.5% 63.2% 17.9% 50.8 26.8 88,3870
Houston, Texas 68.5% 61.8% 19.7% 68.6 60.4 876,504
8Akron, Ohio 68.7% 56.4% 23.6% 48.6 31.1 83,8210
San Antonio, Texas 68.8% 61.8% 16.8% 43.1 46.8 512,273
8Albuquerque, New Mexico 69.1% 64.7% 16.0% 28.5 37.1 227,1790
Phoenix, Arizona 69.6% 66.4% 15.6% 49.9 57.7 586,878
8Wichita, Kansas 70.2% 65.1% 14.2% 49.3 38.6 153,4540
Corpus Christi, Texas 70.4% 64.7% 17.25 40.2 39.8 119,184
8Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 70.4% 60.6% 23.3% 73.4 62 619,5050
New York, New York 71.3% 69.3% 16.0% 81.4 65.8 3,211,033
8Salt Lake City, Utah 71.3% 66.8% 14.4% 40.5 55.4 81,8390
Oakland, California 71.7% 69.9% 13.9% 51.9 66.9 168,413
8Tacoma, Washington 71.9% 67.2% 12.6% 31.5 33.1 87,0160
Bakersfield, California 72.0% 69.9% 14.6% 43.4 39.2 116,558
8Greensboro, North Carolina 72.4% 60.6% 19.7% 56.6 49.2 118,0460
St. Paul, Minnesota 72.5% 66.3% 15.9% 43.4 44.1 110,782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A striking pattern in Table 1 is the correlation between poverty
and broadband adoption at home. For all 100 cities, there is a strong
negative correlation of -0.79, which means that the higher a city's
poverty rate, the lower its rate of broadband adoption at home. The
same is true for residential segregation. For White-Black segregation,
the negative correlation is -0.47; for White-Hispanic residential
segregation, the figure is -0.32. Of course, there is a strong
association between poverty and residential segregation, but
multivariate analysis suggests that both variables have significant and
negative associations with lower rates of broadband adoption at home.
Although poverty and residential segregation rates play a role in
explaining differences in broadband adoption between different cities,
it is possible that public policy decisions can make a difference.
Evidence at the city level is, at best, suggestive. Detroit, for
example, has shown significant growth in broadband adoption at home
since 2016, during which time it has developed a digital inclusion plan
and allocated funding to support digital inclusion programs.
Philadelphia, despite high levels of poverty and residential
segregation, has seen a 10-percentage point gain in broadband adoption
at home since 2016, likely attributable, in part, to the establishment
of a public-private digital inclusion alliance to promote digital
literacy. By contrast, the City of Baltimore, before the pandemic had
no digital inclusion initiatives, and Baltimore's broadband adoption
rates have changed very little since 2016.
4.4.3. WHAT EXPLAINS GAPS IN HOME BROADBAND ADOPTION?
Three factors figure prominently in understanding the adoption gap:
affordability, digital readiness, and perceived lack of relevance.
Affordability. Analysis of national data on broadband adoption at
home shows that income is a highly significant predictor of whether a
household subscribes to service. For non-broadband subscribers, the
threshold for what constitutes ``affordability'' has no single answer.
Research has shown that large portions of non-subscribers set their
preferred price at zero. This may reflect extreme poverty on their
part, and/or a lack of skills or interest in using the Internet.
Qualitative research shows that those unwilling to pay anything for
broadband may be well aware of its value; but they lack the ability to
pay for service or the devices necessary to access it. Most discounted
service offerings aimed at non-adopters are $20 per month or less, with
a couple of programs including Comcast's Internet Essentials and Access
from AT&T at $10 per month. From the public interest perspective, an
important objective is to ensure that discount Internet offers are
widely available, that information about them is aggressively
disseminated, and that sign-up processes for potential users is not
burdensome.
Chapter 5 reviews the affordability problem in further detail and
provides policy options for addressing the challenge. But while
affordability is a significant issue, it is not a binary problem. That
is, it is not a simple question of whether one can or cannot afford
home broadband service and the devices needed to access such service.
There are related financial issues, such as access to credit. For
example, one of the most important service developments encouraging new
subscribers to mobile broadband services was the introduction of pre-
paid services, which mitigated credit issues limiting the market of
potential subscribers. There are similar pre-paid options for broadband
at home, such as with Internet Essentials which does not require a
credit check, but these prepaid programs have not had the impact that
such options have had in the mobile market. The situation is described
in more detail in Appendix 4A.
Digital Readiness. The second substantial constraint on broadband
adoption at home is often referred to as ``digital readiness.'' Digital
readiness is an evolving concept, generally referring to a set of
skills associated with using information and communications technology
(ICT) to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information. It is the
sum of the technical skills and cognitive skills people employ to use
computers to retrieve information, interpret what they find, and judge
the quality of that information. It also includes the ability to
communicate and collaborate using the Internet, which, of course,
requires access to devices.
A lack of digital readiness reflects the uncertainty that new
Internet users bring to their online experience. One component of
digital readiness are the skills required to access and use Internet
services, including for example, how to operate a computer or upload a
resume. Another component of digital readiness is trust, including
confidence that the information they provide and access online is
reliable. Concerns about the level of misinformation and, in
particular, applications that can use personal financial information in
problematic ways in today's Internet and social media environments,
underscore the importance of information and media literacy in digital
readiness programs.
Finally, there can be no digital readiness without access to
computers and other devices, and the ability to use them. A lack of
digital readiness limits the abilities of those new to the Internet to
fully utilize online services. It may also affect some experienced
users, who may struggle with new applications and services.
The prevalence of digital readiness issues is substantial. In the
U.S., one-third of adults have low levels of digital skills for
emerging applications, such as the Internet of Things. As many as half
of the population exhibit some level of reluctance to use online
educational resources, because they lack confidence on how to use such
applications. In health care, inexperience with technology leaves more
than one-third of older adults unable to have video visits with their
doctors during the pandemic. In workforce preparedness, large numbers
of workers lack the digital skills needed to perform many well-paying
jobs that are in demand.
A lack of overall digital readiness fuels strong levels of demand
for digital skills training, something that is unlikely to subside
after the pandemic. A 2017 Pew Research Center study, for example,
found that 60 percent of all adults were interested in training on how
to use online resources to find trustworthy information. Another 54
percent of all adults expressed interest in training on how to better
use the Internet, computers, and smartphones generally.
Perceived lack of relevance. Some non-adopters of broadband service
may view the Internet as something that is not relevant to their lives.
Research findings vary on the degree of this problem. The NTIA finds
that 58 percent of non-adopters cite ``don't need'' or ``not
interested'' as a reason they do not subscribe.
However, qualitative research finds that, when digging into survey
responses that cite lack of relevance, many respondents cite cost of
service and insufficient digital skills as significant issues for them.
Other surveys reach different conclusions, finding cost is the leading
reason for non-adoption among 34 percent of respondents, with ``don't
need/not interested'' cited by 22 percent.
Whatever the precise magnitude of the problem, significant numbers
of non-adopters may benefit from information demonstrating the utility
of being online. An unintended positive consequence of the pandemic may
help address this. Online access, for example, can greatly facilitate
finding out where to get the vaccine and signing up for a shot. The
pandemic has also resulted in social isolation for some people--
particularly older adults--which makes the consequences of not having
online access more evident to people. The significant levels of non-
users citing lack of relevance points to an informational component
addressing barriers. Addressing informational needs in the context of
broadband adoption is something addressed below as part of encouraging
digital readiness.
4.5. CLOSING THE DIGITAL READINESS GAP
The recommendations in this section will help non-adopting
Americans develop basic digital skills, lowering barriers to broadband
adoption and encouraging full utilization.
We are not starting from a blank slate. In the past several years,
digital readiness initiatives throughout the country offer templates
for successful solutions to the adoption gap. Examples include:
The Community Technology Network, which was established in
2008 and which has grown to serve the Bay Area in San Francisco
and Central Texas.
Older Adults Technology Services (OATS) which, as its name
suggests, address the technology and digital skills needs of
older adults.
A number of local public libraries and community colleges,
which have spearheaded programs to provide their patrons
digital skills training, often with an aim at job training and
entrepreneurship.
The National Science Foundation, which has funded a ``rec-
to-tech'' project in Baltimore and Pittsburgh, which uses city
recreation centers as sites to train young people in digital
skills that they can take to the workforce.
4.5.1. ESTABLISH AN OFFICE OF DIGITAL EQUITY.
Congress should establish an Office of Digital Equity to coordinate
across Federal agencies and initiatives to increase adoption of
broadband at home, and to advocate for policies designed to achieve
digital equity and inclusion. As its principal role aligns with
community development, we think it best suited for the Department of
Commerce, but it could also be housed within the Departments of
Education, Housing and Urban Development, or the FCC.
The Office would be the principal entity charged with meeting
broadband adoption goals and tracking progress towards those goals. The
Office would take on the responsibilities of the American Broadband
Initiative, with an expanded scope of functions and new funding to help
meet the goals.
Specifically, the Office would:
Expand and coordinate digital equity strategies and efforts
within and among federal, state, and local governments,
including coordinating with all stakeholders of the new
affordability programs discussed in Chapter 5, to assure
administrative ease and efficiency;
Incentivize participation in digital equity strategies from
all sectors, particularly employment training, education,
health care, finance, and retail;
Coordinate and streamline Federal grant programs aimed at
increasing broadband adoption and network deployment;
Work with private and public affordable housing owners and
agencies to implement programs aimed at increasing digital
literacy in their communities
Establish or support existing local ``hotlines'' to answer
digital literacy questions;
Conduct research, if possible, with National Science
Foundation Funding, on the effectiveness of digital equity
strategies, including:
Identifying a threshold of affordability for discount home
broadband offers. This should take into account household
expenditures for other necessities including (but not limited
to) rent, food, utilities, and medical care, and;
Evaluating the effectiveness of programs designed to
increase broadband adoption.
With a working group of public and private experts, create
and continuously update a digital skills framework for adult
education, workforce, and training programs;
Encourage Internet service providers (ISPs) to develop and
strengthen voluntary low-cost broadband plans for low-income
populations, with emphasis on aligning eligibility for low-cost
offerings across providers;
Encourage hardware, device, and other equipment
manufacturers, software companies, and device-related service
providers to make available low-cost laptop and computer
purchase plans and essential software and other online tools
for low-income populations.
4.5.2. ESTABLISH A NATIONAL DIGITAL LITERACY PROGRAM.
Congress should launch a National Digital Literacy Program that
creates a workforce of ``Digital Navigators, described further below,
increases the capacity of local digital literacy programs, and creates
an Online Digital Literacy Portal of up-to-date training resources.
4.5.2.1. Congress should create a Digital Navigators Corps to conduct
training and outreach in non-adopting communities.
Congress should create a Digital Navigators Corps composed of
skilled experts working to solve a wide range of identified adoption
issues--including home connectivity, devices, and digital skills--on
behalf of local community members, either remotely or in-person.
Members of the Corps should include personnel from social service
agencies, libraries, health centers, community-based organizations,
private sector, volunteers, and other anchor institutions.
Many existing digital literacy training programs, both in the
United States and abroad, rely on face-to-face training provided by
trusted experts within local communities. Whether using
intergenerational training that allows youth committed to community
service to train senior citizens, peer-to-peer training that enhances
connections among seniors or youth, or mentoring models under which
skilled college graduates reach out to currently unconnected citizens,
these programs help non-adopters become more comfortable with
technology while also fostering volunteers' commitment to community
service.
State and local efforts like these offer valuable lessons for
digital literacy services delivered at scale. A national program can
build on these successful models and ensure the expansion needed to
address digital literacy barriers. Specifically, Congress should direct
the NTIA and the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)
to create the Digital Navigators Corps. In collaboration, NTIA and CNCS
can explore best-practice models for building and managing the Corps,
leveraging lessons learned from existing programs like AmeriCorps,
Senior Corps and Learn and Serve America. CNCS can also leverage its
own experience with the digital television transition, during which it
made sure that AmeriCorps members were in communities across the
country helping individuals become more comfortable with unfamiliar
technology,
The Corps should target segments of the population that are less
likely to have adopted broadband at home, including low-income
individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, senior citizens, people with
disabilities, those with lower education levels, people in rural
communities, those on Tribal lands, and people whose primary or only
language is not English.
4.5.2.2. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation
with the Institute of Museums and Library Sciences (IMLS),
should develop guidelines to ensure that librarians and
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) have the ongoing training
they need to help patrons use next-generation e-government
applications.
As government services increasingly go online, libraries shoulder
responsibility for helping people learn how to use these online
services. Already, eighty percent of libraries report that they help
patrons use e-government applications. However, some librarians say
they have been overwhelmed by patrons seeking help with government
services and online programs, particularly in an emergency or with a
new government program, such as Federal Emergency Management Agency
forms following Hurricane Katrina and Medicare Part D paperwork. These
librarians also say that they did not receive suitable training or
information from the agencies that provided the e-government solutions.
OMB, in consultation with IMLS, should develop and update
guidelines to help Federal agencies develop e-government services that
leverage the role of public libraries and CBOs as delivery points for
new services and programs as well as for next generation technologies.
Agencies should work with IMLS to develop online tutorials for using
government websites and toolkits for librarians who help patrons use
online government services.
4.5.2.3. Congress should fund an Online Digital Readiness Portal.
Every American should have access to free, age-appropriate content
that teaches digital skills and enhances digital readiness. This
content should be available in a user's native language and should meet
the accessibility requirements applicable to Federal agencies under
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. To achieve this, Congress should
fund the creation of an Online Digital Readiness Portal (ODRP), and the
relevant government agencies (including but not limited to the NTIA,
FCC, Department of Education, Department of Labor, the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)) should oversee the
portal and partner with the technology industry and education sector to
approve or create high-quality online lessons that users can access and
use at their own pace. The collaboration between the agencies and non-
government partners should be similar to efforts that have produced the
online safety resources available through OnGuardOnline.gov.
Offline resources will be important complements to this online
content. They should be made available for printing or ordering, and
distributed by libraries, CBOs, and other community organizations.
The ODRP should build on the collaborative model that has been
successful in programs such as the HUD Community Outreach Partnerships
Program, which brings institutions of higher education and community
partners together to revitalize communities, including the Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Assisting Communities (HSIACs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs)
and Tribal Libraries. In addition to their educational missions,
through the Community Outreach Partnerships Program, these
organizations provide links to community employment assistance,
childcare, health care information, fair housing assistance, job
training, youth programs and other services. As crucial community
institutions and trusted sources of information, HBCUs, HSIACs and TCUs
could also serve as ambassadors to promote digital literacy and other
national digital priorities. HUD and NTIA should also use existing
relationships--for example, with state broadband offices--to distribute
outreach materials associated with the OLDP.
The OLDP should be evaluated after two years to assess its impact.
The evaluation should consider, among other metrics, the total number
of individuals accessing the portal, the number of individuals from
specific target populations accessing the portal, and the effectiveness
of different offline resources in promoting the portal.
4.5.2.4. Reinvigorate Federal efforts to support digital literacy
efforts through revitalizing the www.DigitalLiteracy.gov
platform.
The Obama Administration launched DigitalLiteracy.gov to serve as a
resource to practitioners delivering digital literacy training in their
communities. The platform aggregated best practices, organized
available educational content, and increased coordination among
stakeholders. Unfortunately, the platform was not appropriately
maintained, and has now been disabled. A revitalized and continually
upgraded central website, administered by the NTIA, can serve as the
foundation for digital equity and inclusion efforts, assisting with and
improving the efforts of state and local digital inclusion
organizations.
4.5.2.5. Integrate information outreach into digital readiness
initiatives.
Providing information is key to addressing the view of some non-
adopters that the Internet is not relevant. Conveying to such persons
that the Internet is a pathway to a vaccine, a doctor, or a grandchild,
bundled with access to digital skills and affordable service plans, can
increase adoption. The Federal government's current emergency broadband
benefit program, which provides a $50 per month subsidy for low-income
households during the pandemic, does not include funds for outreach to
communities. As the policymakers contemplate future broadband adoption
policy interventions, providing funding for outreach (to, for example,
community anchor institutions and community non-profits) can help
address the relevance barrier.
4.5.3. CONGRESS SHOULD APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO SUPPORT DIGITAL EQUITY
PLANNING AND DIGITAL INCLUSION INITIATIVES.
Congress should appropriate funding for development of adoption
focused state, local, and Tribal digital equity plans, and competitive
state and national grant programs for digital inclusion initiatives.
State level planning provides an opportunity to identify existing
assets, and for stakeholders to prioritize digital equity needs. One
approach would be to pass and fund the proposed Digital Equity Act,
which would spend $250 million over each of the next five years for
state level planning and digital inclusion grants.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chapter 5.
CLOSING THE AFFORDABILITY GAP
5.1. INTRODUCTION
In the previous two chapters, we described the state of broadband
in the United States and identified the principal barriers to achieving
digital equity and inclusion: an availability gap and an adoption gap,
with the principal issues limiting adoption being affordability,
digital readiness, and perceived relevance.
In this chapter, we describe the principal government effort to-
date aimed at addressing affordability--Lifeline--and why that program
has not succeeded in closing the affordability gap. Based on that
analysis, we propose a plan to eliminate the affordability gap, based
on a new Federal program that we call Lifeline+. Adopting and funding
Lifeline+ would yield significant public benefits, creating a more
equitable and inclusive economy and society by expanding broadband
utilization overall, and closing specific gaps in digital education,
health care, and workforce development.
5.2. CURRENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY
5.2.1 THE LIFELINE PROGRAM.
The principal Federal government program aimed at closing the
adoption gap is Lifeline. The Reagan-era FCC created the program in the
mid-1980s to help low-income Americans pay for local telephone service.
Lifeline lowers the cost of monthly service for eligible consumers by
providing subsidies to service providers on behalf of consumer
households.
A number of states also have their own programs to assist low-
income persons afford communications services. While many provide
critical funds, none is robust enough to solve the affordability gap we
discuss here.
Further, as this Plan is focused primarily on Federal policies, we
will not discuss individual state efforts in this chapter.
In 2005, the FCC made two major reforms to Lifeline. First, it
ruled wireless carriers could be eligible to provide phone service.
Second, it eliminated a requirement that eligible providers own the
facilities they use, permitting companies like TracFone, which leases
wireless services from ``facilities based'' providers, to become major
providers of Lifeline.
In 2015, the FCC reformed the program again, this time to allow the
subsidy to be used for either broadband or voice service, or bundles
that include broadband service. Given the cost of home broadband and
the need for phone service, however, most Lifeline users continue to
apply the subsidy to low-cost mobile service.
To participate in the program, subscribers must have either an
income that is at or below 135 percent of the Federal poverty
guidelines, or participate in certain Federal assistance programs,
including SNAP, Medicaid, or SSI. The Lifeline subsidy on qualifying
monthly broadband service for eligible subscribers is $9.25 per month,
with up to an additional $25 per month for qualifying Tribal
subscribers. The subsidy for voice service is $5.25 as of December 1,
2020; absent further action by the FCC, no subsidy will be provided for
voice starting December 1, 2021. As of October 2020, 8.2 million
households participated in the program.
5.2.1.1 Criticisms of the current program.
There is widespread agreement that Lifeline in its current form
does not achieve the goals of digital equity and inclusion, nor is it
designed in a way that would make that outcome likely over time. As a
practical matter, the program has become a subsidy for a low-end mobile
Internet service, not for broadband at home. Even with its more limited
reach, the program has been less than successful. As of January 2021,
only 8.7 million of the 33.2 million eligible households participate in
the program.
Generally, there are three explanations for why the system is
failing. First, many believe that the level of subsidy, at $9.25, is
insufficient to subscribe to broadband service at home. A related
argument is that when forced to choose between broadband at home or a
mobile service, many low-income persons prefer the mobile service.
Second, many believe that not only is the cost of the monthly
service a barrier to an in home subscription but in addition, the cost
of a device capable of doing work, school work, telehealth or other
such functions is a barrier to adopting.
Third, many believe that lack of information about the program and
undue complexities in the administrative process for applying for it
results in the vast majority of eligible households forgoing
participation.
Fourth, many believe that because companies that offer Lifeline
services must satisfy state requirements for ``Eligible
Telecommunications Carriers'' (ETCs), the number and quality of
Lifeline providers is artificially reduced, effectively limiting
participation to niche voice communications providers. The ETC
requirement unnecessarily undercuts market dynamics that, with more
providers offering competitive products, could lower the costs and
increase the quality of Lifeline programs.
5.2.1.2 The current funding mechanism.
Lifeline is part of the broader Universal Service Program (USF),
which also subsidizes network infrastructure deployment in sparsely
populated or geographically challenging areas, where expected returns
on the capital necessary to build a broadband network do not justify
private investment. USF also subsidizes equipment and network
connections costs for anchor institutions (schools, and libraries
facilities, generally known as the ``E-Rate Program''), and rural
health care facilities. According to the Universal Service
Administrative Co., which collects funds and services USF programs,
total USF disbursements have held steady at approximately $8.5 billion
over the last three years.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the sole funding mechanism for providing
all USF programs to an increasing number of homes, institutions, and
individuals has significant structural problems, and, it is generally
agreed, is unsustainable. Under FCC rules, revenue to support USF
programs, including Lifeline, is paid by providers of certain voice
communications services, primarily but not exclusively voice services,
most of whom pass this cost along to consumers. The providers pay USF a
prescribed percentage of the amount their customers pay for interstate
and international services. That rate, known as the ``contribution
factor,'' is adjusted quarterly based on rising or falling demand from
eligible participants in USF-funded programs. There are several issues
with this mechanism:
Not sustainable or expandable. Due to declining revenues for the
services on which the contribution factor is based, the percentage
assessed from consumers has continued to increase. Ten years ago, the
rate was 12.9 percent. By 2017 it had risen to 16.7 percent. The 2Q21
contribution factor is 33.4 percent. As the associated revenue goes
down, the contribution factor goes up, encouraging providers and their
customers to substitute other services that are not assessed, putting
the funding mechanism and the entire USF program into a death spiral.
Unfair regressive tax. Not only is the system structurally unsound,
but it is also unfair. Since the percentage is applied regardless of
the economic status of the consumer, it is in effect a regressive tax,
hitting low-income consumers harder than more affluent users.
Support for broadband service has raised legal questions. In
addition to these problems, some have raised legal concerns. The DC
Circuit Court of Appeals, in remanding parts of the FCC's 2017
Restoring Internet Freedom Order (RIFO) called on the FCC to explain
the statutory basis for continuing Lifeline subsidies for broadband
even though the FCC no longer classified broadband as a
telecommunications service.
In its order responding to the remand, the FCC explained its
finding that it has legal authority under section 254(e) of the Act to
distribute Lifeline support for broadband service provided by ETCs, and
that that authority is undergirded by the clear intent of Congress in
Section 254(b) and elsewhere that universal service efforts should
increase access to advanced services.
While the FCC addressed the issue, the situation demonstrates
another potential question in relying on the current funding mechanism
to support expanded efforts to close the affordability gap.
5.2.2. NEW PUBLIC SECTOR EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABILITY GAP.
As we were preparing this Plan, Congress, for the first time,
directly appropriated funds for broadband subsidies for low-income
persons. This effort, part of a COVID-19 relief package, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, allocated $3.2 billion for an
Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (EBB) to connect low-income
households. The funds will be used to reimburse broadband providers up
to $50/month per low-income household it serves, or $75/month if the
household is on Tribal land. The Act also authorizes reimbursements to
providers of up to $100 for providing the household with a connected
device (desktop, laptop, or tablet computer), if the household
contributes $10-$50 for the device. Households are only eligible for
one device.
The EBB program is temporary, to last no longer than six months
after the COVID-19 crisis ends. Funds will be administered through the
FCC. Congress gave the agency sixty days to determine the details of
administering the program.
On January 4, the FCC released a Public Notice seeking comments on
how to best implement the program. Notably, the EBB program is not
limited to ETCs, and the FCC, through its Notice proposes to establish
an ``expedited process'' to approve non-ETC providers who wish to
participate. The FCC process also asked several questions about
devices, family or personal eligibility and verification, and how best
to publicize the program. The FCC adopted its order on the program on
February 25.
In addition, as part of the American Rescue Plan of 2021, Congress
appropriated $7.17 billion in funding to augment the E-Rate program.
The appropriation makes available funds for elementary and secondary
schools and libraries to provide Wi-Fi hotspots, modems, routers, and
Internet-enabled devices. While E-Rate funding traditionally has only
gone to connect educational institutions, this money could be used to
fund Internet services for students, staff, and library patrons.
Congress instructed the FCC to promulgate regulations concerning the
allocation of these funds within 60 days of the bill's passage.
While both programs represent one-time appropriations, they also
provide opportunities for the FCC and our country to consider new ways
of addressing the affordability gap.
5.2.3 PRIVATE SECTOR EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABILITY GAP.
In addition to government efforts to close the affordability gap,
there are also a significant number of voluntary private efforts to
connect low-income persons from leading fixed and mobile broadband
providers. These efforts have already resulted in millions of homes
being connected to broadband at a greatly reduced price. Such efforts
should not be considered a replacement for public programs, but their
availability and operation provide important lessons for the design of
new governmental programs aimed at overcoming barriers to adoption,
including affordability.
Key findings from our review of these private sector efforts
include:
While private efforts are not available everywhere,
companies offering low-income programs cover over 90 percent of
American homes.
Because of overlaps in footprints, two or more low income
offers are probably available to about 50 percent of homes,
though again, the eligible number of homes is likely to be
less. Still, it is likely that a material percentage of non-
adopting households are eligible for an available program.
The private efforts offer broadband at significantly
discounted prices. While the average price for a retail
broadband service is almost $70 a month, the cost of the low-
income programs--which may be offered at lower speeds than the
average service--ranges from $10-$20 a month.
The private efforts are not integrated into public programs
aimed at closing the affordability gap. For example, several of
the largest private providers of broadband programs for low-
incomes households are not and could not easily become ETCs,
and therefore cannot take advantage of the current Lifeline
subsidy to further reduce the cost of participation. Further,
even some ETCs that offer a private low-income program do not
seek to offer those services in coordination with Lifeline,
citing numerous administrative difficulties.
The private efforts are not currently utilized to any
significant degree in partnership with public programs aimed at
closing the affordability gap.
As noted earlier, the FCC has not updated its view on the
functional requirements, such as speed, for accessing services.
In that light, there is uncertainty as to the extent to which
these private programs meet those needs. It is worth noting
that while these programs may not be subject to the same market
dynamics as competition for customers able to pay standard
retail rates, there are forces in the market that drive
improvements in the offering. For example, Comcast recently
doubled its download speed for its Internet Essentials program
from 25Mbps to 50Mbps.
Similarly, while some of the programs have won significant
praise for their outreach efforts, there is uncertainty as to
how effectively some of these programs are marketed to eligible
households. Again, on this issue, there has been no public
assessment by the FCC or other public entity.
In addition to private retail efforts, there are several wholesale
programs, such as that offered by AT&T and Verizon, which offer
discounted services to local school districts whose administrators can
in turn use to offer a low-cost service to students. These programs,
however, generally limit the use to educational purposes only. If such
efforts are expanded to achieve the goals of a reformed low-income
subsidy program, it would be important to examine any limitations and
modify such restrictions.
5.2.4. THE CHALLENGE: THE CURRENT SYSTEM CANNOT MEET CURRENT, LET ALONE
FUTURE, NEEDS.
Existing public programs, even supplemented and supported by
private efforts, have and will continue to fail to close the
affordability gap. The two most obvious improvements--increasing the
monthly subsidy and connecting all eligible households--would certainly
be welcome, but both would require dramatic increases to Lifeline's
budget and major changes to its operating model. In any event,
increasing the contribution factor to accommodate either, let alone
both, would collapse the system. Further, the EBB is a temporary fix
for a problem that will continue to exist after the COVID-19 crisis.
There are other limits to Lifeline. The program does not include
support to acquire devices, which some of the private offerings do
include, along with other forms of technical support not part of
Lifeline. Some of the discounted mobile broadband plans, for example,
come with data allowances that may be insufficient to complete
essential tasks, especially for families with K-12 children or medical
problems, or during times of job training or job searches. Many of the
non-financial factors described in Chapter 4 are also not adequately
addressed by any existing program.
5.2.4.1. The Federal government has a history of setting national
baselines for the delivery of critical public services that are
now heavily reliant on broadband access.
In proposing a reform or restructuring of low-income broadband
programs, it is worth considering, at the outset, the value of setting
baseline requirements and identifying essential services, factors that
regulators have historically relied on in program design. With
particular relevance to workforce, health care and education, we note
that:
Workforce. The primary governmental support for unemployed
persons is provided at the state level but receives at least
partial funding from the Federal government. Beyond financial
assistance, public and private services provide education and
job training. Many of these services can best be utilized
through the Internet, especially during the current medical
emergency, as many of the 2,400 in-person Federal American Jobs
Centers, for example, remain closed. As a visit to the website
for the federal program implicitly acknowledges, Internet
access is essential for taking advantage of the training
services and being about to obtain benefits, as the site has
the following message: ``Nearly 2,400 AJCs nationwide help
people search for jobs, find training, and answer other
employment related questions. COVID-19 update: Please note that
many AJCs are temporarily closed or shifted to virtual
services; you will see a special note in red if we have
information about closures or alternative services. If you need
to file for unemployment insurance, please visit Unemployment
Benefits Finder.''
Health Care. The Federal government is the largest purchaser
and provider of health care and health insurance in the
country. It does so principally through Medicare, which covers
over 60 million persons 65 years old or older, as well as
covering some younger persons with disabilities; Medicaid, a
partnership between the Federal and state governments to
provide health care coverage to low-income persons, covering
over 75 million people, and services to over 9 million
veterans, administered by the Veterans Health Administration,
the largest component of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Here too, the government's ability to deliver such services is
increasingly dependent on the persons they cover having
broadband at home. For example, In February 2020, less than 1
percent of Medicare primary care visits utilized telehealth. By
April of that year, that number was 43.5 percent.
Education. The Federal government has long-supported local
schools. In the 1940s, for example, Congress recognized an
obligation to make sure that all children attending school had
a hot lunch. The National School Lunch Act provides
nutritionally balanced, low-cost or no-cost lunches to children
each school day in public and nonprofit private schools, and in
residential childcare institutions. The Department of Education
also provides direct funding to elementary and secondary school
with economically disadvantaged students (the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I and children with
disabilities through the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA).
Increasingly, many of the most basic tasks associated with
workforce development, health care, education, and other critical
aspects of daily life can be done most effectively, efficiently, and
reliably when done online. As discussed further in Chapter 8 on
workforce development, for example, a 2012 study showed broadband use
at home or in a public place such as a library reduced the probability
that an unemployed person will stop their job search entirely by 50
percent relative to people who are unemployed and do not use Internet,
while a recent study from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve found
``promoting broadband device access and digital literacy training to
households where an individual may have lost employment is crucial to
ensuring people remain attached to the labor market following such an
event.''
As discussed further in Chapter 9 on health care, here too, the
government's ability to deliver such services is increasingly dependent
on the persons they cover having broadband at home. For example, In
February 2020 less than 1 percent of Medicare primary care visits
utilized telehealth. By April of that year, that number was 43.5
percent.
Not only has the use of telehealth increased, but the range of
services has also increased as well. But there is a significant gap in
who can utilize such services. According to research from University of
Pittsburgh and Harvard Medical School, more than 41 percent of Medicare
patients lack access to a desktop or laptop computer with a high-speed
Internet connection at home. Almost 41 percent do not have a
smartphone, and more than 26 percent don't have access to either.
Finally, as discussed in Chapter 10 on education, the inability to
keep up with schoolwork or learn Internet skills at a young age puts
students at a significant disadvantage in the future. 94 percent of
low-income school districts assign homework that is online, which makes
Internet access a necessity for students. Yet research based on the
most recent census data shows that 15-16 million K-12 students lack
adequate access to the Internet and/or a device on which to do school
work at home.
COVID-19 has now transformed a serious ``homework gap'' into a
full-fledged learning gap, as schools are forced to offer only or
mostly virtual learning. Computers and broadband at home have become
essential not just to complete homework, but for all or almost all
classroom and school-related learning. While COVID-19 has shined a
spotlight on the need for students to have connectivity in the homes,
schools close for reasons other than the pandemic, including winter
weather, extreme heat, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and tornadoes,
which all cause extended disruptions to in-school instruction, and
likely will increase in the future.
This transformation of in-person services long considered essential
to digital alternatives necessitates access to an appropriate device
and broadband at home, a trend that will only increase in the future.
Policymakers will need to continuously adapt to new developments and
challenges, creating programs that assure access to what are considered
essential services by all citizens, most of all those facing
significant obstacles due to financial, social, cultural, language, or
other causes.
To the extent that lawmakers have long-supported the in-person
versions of these essential services and activities through a variety
of mechanisms, programs, and funding models, we believe it is now time
to include an appropriate level of support for their Internet-based
equivalents. Broadband-based delivery and full utilization of these
essential services must become part of the DNA of the respective
public, private, and public-private collaborations involved in, at a
minimum, workforce, health care, and education. It is both the reason
closing the availability and affordability gaps is so critical to
achieving digital equity and inclusion, and the most compelling way, at
the same time, to remove any remaining issues of relevance in closing
the adoption gap.
Reforming current public programs to assure broadband adoption to
utilize these essential services, described below and in more detail in
succeeding chapters, is among the most critical recommendation in this
Plan for improving digital equity and inclusion.
5.3. RETHINKING AFFORDABILITY: FIRST PRINCIPLES.
We need a program to ensure that everyone can afford broadband at
home to access essential services. By design and practicality, the
existing Lifeline program will likely never be more than a lower-end
mobility and voice program. While Lifeline certainly can and should be
improved, and while mobile and fixed service capabilities are
converging, we believe there remains a material difference between the
lower priced mobile data and voice services we want everyone to have
for purposes of emergency communications and other critical uses, and
the broadband at home necessary for an entire household to participate
in 21st century life.
We believe it is time for a new national strategy for universal
broadband, one that supports the goals of digital equity and inclusion.
That program, which we describe below, should be grounded in several
basic principles, including:
5.3.1. DON'T TAKE AWAY EXISTING BENEFITS.
The purpose of the new programs is to expand broadband adoption and
utilization. In so doing, the program should not take away benefits
that people already have and rely on. We should not force low-income
households to choose between a mobile service and broadband at home.
5.3.2. ADDRESS THE MOST URGENT NEEDS FOR BROADBAND AT HOME, INCLUDING
BROADBAND FUNCTIONALITY, APPROPRIATE DATA PLANS, AND DEVICES
THAT ENABLE THE DESIRED ACTIVITY.
Building on existing benefits, the new programs we propose must at
a minimum provide for broadband at home that can support the essential
services we have identified. Specifically, the new program must empower
those who become underemployed or unemployed to train, search, apply,
and interview for new jobs using the same online tools that have long
since been adopted by higher-income workers, support K-12 students with
the connectivity. Further the new program needs to provide devices
recipients need to attend classes and complete schoolwork, and allow
recipients of government health benefits to take full advantage of a
growing range of online services.
5.3.3. ALIGN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONAL INCENTIVES.
As currently designed, Lifeline has created an inherent conflict of
interest for those charged with administering it. On the one hand, the
FCC is tasked with administering Lifeline to assure that low-income
persons have access to communications services. At the same time, the
agency is constrained by a regressive contribution factor. The more
people it signs up, the higher the prices paid for voice services by
everyone, especially the poor, even though most of the universal
service funding goes to programs other than Lifeline.
A new program should seek to eliminate that conflict, by ensuring a
more sustainable, stable, and progressive funding mechanism.
In doing so, it is worth considering ways in which in the
achievement of digital equity and inclusion can promote, rather than
conflict, with the goal of providing essential services in the most
cost-effective manner possible. It might make sense for some
institutions, public and private, to fund the new broadband services we
propose because doing so, in the long run, would pay for itself in the
form of reduced costs and improved service levels. Widespread use of
online health care, for example, could reduce the incidence of post-
natal complications for infants and chronic medical conditions for
adults, which not only means better health outcomes for individuals but
also lower long-term costs for public health. Similar improvements in
workforce development and education are likely.
5.3.4. DESIGN PROGRAMS TO BE POLITICALLY SECURE.
To the extent that consumers or taxpayers will ultimately pay for
the programs we propose, public perceptions of the benefits of digital
equity and inclusion matter deeply. To the extent that the program we
propose provides broadband for specific uses and essential services
that the public sees as creating public benefits, ongoing support for
the program is likely to be more sustainable.
5.3.5. STANDARDIZE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.
While the new program should be designed to meet different needs
and use cases, it should be engineered to standardize eligibility,
funding, participation, and reimbursement requirements, to the extent
practical, to improve customer access and protection, lower
administrative costs, and encourage participation by the maximum number
of broadband providers, private and public.
5.3.6. MAINTAIN TECHNOLOGICAL AND PROVIDER NEUTRALITY.
The new program should be focused on achieving digital equity and
inclusion. For reasons of practicality, timing, and budget, achieving
those goals requires programs that are inherently technology neutral.
So long as new or emerging technologies can support the effective use
of the essential services we have identified, providers using those
technologies should be eligible to participate in the programs. Any
provider, or combination of providers, who can satisfy the requirements
for delivering broadband at home should be considered eligible for
participation in the programs. This could include public, private, and
public/private partnerships, and both for-profit and not-for-profit
enterprises. Technology and provider neutrality will not only close the
remaining gaps more quickly and efficiently, but it will also encourage
competition, lowering costs and improving choice.
5.3.7. DESIGN THE PROGRAM SO THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN LEARN AND ADJUST
TO REAL-LIFE, MAXIMIZING BENEFITS WHILE MINIMIZING COSTS AS
TECHNOLOGIES AND MARKETS EVOLVE.
Any new programs will encounter unexpected issues. Further, markets
and technology will change, producing impacts on the program that are
not foreseeable today. This is especially true for digital innovations,
which evolve quickly and often unpredictably. In that light, the
programs we propose should be flexible, and designed to provide
necessary information to those administering the program to be able to
quickly modify the programs to maximize benefits while minimizing
costs.
5.3.8. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OVERLAPPING BROADBAND USE CASES TO IMPROVE THE
EFFICIENCY OF THE PROGRAM.
As discussed throughout this document, those who currently have not
adopted broadband could use broadband for multiple purposes with public
benefits, including workforce development, healthcare, and education.
The program should be designed to enable all such uses.
Further, the program should be designed to utilize those
overlapping uses to lower costs and improve efficiency. For example,
there is a significant overlap between the population that needs
broadband at home for education and for healthcare. For 2019, Medicaid
reported a total of 71.4 million people covered by the program (which
includes the 6.7 million on the Children Health Insurance Program
(CHIPs)). Roughly half of all people on Medicaid or CHIPs are between
the ages 0-19. That translates to 34.7 million children on Medicaid/
CHIPs. The American Community Survey reports that 66 percent of
households with children under the age of 18 have broadband at home.
That means approximately 11.8 million children (age 0 to 19) covered by
Medicaid/CHIPs live in 5.9 million homes without broadband at home. The
``homework gap,'' meanwhile, is 16.9 million kids, or 8.4 million
households.
We believe that there is, deservedly, significant support for a new
program to address the homework gap. We support any effort to do so. We
note, however, that funding programs to eliminate the homework gap,
while paying huge benefits to society in the long term, do not result
in near term savings. On the other hand, providing a broadband benefit
to low-income families to enable access to telehealth services, as
discussed in Section 5.4.5.7 and Chapter 9, can result in both improved
health outcomes and reduce the cost of health care services, cost
reductions that could be used to provide the broadband benefit.
Here, a broadband benefit utilizing the savings to the Medicaid/
CHIPs health insurance system could cover about 70 percent of those
currently suffering from the homework gap. Using such a benefit to
address the homework gap would not solve the whole problem. There would
still be approximately 5 million school children living in 2.5 million
households who would not be covered. Still, paying to address the
homework gap through savings to be found for existing government health
insurance systems would quickly increase the number of connected homes
with school children and significantly reduce the annual cost of
program. Further, because of the existing relationships between the
Medicaid/CHIPs programs and their beneficiaries, there are existing
channels that would improve the efficacy of the distribution of the
broadband benefit.
In short, in designing the Lifeline+ program, the government should
look at all existing programs that serve low-income persons to
determine how to provide a broadband benefit in ways that will both
generate savings that can be used to pay for the broadband benefit
while also improving distribution of the benefit.
5.4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on those principles, we have the following recommendations.
5.4.1. BUILD THE ADMINISTRATION OF A NEW PROGRAM ON WHAT THE FCC DOES
AND LEARNS FROM IN ITS ADMINISTRATION OF THE EBB AND THE
AUGMENTED E-RATE PROGRAM.
As noted above, the FCC set rules and just started administering
the $3.2 billion EBB program and is now developing rules for an
augmented E-Rate program. Both programs are designed to address the
affordability gap. As of this writing, we cannot know what lessons the
FCC will learn in the implementation of the programs. We believe,
however, that the administrative issues will be similar to those that
the FCC would face in implementing the long-term program we propose.
While we will make a number of design recommendations, we think that
the real-world experience of the FCC is likely to be the best guide for
how to implement such programs. Therefore, all or our recommendations
should be reevaluated in light of how the COVID-19 related programs are
implemented and their impact on adoption.
5.4.2. CONGRESS SHOULD IMPLEMENT A PERMANENT VERSION OF THE EBB.
We think Congress was correct in providing an EBB to address
problems created by COVID-19. Further, we think making that benefit
permanent through an ongoing Congressional appropriation would
accomplish the fundamental goal of largely eliminating affordability as
an obstacle to adoption. Of course, the FCC should study its initial
implementation of the EBB to refine and improve its effectiveness and
should, with congressional direction, implement a direct-to-beneficiary
distribution of the funding to enhance consumer control and choice.
Still, making the EBB permanent would be the single most important
action to increase the number of Americans connected to broadband in
the home.
5.4.3. ALTERNATIVELY, CONGRESS COULD CONSIDER A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH
THAT CREATE A NEW PROGRAM TO SERVE BOTH MOBILE AND BROADBAND AT
HOME NEEDS TO ASSURE ACCESS TO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
HEALTHCARE, AND EDUCATION.
While we favor a permanent program based on the EBB, we also
understand that that there are challenges to enacting such legislation.
In that light, we present an alternative that focuses on addressing
those in-home needs that create clear public benefits in the form of
improved outcomes in workforce development, healthcare, and education.
While the program we propose would not have the simplicity--an
important virtue in public policy design--of making the EBB permanent,
it would have advantages in terms of distribution and cost savings, as
described below.
The remainder of this chapter relates to our recommendations
concerning the implementation of a new program based on a functional
approach, which we call Lifeline+. We note, however, that many of the
recommendations for administering the program, set forth in 5.4.5
below, would apply to both a permanent EBB program and to Lifeline+.
5.4.4. THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF LIFELINE+ SHOULD SERVE BOTH MOBILE AND
IN-HOME NEEDS.
Lifeline+ would consist of a mobile benefit and a broadband at home
benefit. The in-home benefit would consist of one of three broadband at
home services. The components of Lifeline+ are:
1. LifelineMobile, which, while in need of comprehensive reform, for
purposes of these recommendations would continue the current
Lifeline subsidy for basic voice and mobile functions; and
2. LifelineHome, which itself is composed of:
a. LifelineJobs, which would support the unemployed, empowering
them to utilize online programs to upgrade their skills, as
well as search and apply for jobs;
b. LifelineMed, which would support low-income persons in
utilizing the full suite of telehealth services; and
c. LifelineEd, which would support low-income families with K-12
school children and members of their households utilizing
all forms of digital learning.
All eligible families or persons would be eligible for both the
mobile and one broadband at home benefit. Use of the in-home benefit
would not be restricted, so that regardless of specific service, the
person or family could use broadband for any purpose.
5.4.5. ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS COMMON TO EITHER A PERMANENT EBB
OR A LIFELINE+ PROGRAM.
5.4.5.1. Fund both services and devices.
The program should fund both connectivity and devices capable of
performing relevant functions. This could include desktop, laptop, or
tablet computers, but not, due to limited display and keyboard size
among other factors, most current smartphones, unless the smartphones
will be used as a mobile hotspot in conjunction with other equipment
capable of performing the relevant functions.
5.4.5.2. Assure minimum standards for both the device and the broadband
service.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the FCC should define standards for
networks and services that qualify for subsidy support. This includes a
determination of requirements for a device = capable of performing what
the FCC determines are relevant functions (such as those required to do
school work or access health care), and update that definition
periodically to assure that changes in requirements are reflected the
program.
In addition, the FCC should determine a minimum standard for upload
and download speeds, latency, data allowance and other technical and
non-technical factors, but only to the extent necessary to support the
essential services included in the programs. The FCC should perform
periodic reviews of these standards and adjust them as needed to assure
that changes in requirements are reflected in the program. All such FCC
determinations should be done in consultation with the other relevant
Federal agencies, such as those involved with workforce development,
healthcare, and education.
While we advocate for standardization, we also note that the
experience of educators during the COVID-19 crisis suggests that with
the LifelineEd program in particular, there should a level of
flexibility that builds on the long-standing E-Rate relationship
between schools and providers, and the flexibility of various
technologies, such as mobile hotspots, to provide broadband for
educational purposes. Not only can such solutions be deployed quickly,
they also provide an important ``pack-and-go'' Internet to a student
who may need service in a temporary new location or in multiple family
locations. Granting flexibility in the distribution of the benefits by
the school system or municipality can produce an efficient and focused
use of funding to achieve digital learning objectives.
5.4.5.3. Establish standard protocols for transferring benefits.
The benefits in Lifeline+ should be granted directly to
beneficiaries through a reloadable prepaid debit card, otherwise known
as an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card. Ideally it would be a
branded card (for example, Visa or MasterCard) which virtually all ISPs
accept for payment. The cards should be coded with a Merchant Category
Code that ensures funds in the card account are only used to make
payments to certified providers. The program would enroll consumers,
activate their card accounts, and distribute the cards and manage the
monthly benefits.
Participating consumers would then use the funds in the card
account to pay for, or help pay for, the home Internet service of their
choice from certified providers. The consumer would be responsible for
any monthly charges not covered by the benefit, such as additional
video services from the provider. Participating providers would provide
the service and accept payment, but not be otherwise involved in
program administration, similar to SNAP. This safeguards consumer
privacy and dignity, minimizes provider administrative burdens, and
encourages the widest possible participation by ISPs. Providing
benefits directly to beneficiaries avoids operational challenges that
arise if the government were to contract directly with providers on
behalf of individual consumers. For example, the government would avoid
the need to contract with multiple service providers to ensure coverage
for all beneficiaries and to adjust service arrangements as
beneficiaries relocate, a particular challenge in transient housing
situations.
5.4.5.4. Assure lowest possible price through volume discounts.
For both devices and broadband services, the government should
negotiate discounts for equipment and service providers' retail prices
to achieve the highest quality products and services at the lowest
possible cost to participating consumers. These discounts would be and
should be implemented in ways similar to those that providers offer in
connection with sales to large volume commercial purchasers. Similar
``master contracts'' are used today by wireless carriers and state/
local governmental entities, for example. Participating consumers would
then be charged for devices and monthly service that reflect negotiated
retail discounts. In all events, participating consumers should remain
free to use their electronic benefit to purchase any generally
available retail broadband product in the market from any participating
provider, and not be limited to the products and rates established
pursuant to the master contract.
5.4.5.5. Assure individual choice.
As noted above, while the Federal government should negotiate
reduced program rates with eligible providers, program beneficiaries
should have the final choice over the specific service provider they
use. Beneficiaries should also choose the specific equipment they use,
within guidelines established through the program. For devices, the
guidelines should establish minimal requirements for memory, storage,
display resolution, connectivity, and capabilities for upgrades.
Purchases of the device and the service can be facilitated through a
voucher or some other form of electronic payment. The exception to
individual choice would be for the LifelineEd program, where school
districts may have identified specific devices they need the students
to use to facilitate administrative efficiency and coordination of
curriculum.
5.4.5.6. Assure security and transparency.
In setting standards for the equipment and the service, the program
should maximize user security and data transparency. This has been an
issue, for example, in the FCC's current Lifeline program. According to
Malwarebytes Labs, at least one such provider--Assurance Wireless by
Virgin Mobile--offered a $35 smartphone with pre-installed apps to
collect user data, create backdoors for future access, and enable auto-
installers for other apps. These activities were undertaken without
customer knowledge or consent, introducing the potential for malware to
be installed when an app update becomes available. The program should
prohibit any company from offering free or reduced-cost equipment that
come with undisclosed or non-optional applications. Additionally, the
program should require that providers whose devices include pre-
installed apps report how they screen apps and updates, including
disclosure of what user information is being collected and how it is
being used. Customers should have access to this disclosure to ensure
informed consent.
5.4.5.7. Work in partnership with the ISPs and other stakeholders.
The new program should build on existing public, private, and
public/private partnership programs aimed at expanding digital equity
and inclusion, which generally involve working in partnership with
ISPs. The forms of partnership may differ somewhat between the
different services. For example, with the general approach, the FCC
should work with the ISPs offering low-income programs to assure
efficiency and wide distribution.
With the Lifeline+ approach, the approach will differ with the
specific service. With LifelineEd, ISPs should provide data that school
districts need to help identify which students lack at-home broadband,
and the ISPs and school districts should work together to standardize
procedures and minimize administrative costs for connection and on-
going operation. The COVID-19 experience has already produced these
kinds of partnerships. For example, ChiefsforChange, a coalition of
leaders of school districts, has documented several examples of school
districts that have been working to quickly connect students in light
of closings caused by COVID-19. One particularly notable example is the
Connected Chicago initiative, a partnership of the City of Chicago, the
Chicago Public School system, community-based organizations, and
several philanthropic entities and leading Internet Service Providers.
The initiative has created a detailed toolkit aimed at connecting
100,000 currently offline school children.
Another example is the K-12 Bridge to Broadband program. The
program arose as a partnership between local school districts, ISPs,
local governments, and various philanthropic groups in the wake of the
COVID-19 crisis, to facilitate home connectivity for low-income
students. The program is developing a set of best practices for
providing the kind of connectivity that LifelineEd would scale
nationally. It recommends, for example, that as a starting point, ISPs
should confidentially identify students that lack broadband at home,
and work with school districts to standardize procedures and minimize
administrative costs for getting these households connected. In
allocating funds, the program could use formulas similar to those used
for the ESEA and E-Rate programs, both of which are designed to assist
similar population groups. In addition, the program should leverage the
results of FCC E-Rate pilots in 2011-2012 that allowed funding for off-
premises connectivity and devices.
For the LifelineMed program, designers should note the success of
the City of Liverpool in improving health outcomes and cost savings
through the provision of devices and broadband services to covered
persons. Liverpool conducted a ``Health and Social Care Testbed,''
which used 5G connectivity to support health care delivery use cases.
The study found that, cumulatively, implementation of use cases could
potentially result in cost savings to the Health and Social Care
services of an estimated £247,688 per hundred users per year.\7\
These Internet-enabled interventions reduced hospital admissions,
physician visits, medication costs, caretaker hours, and patient
loneliness; and, increased health outcomes, medication adherence, the
ability to manage one's own health, comfort with using technology, and
quality of life.
5.4.5.8. Improving awareness of the program.
Awareness of the current Lifeline program is very low, evidenced by
the fact that as of January 2021, only 8.7 million of an estimated 33.2
million eligible households participate in the program. Congress should
require the FCC and other relevant Federal agencies to coordinate in
marketing and outreach efforts to help ensure that all Americans,
including those suffering from recent unemployment due to the COVID-19
crisis, those newly eligible for the Supplemental Nutritional
Assistance Program, and those eligible for Medicaid, are informed of
their eligibility for broadband support.
5.4.6. ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE LIFELINE+
PROGRAM.
5.4.6.1. Lifeline+ should be administered jointly by the FCC and the
Federal agencies responsible for each substantive area.
The administration of LifelineJobs, LifelineMed, and LifelineEd
services should be a co-responsibility of the FCC and the relevant
Federal agencies who currently support the respective services.
LifelineJobs would be coordinated by the FCC and the Department of
Labor, with the broadband subsidy provided as part of unemployment
benefits. LifelineMed would be coordinated by the FCC and the
Departments of Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs, with the
broadband subsidy provided as part of the benefits package to
qualifying persons covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or Veterans Health
Administration Insurance. LifelineEd would be coordinated by the FCC,
the Department of Education, and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE),
with the funds distributed to local school systems, similar to programs
like E-Rate, ESEA, and IDEA, with the local school systems then
connecting qualifying students in ways similar to how local school
districts are already using Federal funds to connect their students on
a temporary basis. Further, to the extent that Congress augments the E-
Rate program as part of pending COVID-19 relief legislation, the FCC's
administration of the LifelineEd program should be based on lessons
learned in the implementation of that effort.
5.4.6.2. Lifeline+ should be administratively coordinated, adhere to
similar standards, and be designed to facilitate ease of
consumers obtaining the service, protect consumers, and
optimize the benefits.
In administering the program, the FCC and other Federal agencies
should consider the following recommendations:
5.4.6.2.1. Set national standards for eligibility and program
operations in ways that reduce start-up and ongoing costs.
To the extent feasible, the standards for eligibility for
LifelineJobs, LifelineMed, and LifelineEd should use similar criteria
and administrative mechanisms to lower costs of signup, communicating
about the programs to eligible families, and on-going operations. Doing
so requires that key elements of the programs be consistent across
agencies and across the country. For example, while schools, state
unemployment and government health care agencies would assist in
enrolling consumers in the services and distribute and activate
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card accounts, the FCC should
establish a single type of card and account, determine benefit levels,
and certify providers for the programs.
5.4.6.2.2. Enable family use for all broadband services.
To maximize benefits, the devices and the broadband subscriptions
offered as part of the broadband at home Lifeline+ services should not
be restricted solely to specified essential services, so that the other
benefits of broadband adoption, including but not limited to education,
job training, health care, access to other government services, and
civic engagement, may be available to everyone in a participating
household.
5.4.6.2.3. Coordinate and prioritize to minimize wasteful expenditures
or duplicative payments.
Beneficiaries of LifelineHome may meet the qualifications for more
than one broadband at home service, but should only be eligible to
receive one benefit. LifelineHome should be coordinated through a
national verification system, to assure that there are not duplicate
payments to multiple persons in the same home. This can be accomplished
through a national database (the ``Duplicates Database'') to identify
households receiving benefits, with program personnel authorized to
access this database to enter participating household data and confirm
no duplication of benefits. The existing National Lifeline
Accountability Database (NLAD), managed by USAC, can serve as a model
for the Duplicates Database and should continue to be used to ensure
that households participating in Lifeline+ receive no more than one
mobile and one broadband at home benefit per household.
Congress or the FCC should determine rules for prioritizing the
source of funds for a broadband at home benefit where the person or
family qualifies for more than one in-home benefit. As noted in Section
5.3.8, which discussed how a LifelineMed benefit would cover
approximately 70 percent of those needing a LifelineEd benefit, it may
be advantageous to prioritize funding sources for which broadband would
generate near-term savings.
5.4.6.2.4. Allow bundling of mobile and broadband at home benefits.
The program should encourage providers to create service offerings
that maximize the value of the services to the customer. Some
providers, for example, could develop plans that serve the needs of
both the LifelineMobile and one of the at home services. In that light,
the program should allow the bundling of the LifelineMobile benefit and
any one of the three broadband at home benefits.
5.4.6.2.5. The Lifeline+ program design should include mechanisms that
makes it easy for applicants to learn about, apply for and, if
qualified, obtain the benefits.
Each service should adopt mechanisms that build on related public
programs such as SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance.
The goal should be to maximize the ease with which eligible
beneficiaries learn about Lifeline+ and its benefits, apply for the
programs for which they qualify, and, if approved, receive the
benefits.
For LifelineMobile, the FCC would coordinate with USDA and
HUD to ensure that recipients of SNAP and other qualifying
programs are proactively notified about their eligibility for
LifelineMobile.
For LifelineJobs, the Department of Labor would work with
state unemployment offices to proactively inform those applying
for unemployment of their eligibility.
For LifelineMed, the administrators of government insurance
policies would proactively advise covered persons of
eligibility requirements and the potential benefits if they
qualify.
For LifelineEd, local schools would notify the parents of
students qualifying for the free school lunch programs of their
eligibility.
5.4.7. THE FUNDING MECHANISM FOR EACH PROGRAM SHOULD ALIGN WITH CURRENT
PRACTICES, INSTITUTIONAL INCENTIVES, AND THE NEED FOR A
SUSTAINABLE FUNDING MECHANISM.
In terms of funding a general or a functional approach to closing
the affordability gap, we have the following recommendations.
5.4.7.1. Congress and the FCC should not wait for contribution reform
to begin to create a new program.
As discussed in several chapters, the current mechanism for funding
Universal Service is not sustainable, nor is it capable of providing
the new funding necessary to close the affordability gap. Several
alternatives have been proposed to replace the current system for
financing USF. These alternatives include assessing fees based on each
telephone number in service, the purchase of Internet connected
devices, ISP revenues, or a fee attached to some broader revenue
stream, such as all revenues collected by communications providers and
not just those currently counted in the contribution factor, as well as
the revenues of companies engaged in a broad set of Internet-related
activities. We express no view here on the policy merits or tradeoffs
of any of specific method. We do, however, note that contribution
reform is likely to take the FCC several years, and will likely be the
subject of considerable political controversy and legal challenges. As
we believe the need for digital equity and inclusion is urgent, we
propose alternative means for funding the new programs that are more
certain legally and can be done more quickly.
5.4.7.2. The FCC should reexamine the subsidy for the mobile service.
As noted above, many critics of the current Lifeline subsidy argue
that the subsidy amount is too low. That criticism is generally
premised on the need for the subsidy to enable eligible persons to
subscribe to broadband at home. In developing the new program, the FCC
should re-examine the subsidy level for the new mobile service but do
so in light of the other components of it adopts.
5.4.7.3. Congress should directly fund Lifeline+ while also providing
additional funding, as necessary, and authorizing existing
programs to utilize savings to offer broadband benefits.
5.4.7.3.1. Direct appropriations.
In lieu of the current contribution system or any of the proposed
reforms to it, Congress should instead appropriate funds for the
Lifeline+ program from the following sources:
First, to the extent that Congress appropriates funds to
subsidize rural deployment (as discussed in Chapter 3), any
allocated funds not disbursed through a reverse auction or
other competitive mechanism should be repurposed to a fund
whose assets should be used to support the Lifeline+ program.
Second, Congress should dedicate all or at least some of the
proceeds of any future spectrum auctions to a fund whose assets
should be used to support the Lifeline+ program.
Third, Congress should appropriate at least five years of
the necessary funding to fully support the Lifeline+ program
with funding sources to revert to the existing USF contribution
factor, or such methodology as Congress may authorize and as
the FCC may adopt, if Congress does not renew appropriations at
any time after the first five years.
The legal basis of some of these mechanisms is discussed in
Appendix 5A.
5.4.7.3.2. Congress should mandate that existing government health
insurance programs provide LifelineMed benefits.
Congress has, on various occasions, enlarged the benefits that
government health insurance programs provide. For example, in 2003,
Congress voted to add Part D to the Medicare program to cover various
prescription drugs. Given that in-home broadband is an increasingly
vital social determinant of health (see Appendix 9D), Congress should
mandate that Federal government health insurance policies, including
Medicare, Medicaid, and veteran's medical support, provide subsidies
for the LifelineMed service to enable the covered persons to take
advantage of the full range of telehealth services, while also
improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the programs.
5.4.7.3.2.1 As an initial step, the Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) should run a demonstration to determine the
level of savings that could be achieved if all covered persons had in-
home broadband and how to best structure the programs to take advantage
of universal connectivity of the covered persons. As discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 9 and Appendix 9B, there is already
significant evidence that telehealth services can save significant
funds for a health care system. For example, in 2012, the VA ran a
program providing telehealth services to over 150,000 beneficiaries
which resulted in average annual savings of $6,500 per patient,
compared to $1,600 in annual costs. These savings come through a
variety of means, including by enabling targeting and monitoring
specific conditions, reducing transport costs, reducing emergency care
costs, and increasing the ability to keep patients in the home instead
of more expensive medical facilities.
As also discussed in Chapter 9, the Federal government has already
recognized, albeit on a smaller scale than we propose here, the need
for Federal investment in patient connectivity to improve health care
outcomes in current programs. There is no doubt that the need and
urgency has increased in light of trends that were accelerated due to
COVID-19. However, there is not an authoritative analysis of the cost
savings across a broader spectrum of the population or an analysis of
how the systems could, if they assume in-home broadband in the home of
every covered person, both save funds and produce better outcomes. The
institution best suited to do such an analysis is CMMI, which is
charged with testing various payment and service delivery models for
the purpose of achieving better care for patients, better health for
communities, and lower costs through improvement in the health care
system. As a starting point, CMMI should evaluate how universal
adoption of broadband by persons covered by Medicare and Medicaid could
lead to improvement in health care quality and a reduction in health
care costs through, among others, expanded and unified access to
affordable care, population health management (earlier detection of
infectious diseases, chronic disease management, preventative medicine,
etc.), increased administrative efficiencies, decreased paperwork,
higher patient satisfaction, utilization of AI and other emerging
technologies, and consistent and near real-time evaluations of health
care effectiveness.
To be clear, we are not suggesting that providing the broadband
benefits discussed herein should be dependent on or delayed while the
analysis is undertaken. As an initial matter, there will likely have to
be some additional funding to cover the benefits. The analysis,
however, is critical to understanding how to account for the savings
over time that the benefits will bring and how to redesign certain
aspects of the program to take advantage of the universal connectivity.
We note that there are anecdotal reports that the increased use of
telehealth resulting from COVID-19 has increased some costs due to
increased utilization. However, as discussed in Chapter 9, this
telehealth utilization was not driven by persons of color; racial and
ethnic minorities experienced a decline in access to care during the
pandemic. While we can understand that such increased use could have
occurred, we are skeptical that over the long term, connectivity
increases costs. As noted above, the VA study and other similar efforts
suggest otherwise. It is more likely that easier access led to visits
that enabled preventive care, leading to lower costs over time.
Further, we note that the general trend of business addressing customer
concerns--and health care is different in many ways but is still about
addressing customer concerns--is to use connectivity and a variety of
mechanisms enabled by connectivity to improve intake, diagnosis, and
treatment much more quickly and efficiently than they could without
connectivity. Thus, the experience with both health care and in
businesses generally suggest that designing systems in light of
connectivity that result in improved outcomes and reduced costs.
5.4.7.3.2.2 The Administration and Congress should create a new
matchable administrative expense in Medicaid for States to provide in-
home broadband to Medicaid enrollees. Medicaid, which because of its
focus on low-income persons, is likely to be the program to offer the
broadband at home benefit to the greatest number of persons. It is a
Federal program administered and partially funded by the states. Due to
the federal-state partnership model, programmatic changes are generally
done at the state, rather than federal, level.
It is possible, however, for the Federal government to incentivize
and/or empower the states to act in preferred ways in their
administration of Medicaid. Traditionally, the Federal government only
allows Medicaid to cover medical services. The question of when or
whether a state Medicaid program can cover non-medical services is not
novel. In light of the fact that medical care is not the only factor
driving health outcomes, there has been a recognition that for low-
income people, in particular, spending money on medical services
alone--without a coordinated, effective strategy for addressing a range
of socio-economic issues and social determinants of health--can result
in inefficient use of health care dollars. As a result, there are
numerous examples of government health insurance programs funding
services that, while not strictly involving a medical diagnosis or
treatment, nonetheless improve health outcomes and/or lower health care
costs. Some of these are discussed in Appendix 5B, entitled ``Funding
Non-Medical Services Through Medicaid.''
Our understanding of the program suggests that the most effective
way to connect unconnected Medicaid recipients in the current framework
would be through the Health Information Technology/Health Information
Exchange (HIT/HIE) program. The Federal government has in the past
appropriated funds to increase the effectiveness of the Medicaid
program through the utilization of information technology. It was done,
for example, with HIT/HIE expenses under ARRA, where the Federal
government legislation offered a 90/10 Federal match for the specified
technology costs. Here, we believe the easiest way to provide a
broadband subsidy to connect low-income persons and families would be
through that program. That same framework could be used here, with the
Federal government providing the funds and the states then distributing
the benefit to unconnected covered persons, which effectively would
serve as a means of increasing the efficacy of their health information
technology systems, and therefore meet the definition of ``activities
that are proper and efficient for the administration of the Medicaid
Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program.''. While we would
support the Federal government subsidizing 100 percent of the necessary
amount, we note that states have demonstrated their recognition of the
need to connect low-income persons, with many states using CARES Act
funding to connect students and also having their own Lifeline like
plans. In that light, we believe a 90 percent Federal share, which is
the current match for IT, could be sufficient.
5.4.7.3.2.2 The Administration and Congress should mandate that
Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration provide a broadband
benefit to unconnected recipients of the program. Medicare and VA
health insurance programs are federally administered so the mechanics
of offering the broadband benefits are simpler. Congress and the
Administration can adjust the Federal policy so that the programs fund
broadband at home for eligible beneficiaries.
5.4.7.4.3. Congress should mandate that existing government
unemployment insurance programs provide LifelineJobs benefits.
Congress, as we have seen most recently in temporary enlargement of
unemployment benefits in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, has enhanced
the benefits to which unemployed persons covered by unemployment
insurance are entitled. Likewise, Congress should mandate that Federal
unemployment insurance policies include as a benefit for persons who
previously were employed in a job paying less than a threshold to be
set by Congress, a new benefit for broadband at home as described
above.
5.4.8. THE ETC REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AND REPLACED WITH MORE
APPROPRIATE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA TO ENCOURAGE MORE
PARTICIPANTS.
ETC requirements should be eliminated as eligibility criteria for
participation in the new program. Instead, any provider that
voluntarily offers broadband service sufficient to utilize the
essential services described above should be deemed eligible, and
indeed encouraged, to participate. In Chapter 3, we proposed
alternative and more appropriate requirements for participating ISPs to
be eligible for receiving funds for network deployment, which would
replace the ETC requirements. The same criteria should be adopted for a
permanent EBB program or Lifeline+. To ensure that beneficiaries
purchase services only from qualified providers, the FCC should
administer a simple annual recertification process. Once the
certification process is established, beneficiaries should be able to
use their benefit to purchase service from any qualified provider. Like
other consumers, beneficiaries should be free to choose among qualified
providers, similar to choosing medical services under preferred
provider health insurance plans.
5.4.9. TO ACCELERATE THE AVAILABILITY OF, AND LOWER COST FOR, DEVICES,
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONSIDER RUNNING A PROCUREMENT
PROCESS.
In this chapter, we have proposed significant new expenditures on
broadband services and on devices. We have no doubt about the capacity
of existing broadband service providers to immediately meet the demands
of potentially millions of new customers. Obtaining millions of new
devices quickly, however, is another issue.
An increase in competition to obtain devices could expand rather
than close the adoption and affordability gaps. Indeed, as a recent New
York Times story reported ``A surge in worldwide demand by educators
for low-cost laptops has created shipment delays and pitted desperate
schools against one another. Districts with deep pockets often win
out.'' That surge of worldwide demand by educators for low-cost laptops
and similar devices of up to 41 percent higher than pre-pandemic
numbers has created months-long shipment delays. The story further
reported that those delays have ``frustrated students around the
country, especially in rural areas and communities of color, which also
often lack high-speed Internet access and are most likely to be on the
losing end of the digital divide . . . That gap, with much of the
country still learning remotely, could now be crippling.''
There are many factors driving the shortage of entry-level devices.
The margins on low-end PC sales are close to zero, and with total PC
sales flat or declining for a decade, manufacturing capacity is focused
on higher-end machines. Another factor is a shortage of low-end chips.
A third factor is the logistics and costs of shipping from China.
Given the current situation, and what we believe is the need for
significantly greater supply of low-cost devices, the Federal
government should consider a national procurement RFP for what could be
millions of appropriate devices, with pre-determined specifications,
that could be manufactured in large part in the U.S. These would then
be offered at wholesale price to institutions, such as school
districts, charged with administering the broadband benefits. This
could not only help with accelerating the availability of the devices
for a permanent EBB or Lifeline+ program, but could also lower the
overall cost of the program and promote job creation and advanced
manufacturing in America.
5.4.10. SUPPORT RESEARCH INTO HOW ADDRESSING CREDIT ISSUES MIGHT CLOSE
THE AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR BROADBAND AT HOME.
While most of the recommendations in this chapter relate to erasing
affordability as a factor in broadband adoption for essential services,
some non-qualifying households may still experience affordability
issues in subscribing to and maintaining home broadband service. As
part of an agenda to increase adoption, the government should work with
providers of pre-paid services to examine the extent to which credit
issues are keeping a significant number of persons from adopting
broadband, and if so whether there are technologies, such as a router
synched to a payment system, a financial mechanism perhaps assisted by
philanthropic efforts, marketing efforts that make the availability of
existing options more widely known, or other approaches that could
provide a replicable model that does for broadband at home what prepaid
wireless did to expand the adoption of mobile services, particularly
for persons not eligible for the broadband at home programs described
in this chapter. NTIA should fund a research program, and perhaps a
demonstration project, to determine the dimensions of the problem and
develop potential solutions for increasing the utilization of the
prepaid model for currently unconnected persons.
Chapter 6.
CLOSING THE ACCESS TO ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
AND PARTICIPATION GAP
6.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Several decades ago, famed venture capitalist John Doerr said the
personal computer industry's growth from zero to $100 billion in 10
years was ``the greatest legal accumulation of wealth in history.'' As
the Internet soon dwarfed the PC revolution, growing from zero to $400
billion in just five years, Doerr was forced to update that claim. In
Doerr's words, ``There are waves and then there is a tsunami.'' Today,
the top five American companies by market cap (Microsoft, Apple,
Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook) all rode the tsunami Doerr described.
Early tech optimists touted this tsunami as having the potential to
be the great equalizer of society. Instead, it has exacerbated the
historic divisions between the haves and have nots, leaving minority
communities with fewer avenues to participate and develop economic
opportunities in the Internet economy. The National Urban League's 2018
State of Black America Report found that of almost forty thousand
employees working for just four major Silicon Valley technology
companies, fewer than one thousand were Black American. Latinx
employees are similarly underrepresented. Moreover, as the technology
sector has increased in size and profitability, Black and Latinx
entrepreneurs have continued to be left behind.
If anything, the pandemic has worsened these trends. While other
industries reeled from lockdowns and abrupt changes in patterns of
consumption, COVID-19 catalyzed enormous growth for many technology
firms.\8\ Revenues soared as consumers and businesses turned to digital
solutions to access the basics of life--work (e.g., Zoom, Teams, and
other video conferencing services), social interaction (e.g., Facebook
and Twitter), entertainment (e.g., Netflix, HBO Max, Amazon Prime
Video), food (e.g., GrubHub and UberEats), goods (e.g., Amazon and
Instacart), and healthcare (e.g., Teledoc).
Many of these enterprises saw the ranks of their workforce swell,
even as unemployment climbed in other sectors.\9\ In particular,
employment among women and communities of color plummeted in 2020.
Black and Latinx unemployment at the end of 2020 were 9.9 percent and
9.3 percent, respectively, white employment had recovered from 14.2
percent unemployment in April 2020 to only 6.0 percent by December.\10\
Wealth among communities of color has likewise diminished. Sixty
percent of Black households, 72 percent of Latinx households, and 55
percent of Native American households reported having serious financial
problems during the pandemic, compared to just 36 percent of white
households.\11\
As the U.S. wrestles with another economic recession, we must be
proactive to ensure that Black and Latinx communities--who face
declining median wealth and who have still not recovered their pre-2008
recession incomes--do not continue to bear a disproportionate burden of
financial hardship in the coming years.\12\
Stagnant wage growth for Black and Latinx workers over the past
decade is a major reason for the slow recovery, due, in part, to their
underrepresentation in high-paying jobs in the technology and
information services sectors. And minority exclusion from the
technology sectors is hardly a new problem. In 2002, Blacks accounted
for nearly eleven percent of the workforce, but only eight percent of
computer and mathematical jobs. Those numbers remained almost the same
in 2016. While the percent of Latinx workforce has grown from 12.6
percent of the overall workforce in 2002 to 16.7 percent in 2016, the
percent in the computer and mathematical professions only increased
from 5.5 percent to 6.8 percent.\13\
Lewis Latimer, the person for whom this Plan is named, illustrates
the longstanding problem of Black and Latinx participation in the tech
sector. A free Black patent-holder and the son of slaves, his
inventions and contributions were critical to the success of his
employers, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell. Yet, unfortunately
and all-too-predictably, he had no opportunity to take ownership or
accumulate generational wealth from the vast businesses those
inventions spawned.
6.2 VISION STATEMENT
We need to break these historic patterns. But the sad realities of
today's economic opportunity and participation gaps should not
discourage us from recognizing technology's essential role in building
a more inclusive future. Much of this Latimer Plan is devoted to making
sure that broadband is available, affordable, and deeply relevant to
the lives of all Americans, regardless of where they live, the color of
their skin, or how much money they have. It is motivated by the idea
that broadband is a necessity, not a convenience, for living in a post-
pandemic world.
Technology cannot be the great equalizer, however, if opportunities
for wealth accumulation are not equitably distributed throughout
society. While many of the proposals throughout the Plan are focused on
assuring that all Americans have the tools and skills to participate
fully in 21st century society and the digital economy, we also want to
close gaps that limit opportunities to participate meaningfully and
create value in the industry as broadband and broadband-enabled
enterprises continue to innovate, grow, and prosper.
We must ensure that job opportunities are available for the
country's growing Black and Latinx communities at every level in
technology and technology-related industries. Entrepreneurs of color
deserve a place in the governance of these companies. They should have
equal access as vendors and collaborators in the building and
utilization of new digital infrastructures and the prolific wealth
creating ecosystem that controls it.
Protests for racial justice across the country have placed the onus
not only on legislators and government regulators, but also on business
leaders and private enterprises, to address with deliberateness and
vigor these historic inequities. Communities of color are not simply
hapless consumers of products marketed by brand-name companies. These
communities have become emboldened and now fearlessly demand corporate
acknowledgement and respect. Americans at large are beginning to
understand that we cannot continue a ``business as usual'' approach to
eliminating racism embedded in our social, political, and economic
systems in both the public and private sectors.
With public and private intention, the gaps of economic opportunity
and participation can be closed, and our Nation will be stronger, more
equitable and more prosperous because of it. We must together attack
these problems in an intentional way, rather than passively awaiting
the tide to lift high all boats. Now is a time for action. We
wholeheartedly agree with the principles set forth by the Business
Roundtable in 2019, outlining a new standard of corporate
responsibility that benefits all stakeholders--consumers, employees,
suppliers, communities, and shareholders. Much of the private sector
has accepted accountability in ingraining diversity, equity, and
inclusion into their corporate DNA, including creating racially and
gender diverse corporate boards, staffing, C-suites, procurement,
philanthropy, and community investment.
For many years, civil rights organizations have put pressure on
private enterprise to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion
practices. Yet, as Marc Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban
League, observed, ``these gains lacked systems and structures to ensure
certain things like continued growth and personal accountability for
corporations. Thus, what we saw when we looked long and hard at the
corporations with which we had worked were diversity programs that were
more often than not catch-as-catch-can systems, that is, no systems at
all. Many treated it as a compliance issue only.'' \14\
There has been particular progress in the companies that build and
operate the digital infrastructure. To create more sustainable
improvements in economic opportunity and participation, civil rights
organizations, led by the National Urban League, have pioneered the
adoption of written memoranda of understanding with several
communication companies, setting forth comprehensive strategic plans
with goals, timetables, and metrics to measure progress toward
diversity. Areas covered by such MOUs include governance, which
includes the company's board; personnel, which includes the company's
C-suite; procurement, which includes the company's spending on goods
and services, and in philanthropy and community investment.
These voluntary commitments to civil rights organizations and the
constituents they represent have been widely heralded. It is, however,
cumbersome to approach hundreds of companies one at a time. We are
interested in activating government resources and leadership to
organize and accelerate this process, providing incentives, improving
and tracking private sector engagement and collaboration on diversity,
equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Communities of color have been waiting nearly sixty years since the
passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for corporations to implement
and abide by anti-discriminatory policies. But only when companies move
beyond anti-discrimination principles to embrace anti-racist principles
can we hope to achieve sustainable and meaningful equity.
6.3 GOALS
By the end of 2021, the Department of Commerce, the FCC, the
Small Business Administration, and the Department of Labor
should invite a broad coalition of civil rights organizations
and industry stakeholders to form a task force to develop best
practices, guidelines, and standards for Internet and
communication service providers, device and equipment
manufacturers, software companies, and related service
providers, to promote more diverse and inclusive corporate
leadership, workforce, and supplier practices;
By the end of 2022, the Department of Commerce, the FCC, the
Small Business Administration, and the Department of Labor
should, in cooperation with civil rights organizations and
industry stakeholders, publish and promote these best
practices, guidelines, and standards;
By the end of 2022, the Department of Commerce should
publish a report identifying policies to incentivize private
entities to adopt initiatives promoting more diverse and
inclusive corporate leadership, workforce, and supplier
practices; and
By the end of 2025, the Department of Labor should publish a
report tracking trends in the demographics of individuals
employed in jobs associated with the digital economy, and in
the governance of the companies that build, operate, and
utilize digital infrastructure.
6.4 THE CURRENT SITUATION
Working with outside multicultural civil rights organizations like
the NAACP, the National Action Network, UnidosUS, LULAC, AAJC, and OCA,
the National Urban League has organized active external advisory boards
and committees to advise companies in their efforts to adopt
sustainable accountability measures to ingrain diversity, equity, and
inclusion into their corporate DNA. These measures include commitments
to racial equity in corporate board membership, staffing, the C-suite,
procurement, philanthropy, and community investment.
To date, these measures have yielded promising results in the
quality of the products these companies produce and in the building of
trust with the communities they serve. Since entering its MOU in 2016,
Charter Communications has deepened its efforts to advance diversity
and inclusion (D&I), focused on programming, procurement, corporate
governance, workforce representation and philanthropic and community
investments. The company subsequently adopted a holistic D&I strategy
in 2018, anchored on providing high-quality products and services to
its diverse customer base. This includes serving 21 of the top 25 Black
American television markets and 20 of the top 25 Hispanic television
markets in the United States. Charter has also expanded programming
offerings, including enhanced and expanded carriage of Black American
owned and Latinx-targeted networks. The company exceeded $1 billion in
diverse spend in 2018, 2019 and 2020, diversified its board, and took
steps to both increase diversity in its talent pipeline and foster an
inclusive environment where all employees, regardless of their
background or experience, have equitable access to opportunities.
Today, 48 percent of Charter's workforce are people of color.
Since Comcast entered into its MOU, supplier spending with
minority-owned enterprises increased from less than $1 billion to
almost $3 billion. The MOU also included a commitment for the company
to offer programming owned by people of color, selected through a
competitive process. Today, consumers see more diverse anchorpeople,
programming, and channels at NBC, bringing much needed visual
representation to mainstream media. In addition to bringing diversity
into its supply chain and programming practices, Comcast committed to
increasing the level of diversity on its corporate board, in its hiring
practices, and in its lauded philanthropic efforts. The MOU approach,
which moves beyond the ad hoc verbal agreements of yesteryear, has
yielded measurable progress.
Similarly, other telecommunications providers and many of the
Nation's largest companies have seized this moment to reimagine
corporate responsibility, working to address historic inequities that
exist in their own businesses and industries. For example, AT&T
recently announced that it has spent over $3.1 billion with Black-owned
suppliers over the last two years.
In June of 2020, for example, PayPal pledged $530 million in short-
term, medium-term, and long-term investments to support Black and
minority-owned businesses and communities in the U.S., especially those
hit hardest by the pandemic.
That month, PepsiCo unveiled a $450 million, three-pronged plan to
address systemic racial inequality at the community, business, and
individual level through greater workforce diversity, investment and
procurement from minority-owned businesses, and philanthropic
contributions to racial justice social and community programs and
organizations.
This past September, Citi and the Citi Foundation committed over $1
billion towards strategic initiatives targeted to help close the racial
wealth gap and increase economic mobility in the United States,
including greater access to banking and credit in communities of color,
increasing investment in Black-owned businesses, expanding
homeownership among Black Americans, and advancing anti-racist
practices in the financial services industry.
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
These efforts, though encouraging, are only the beginning. To close
the economic opportunity and inclusion gap, it is imperative that
industry, government, and community organizations work together to
improve and increase commitments to racial equity in corporate board
membership, staffing, the C-suite, procurement, philanthropy, and
community investment within the entire digital ecosystem.
The Plan's recommendations include:
Infrastructure. Congress must include mandates in any
infrastructure legislation for companies that will directly
benefit from increased Federal investment to enhance their
performance in providing access to economic opportunity and
participation throughout the digital ecosystem.
Measure Diversity. The Department of Commerce, the FCC, and
the Small Business Administration should collect information
that allows the government and the public to understand and
evaluate how the private sector, and particularly the
technology and related sectors, are improving diversity,
equity, and inclusion in the categories noted above.
Incentivize Diversity. The Department of Commerce, the FCC,
and the Small Business Administration should evaluate and
report to Congress annually on measures to incentivize the
participation of private enterprises in improving diversity,
equity, and inclusion throughout the digital ecosystem.
Highlight Sustainable Success. The Department of Commerce,
the FCC, and the Small Business Administration should publish
an annual report on best practices for enhancing the
performance of private enterprise in improving diversity,
equity and inclusion throughout the digital ecosystem.
Chapter 7.
CLOSING THE UTILIZATION GAP
In the more than two decades since then NTIA Administrator Larry
Irving coined the phrase ``digital divide,'' nearly all the public
discussion of both meaning and the consequence of the idea has involved
either the availability gap, the adoption gap, or the affordability
gap. Often, the terms are used interchangeably, or combined unhelpfully
and referred to simply as a lack of ``access.''
To be sure, all three of these gaps are foundational. Unless there
are networks everywhere and everyone is on them and can afford to use
them, failings of digital equity and inclusion will persist, creating
more inequality and exclusion. As noted in Chapter One, a recent
Executive Order calls for every Federal agency to assure that all
persons, but particularly those in historically marginalized
communities, have equal access to the benefits and services those
agencies provide. Given the trends in how services are now delivered,
it will be difficult to achieve such a goal without closing the gaps
discussed in the Plan.
But there is another, less obvious gap that is increasingly
relevant to how we use the tools of the information age to create a
more equitable and inclusive economy and society. That is the
utilization gap.
That utilization gap describes the difference between how our
communications networks are being used today and how they could already
be used to improve outcomes across industries and in the public sector,
particularly for applications identified by the National Broadband Plan
as strategic. In particular, as many commentators have noted,
government services have not digitized fast enough. Nor have government
service providers taken full advantage of the availability of broadband
to improve customer service, capacity, resiliency, adaptability,
transparency, or security.
The COVID-19 crisis has not only brought the availability,
adoption, and affordability gaps to the forefront, it has also
demonstrated that, despite the capacity and capability of our networks,
we are suffering from a utilization diffusion lag, similar to that
which accompanied electrification in the 1900s. Learnings from this
unprecedented experience, however, could illuminate a better path
forward. As author Nassim Taleb wrote in his book Antifragile, ``The
excess energy released from overreaction to setbacks is what
innovates.'' This crisis is likely to unleash that kind of innovation,
particularly with telehealth, telecommuting, online education, and
public services.
But we need to make sure that, in the process, this next wave of
innovation also drives a more equitable and inclusive economy and
society.
Yes, we need all unemployed persons on-line to be able to train,
search and apply for jobs. But, as discussed in Chapter Eight on
workforce development, we also need to be smarter about how we develop
online training, particularly in tying such training to apprenticeship
programs and orienting such programs to attract persons from
communities of color.
Yes, we need all persons on-line to be able to take advantage of
the improved outcomes and lower costs of telehealth, but we also need,
as discussed in Chapter Nine on health care, to take steps so that
telehealth will reduce disparities in access to care, quality of care
and patient experience, including by enhancing digital health literacy
among low-income persons and persons of color, and disseminating
evidence-based research on improving care equity for communities of
color.
Yes, we need all students on-line to be able to engage in virtual
classes and educational work outside the classroom, but we also need,
as discussed in Chapters Ten and Eleven on K-12 and Higher Education,
equitable access to the tools and content of digital learning, to
assist students wherever they are developmentally and personally,
accelerating and supporting them to learn in ways that represent their
diverse needs, and at a depth of mastery that is required to succeed in
the modern economic and social context. We also need to provide
teachers with the support they need to enable students to maximize the
use of digital content, and allow them to foster a future where the
vast expanse of opportunities available are truly open to all students.
We face a huge challenge in helping students overcome the damage to
their education done by COVID-19, but, as McKinsey reports, there are
ways, many dependent on better utilization of technology, to reduce
that learning loss.
Even with everyone on-line, we need our government institutions to
improve their online services, and offer solutions on par with the best
private sector actors, where competition drives continuous innovation.
But, as discussed in Chapter 12 on government services, we also need
service providers to make it easier for all persons, but particularly
those from low-income households and communities of color, to
understand and benefit from the full range of available information and
benefits, and to interact with those services, such as in making or
receiving payments, and in enabling non-government organizations to
assist Americans in receiving the help they need using government data.
Even with everyone on-line, the Internet ecosystem will not reach
its full potential unless it becomes a healthy, self-sustaining
environment, with effective mechanisms for quickly identifying and
countering dangerous misinformation and toxic behavior. As discussed in
Chapter 13, we can do so by reducing the amount, and negative impact,
of dangerous misinformation and hate speech on the Internet, increasing
the amount of content that addresses the concerns and needs of low-
income communities and communities of color, promoting authoritative
information relevant to these communities, and improving the tools
available for low-income persons and persons of color to engage in
civic discussions, giving them a stronger voice both offline and
online.
In short, even as we close the availability, adoption, and
affordability gaps, we need to address the utilization gap as well. The
remaining chapters propose ways to do so.
Chapter 8.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
8.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Closing the gaps in broadband availability and adoption will
provide an essential foundation for equity and inclusion. But to fully
use the Internet ecosystem to improve economic and social prospects for
persons from communities of color and low-income communities, we must
go beyond those steps. Not enough is currently being done to ensure
that the tools of the Information Age facilitate greater opportunities
for our Nation's labor force. These tools have enormous potential to
bridge workforce gaps by:
Connecting the unemployed with companies and industries that
have unfilled positions;
Enabling workers in every job type and industry to upgrade
their skills and to search and apply for jobs; and
Ensuring that new and small businesses can use available
tools from both public and private sources to improve their
prospects, spurring further opportunities and growth in and for
low-income communities and communities of color.
Today, U.S. industry and policymakers do not adequately use data to
identify in-demand jobs, particularly jobs aligned with the skills
needed to fill them; provide easy access to online programs to help
people develop the skills these positions require; or provide low-or
no-cost cost certifications or other job-seeking tools to help those
who develop new skills pursue new jobs. Policymakers also do not
adequately fund research or other means to help persons holding jobs
with a high risk of being eliminated, such as jobs with repetitive
manual tasks, to develop the skills needed to qualify for the jobs of
the future, particularly given the drop-off in employer-based training
investments over the past two decades.
Broadband can be the major driver for solutions to these problems.
Through federal, state, private, and public sector action, we can
create and improve programs that facilitate online access to general
workforce development, training, skills building, Registered
Apprenticeships, and specific workforce development in critical and
growing fields of such as health care, technology, and transportation.
8.2. VISION
We envision a fully connected nation where, through federal, state,
public, private, and hybrid initiatives, everyone has access to the
tools and resources necessary to upskill, reskill, and earn
certifications to fill workforce gaps. These programs will provide new,
small, and industry-leading businesses with access to a larger talent
pool of trained, capable, skilled workers, enabling businesses to fill
positions more quickly and cost-effectively. Taken together, these
actions will lead to new and increased investment in at-risk
communities, as businesses and their employees flourish.
8.3. GOALS
We must first better understand where the greatest workforce gaps
and disparities exist, and then use this information to develop models,
best practices, and toolkits, improve existing programs, and create new
programs. As noted in Chapter 3, efforts are underway to close the
broadband availability gap. With new Congressional funding, the FCC is
in the process of addressing the inaccurate and incomplete broadband
mapping which has resulted in uncertainty about which areas need
buildout and what the costs associated with fully connecting everyone
will be.
Similarly, accurate data is necessary to address and fix workforce
gaps. Here, we propose a two-pronged approach, where targeted research
and data are first gathered, and then used to create effective
programs, initiatives, and Federal legislation that will provide
funding to help address workforce utilization gaps in the most
efficient manner.
The specific goals in achieving this vision are:
8.3.1. DATA COLLECTION AND RESEARCH GOALS.
Increase funding support, through Federal agencies and
Congressional legislation, for new research, data collection,
and data aggregation on workforce trends, and impacts and
successes in various sectors. Data should particularly focus on
race, economic status, and rural versus urban areas, with the
goal of aiding in the creation, capacity-building, and scaling
of new state-based workforce development and digital skills
training programs during 2021.
Conduct ongoing outcomes-focused data collection, data
aggregation, and research on workforce trends, federal,
private, and nonprofit workforce development programs, public-
private partnerships, and programmatic impacts and successes,
with a particular focus on reporting training outcomes by race,
analyses of best practices, and the development of best
practices toolkits for replicating successful programs, with a
new report released by the end of 2021.
Use impact studies to implement widespread programmatic and
rule changes that increase the effectiveness and impact of
existing Federal agency programs, such as DOL, SBA, and EDA
workforce initiatives, by the end of 2022.
8.3.2. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPACT GOALS.
Adopt the Lifeline+ program proposed in Chapter 5, which
includes LifelineJobs, a service that would support the
unemployed through a broadband subsidy provided as part of
unemployment benefits, empowering the unemployed to use online
programs to upgrade their skills, as well as search and apply
for jobs.
Use aggregated data to develop best practices and toolkits
to aid federal, state, municipal, public, and private entities
in the creation, development, scaling, and expansion of new and
existing workforce development programs by 2021.
Deploy at least three new national and ten new state
workforce development and digital skills training pilot
programs by 2022, with planned expansion to other states by
2025.
Increase enrollment and diversity in state and nationwide
upskilling, workforce readiness, workforce development, digital
skills, and other training programs by 2023, redesigning
programs and prioritizing programmatic changes around new,
diversity-focused data, setting goals and benchmarks, and
implementing diversity and inclusion training.
Identify, develop, test, and deploy applications of digital
technologies that could foster economic and social mobility.
Develop optional online components to in-person Related
Technical Instruction required for Registered Apprenticeship
certification, and all other Registered Apprenticeship-related
trainings that do not require a hands-on component.\15\
Develop online components for local career centers and other
workforce-related community services, including American Job
Centers under the U.S. Department of Labor, to supplement their
in-person training programs and other offerings, which are
largely unavailable at present due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
8.4. THE CURRENT SITUATION: UNDERSTANDING THE WORKFORCE GAP
The United States is currently experiencing high unemployment, but
it is, ironically, also experiencing significant and growing unmet
demand for labor. By Deloitte Insights' estimate, as many as half of
all open jobs could go unfilled in certain industries in 2028.\16\ For
now, millions remain out of work as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic,
including workers from sectors that could take five or more years to
recover, if they fully recover at all.\17\ This phenomenon is known as
the ``workforce gap,'' where some industries, sectors, and occupations
face a dearth of qualified workers to fill vacancies, but where the
existing unemployed labor force lacks the skills needed to fill them.
To fill the skills and workforce gaps, it is necessary for us to
grow, scale, and modernize our national and state workforce training
programs--yet we are severely underutilizing broadband, arguably the
most powerful tool at our disposal, as a solution to train our labor
force. Traditional approaches to filling the skills and workforce gaps
do not scale well, and they are unlikely to fully bridge the gap
between potential employers and potential employees. Meanwhile,
increases in the availability and utilization of online tools to
upskill, search, and apply for jobs underscore the importance of
broadband connectivity as an essential means of closing the workforce
gap quickly and efficiently.
America already is shifting to online environments for higher
education. Training institutes, community colleges, and universities
now offer a wide range of online certifications and degrees, enabling
students to learn from anywhere. The Best Colleges 2020 Online
Education Trends Report finds that 77 percent of online students enroll
in these programs to help them reach career and employment goals, while
71 percent of institutions decide to offer a new online program
primarily based on perceived demand from employers, and 94 percent of
students of online learning programs say their programs have a positive
return on investment. Demand for online programs continues to be high,
with 99 percent of administrators saying they saw an increase last year
or that demand has stayed the same in the past few years.\18\
Job searches, too, are increasingly performed online. National and
global job search and recruiting sites host millions of job postings
and visitors every month, with about 60 percent of job seekers using
online job boards to search for new employment opportunities.\19\ For
example, online job search platform Glassdoor has over 9 million jobs
listed and 50 million unique visitors each month.\20\ Job search
platform Indeed reports over 250 million monthly visitors and about 10
jobs added per second globally.\21\ LinkedIn, the social network for
professionals, is currently the 57th highest ranked website in the
world in terms of global engagement, with over 722 million members as
of Q3 2020.\22\ LinkedIn, too, has seen steady increases in quarterly
usage, with increases ranging from 22 percent to 31 percent from Q1
2020 to Q1 2021.\23\ Job seekers also apply for jobs through these
tools, with online listing services boards accounting for almost half
of job applications in 2018.\24\
These trends coincide with a widespread shift of company
recruitment and application processes to Internet-based platforms and
services. The next logical step is to modernize our Nation's workforce
development programs, including Registered Apprenticeship Programs and
American Job Centers, by shifting them online. Currently, federal,
state, and local training programs still require an upgrade of their
online components, and brick-and-mortar career centers are largely
closed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The national shift to more online opportunities for job searches,
applications, and training programs will expand more opportunities to
more people, but it also is likely to isolate and exclude the digitally
disconnected from opportunities for advancement and economic
empowerment. Achieving digital equity and inclusion is increasingly
vital for connecting unemployed and underemployed populations to
workforce development and job search opportunities, particularly
communities of color, low-income, and rural communities--all of which
are facing long-term unemployment in jobs and industries that are
shrinking due to the combination of natural market shifts and the
COVID-19 pandemic. A top priority, therefore, is to ensure the
unemployed have access to the Internet, and that upskilling,
certification, and training programs are easily available online.
8.4.1. SECTORS HARDEST HIT BY COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States already faced a
workforce gap. In some traditional industries such as construction and
manufacturing, Baby Boomers are retiring without enough skilled workers
to replace them.\25\ In new and evolving industries, such as the
information and communications technology (ICT) sector, new jobs are
being created that require specialized skills and training. The global
economic impact of COVID-19 has exacerbated these issues, forcing
businesses to cut back or shutter altogether, while also fostering new
development in other areas such as broadband deployment and increased
demand for online services from technology companies.
According to a McKinsey & Company analysis, ``If the economic
recovery from COVID-19 is muted . . . some industries will take years
to get back to their pre-pandemic normal.'' Industries including arts,
entertainment, and recreation, hospitality, and food services,
educational services, transportation and warehousing, travel and
tourism, and manufacturing, could take five years or more to get back
to 2019-level contributions to GDP.\26\ Other hard-hit sectors could
take two to three years to recover, including administrative and other
support services and construction.
As a result, millions of people are out of work in occupations that
are not expected to recover any time soon, yet lack the skills needed
to qualify for occupations in sectors that are growing or need to
replace their retiring workforce.
8.4.2. STATE AND NATIONAL INITIATIVES IN FACILITATING JOB REENTRY,
UPSKILLING, AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.
Federal, state, and local authorities have long worked to bridge
workforce gaps through programs that connect the unemployed with the
skills they need to fill available jobs. Federal and state action has
shifted in 2020 to address increasing unemployment resulting from the
COVID-19 pandemic, of course, but many of the Congressional and
administrative efforts are temporary, with most measures already having
expired or due to expire by the end of the year. States are slowly
rolling out a patchwork of solutions for their populations. In-person
workforce development programs also are largely out of reach as social
distancing measures are in effect for the foreseeable future.
Facilities remain closed, and many programs are unavailable online,
rendering most services inaccessible for the unemployed people who need
them most urgently.
None of the Congressional directives or Federal programs, such as
the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, Work Opportunity Tax Credit,
Registered Apprenticeship Programs, Career One-Stops, or other programs
outlined below,\27\ has any requirements to include online training
components.\28\ In fact, many government training programs lack
sufficient virtual support, have antiquated websites and online tools,
and consist of resources and training centers that are largely
unavailable online.\29\ With the majority of in-person programs and
services temporarily suspended or closed, this poses a tremendous
barrier to addressing emergency needs, let alone the longer-term goal
of upskilling America's workforce.
8.4.2.1. Pre-COVID-19 Efforts.
Registered Apprenticeship Programs. The U.S. Department of Labor is
working to meet the shifting demand for labor through Registered
Apprenticeship Programs (RAPs), a formalized, government-credentialed
approach that prepares workers for jobs using an employer-driven,
``earn-while-you-learn'' model. This model was formalized in 1937, when
U.S. leaders recognized the benefits of apprenticeships for individuals
and industry, and passed the National Apprenticeship Act.
Today, there are more than 23,000 RAPs across the nation,\30\
covering over 1,000 occupations across industries that include
information technology, health care, cybersecurity, energy, advanced
manufacturing, construction, engineering, hospitality, transportation,
and financial services.\31\ The U.S. DOL has trained more than 812,000
new apprentices since 2017, with an average starting salary of $70,000
and a lifetime earning potential of over $300,000 more than their
peers. RAPs include structured on-the-job training and classroom-based
Related Technical Instruction. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, has
caused significant disruption to education and training systems
nationwide. The Department of Labor's Employment and Training
Administration has recognized COVID-19's potential impact on RAPs,
which require an individual to be employed while in the program.\32\
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. In 2014, Congress passed
the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which replaced the
1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA), as the primary Federal legislation
that supports workforce development.\33\ WIOA covers several areas,
including workforce development activities, adult education and
literacy, and amendments to the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 and
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which provide employment support for jobs
seekers. The WIOA authorizes job training and related services to
unemployed or underemployed individuals and establishes a governance
and performance accountability system for WIOA. Additionally, the WIOA
system provides central points of service through its system of about
3,000 One-Stop Centers nationwide. Services include state and local
WIOA employment and training activities, as well as partner
programs.\34\
American Job Centers and Career One-Stops. The Workforce Investment
Act, adopted in 1998 and superseded in 2014 by WIOA, established the
American Job Centers (AJCs) system to provide job seekers and employers
streamlined access to an array of education, training, and employment
services.\35\ WIOA emphasizes the importance of integrated intake, case
management, reporting systems, and fiscal and management accountability
systems. Services are delivered via a national network of One-Stop
centers (sometimes branded as CareerOneStops). Each local area must
have at least one comprehensive One-Stop center that provides access to
the services of all associated partners.
In 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), in coordination with the Department of Education,
established the American Job Center network under WIOA. WIOA Section
121(e)(4) requires each one-stop delivery system to include in the
identification of products, programs, activities, services, facilities,
and related property and materials, a common one-stop delivery system
identifier, in addition to using any state-or locally developed
identifier.
Today, there are over 2,548 AJCs nationwide, but the majority are
listed as ``closed to the public; available by phone and e-mail,''
``operating at limited capacity to ensure social distancing due to
COVID-19,'' or ``closed until further notice due to COVID-19 health
concerns.'' \36\ While the AJCs are largely closed, the CareerOneStop
does offer a set of mobile apps for job seekers, including Find an
American Job Center, Find a Job, Veterans Job Search, Salary Finder,
Training Finder, and Unemployment Insurance.\37\ The app is useful for
research on jobs, industry, and wage trends, as well as providing
information such as where to find local training programs for specific
jobs. The app, however, remains difficult to navigate, and offers no
information specifically targeting virtual training programs.
National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA). The
National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) is the
national organization representing all 50 state workforce agencies, as
well as those in D.C. and U.S. territories. These agencies deliver
training, employment, career, and business services, in addition to
administering unemployment insurance, veteran reemployment, and labor
market information programs. NASWA provides policy expertise, shares
promising state practices, and promotes state innovation and leadership
in workforce development.\38\
In March 2020, NASWA released the first annual State of the
Workforce Report, a first-of-its-kind compilation of data from the
Nation's state workforce agencies into one comprehensive report,
showcasing key innovations from across the country that are enhancing
the Nation's workforce.\39\ The report also presents a workforce
profile for each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico,
highlighting labor force data such as unemployment rates and wage
growth, educational attainment data, key workforce industries, programs
and services within each state's Department of Labor, total individuals
served, unemployment data, number of local American Job Centers, and
state workforce innovations such as apprenticeship programs and
prisoner reentry initiatives.
Work Opportunity Tax Credit. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)
is a Federal tax credit jointly administered by the U.S. DOL and U.S.
Department of Treasury through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). WOTC
is available to employers for hiring individuals from certain targeted
groups who have consistently faced significant barriers to employment.
WOTC-targeted groups include: (1) qualified Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) recipients; \40\ (2) qualified veterans; (3)
qualified ex-felons; (4) designated community residents; (5) vocational
rehabilitation referrals; (6) SNAP benefits (food stamps) recipients;
(7) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients; (8) long-term family
assistance recipients; and (9) qualified long-term unemployment
recipients.\41\ Employers receive a tax credit for $2,400 to $9,600 per
year, per employee. The WOTC was authorized until December 31, 2020,
and is generally renewed annually, although some lapses have occurred
before the credit was retroactively reauthorized.\42\
Opportunity Zones. In December 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
created the Opportunity Zone program, designed to provide tax
incentives to companies for investing in economically distressed
communities that have been designated as Qualified Opportunity Zones
(QOZ).\43\ QOZs are designed to spur economic development by providing
tax incentives for investors who supply new capital to businesses
operating in one or more QOZs. While the program is still maturing, it
has faced some criticism, and progress stalled as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic. An Urban Institute report found that ``although OZs
were designed to spur job creation, the vast majority of capital
appears to be flowing into real estate, not into operating businesses,
because of various program design constraints and the undesirability of
selling equity from both the business owners' and the investors'
perspective.'' \44\ The Brookings Institution has called it a ``tax cut
for gentrification.'' \45\ Further, waivers allowing benefits to flow
into zip codes adjacent to the originally-targeted zip codes have had
the effect of subsidizing luxury apartments and office buildings in
wealthy zip codes.\46\
Municipal Efforts and Public-Private Partnerships. Public-private
partnerships have been used across the country to build programs that
benefit communities, provide jobs, and stimulate economic development.
For example, in 2015, Seattle created a Priority Hire program for city
public works construction projects of $5 million or more, and, in 2017,
expanded the program to public/private partnership projects with
significant city investment. Using city-funded and public/private
partnership projects, the Priority Hire Program prioritizes the hiring
of residents that live in economically distressed areas, particularly
in Seattle and King County. In addition, city projects and public/
private partnership projects have apprentice utilization requirements
and aspirational goals for women and people of color.\47\
8.4.2.2. Post-COVID-19 Efforts.
There are numerous state and national efforts that have arisen in
response to the severe unemployment and economic downturn resulting
from the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress quickly passed legislation
appropriating stimulus funding and extending unemployment benefits, and
has extended benefits and created new waivers of taxes on unemployment
benefits through the American Rescue Plan. Industry, state, municipal,
and nonprofit efforts have filled some gaps, but many remain.
CARES Act Unemployment Insurance. In response to the COVID-19
pandemic, Congress has taken various actions, in the CARES Act and in
the American Rescue Plan, to authorizes states to provide additional
weeks of federally funded Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation
(PEUC) benefits to people who exhaust their regular state benefits,
followed by additional weeks of federally funded extended benefits (EB)
in states with high unemployment.
Examples of State, Industry, and Nonprofit Virtual Training
Initiatives. The pandemic has led to several innovative efforts to
provide job training using broadband. In Maine, the Governor signed an
executive order that provided flexibility to the Maine Community
College System to quickly expand online training offered by the Maine
Quality Centers (MQC) Program, in response to workforce demands and
economic effects of COVID-19. MQCs are working closely with workforce
training professionals at all seven of Maine's community colleges
across the state to develop and implement free online training
programs. MQC is coordinating its efforts with the state's Department
of Labor and other workforce agencies for the recruitment and screening
of participants for the new online programs.\48\
In Connecticut, Governor Ned Lamont launched the SkillUp CT
program, a statewide, free online job training program for unemployment
claimants, including those who have been impacted by the economic
fallout of the COVID-19 public health crisis. The program, coordinated
by the Connecticut Workforce Development Council (CWDC) in
collaboration with the Connecticut Governor's Workforce Council (GWC)
and the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL), significantly expands
access to comprehensive online course work from Metrix Learning, a
global provider of web-based learning management systems, for thousands
of Connecticut residents. Eligible Connecticut residents receive e-mail
instructions on obtaining a license to access the Metrix Learning
program, which provides access to about 5,000 online Skillsoft courses
in areas such as information technology, business analysis, customer
service, project management, and digital literacy, among others. The
courses are available to anyone with an Internet connection and a
computer. SkillUp CT also offers training tracks leading to over 100
industry certifications, and will provide career coaching through the
workforce boards.\49\
In 2015, Seattle created a Priority Hire program for city public
works construction projects of $5 million or more and, in 2017,
expanded the program to public/private partnership projects with
significant city investment. Using city-funded and public/private
partnership projects, the Priority Hire Program prioritizes the hiring
of residents that live in economically distressed areas, particularly
in Seattle and King County. In addition, city projects and public/
private partnership projects have apprentice utilization requirements
and aspirational goals for women and people of color.\50\
Each of these initiatives can serve as a model to other states,
Federal agencies, and the private sector in developing and expanding
programs to help train displaced workers in industries that have not
been as significantly impacted or which may be experiencing labor
shortages as a result of COVID-19.
Private companies are also responding to the emergency. Microsoft
is launching a global skills initiative aimed at bringing more digital
skills to 25 million people worldwide by the end of the year. This
initiative will combine existing and new resources from Microsoft, as
well as subsidiaries including LinkedIn and GitHub. It will be grounded
in three areas of activity: (1) the use of data to identify in-demand
jobs and the skills needed to fill them; (2) free access to learning
paths and content to help people develop the skills these positions
require; and (3) low-cost certifications and free job-seeking tools to
help people who develop these skills pursue new jobs.\51\
Comcast has launched the Comcast RISE (Representation, Investment,
Strength, and Empowerment) program to provide support for businesses
owned by Black Americans, Indigenous Americans, and People of
Color.\52\ Qualified small businesses can receive one or more of
several services through Effectv, the advertising sales division of
Comcast, and Comcast Business. These include local marketing
consulting, a 90-day TV media campaign, a 30-second TV commercial, a
``technology makeover'' including computer equipment and Internet,
voice and cybersecurity services for up to a 12-month, and grants of up
to $10,000 for businesses that have been in operations for three to
five years.
Several organizations and companies, including Charter
Communications, Focus on Rural America, Family Business Coalition,
Natural Rural Education Association, League of Rural Voters, and
Schools, Health & Libraries Coalition, have partnered to create the
Connect the Future coalition, focused on quickly connecting millions of
unconnected Americans to high-speed Internet. The coalition plans to
``shine a light on the barriers to Internet access, show the solutions
to expand access to more homes and businesses, and shift the national
conversation to enact those solutions--soon.'' \53\
CompTIA (the Computing Technology Industry Association) is
responding to COVID-19 by conducting live, virtual training for
unemployed and underemployed during the crisis. CompTIA also provides
WIOA-approved training programs.
8.4.3. THE WORKFORCE GAP AND COVID-19'S IMPACT ON PEOPLE OF COLOR, LOW-
INCOME, AND RURAL COMMUNITIES.
Despite these and other programs available across the nation,
closing the workforce gap is complicated by several factors. As
discussed in prior chapters, millions of Americans lack any available
options for broadband service. More have access to broadband but cannot
or choose not to subscribe. For those who are not online, brick-and-
mortar government services designed to assist individuals with signing
up for unemployment benefits or with workforce development programs are
only open in limited capacity or closed for the foreseeable future.\54\
Additional workforce development programs, such as the Registered
Apprenticeship Programs, offered through industry and the U.S.
Department of Labor, include on-the-job learning and Related Technical
Instruction components that are not available online.\55\
The combination of these factors has had a significant impact on
the overall U.S. unemployment rate, with a predictably outsized impact
on communities of color. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
the national unemployment rate for Q3 2020 is 8.9 percent, compared
with 3.7 percent for Q3 2019.\56\ The unemployment rate for whites is
somewhat lower at 7.9 percent, while the rate is several percentage
points higher for Black Americans and Latinxs at 13.2 percent and 11.2
percent, respectively. Further, Black Americans and Latinxs are
disproportionately represented in many of the hardest-hit sectors and
subsectors, as shown in Figure 1.
Communities of color and other marginalized groups, such as low-
income and rural communities, are further harmed by the
disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic itself. According to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), people of color
are at increased risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19 due to
``[inequities] in the social determinants of health, such as poverty
and health care access, [which] are interrelated and influence a wide
range of health and quality-of-life outcomes and risks,'' as well as
``higher rates of some medical conditions that increase one's risk of
severe illness from COVID-19.'' \57\ Further, ``community strategies to
slow the spread of COVID-19 may cause unintentional harm, such as lost
wages, reduced access to services, and increased stress, for some
racial and ethnic minority groups.'' \58\
These groups also disproportionately work in sectors that lack the
ability to work remotely, such as hospitality, food service, and
transportation, and have consequently been hit hardest by COVID-19-
related layoffs. For these populations, leaving their homes to work or
seek employment puts them at much greater risk of contracting, falling
seriously ill, and dying from COVID-19. Further, these populations are
relatively lower-income and face significant financial hardship from
the inability to work, hardships from which they are relatively ill-
positioned to recover.
In this environment, it is essential that these groups have the
tools and resources they need to reskill through virtual online
training programs. Unfortunately, while numerous programs and
initiatives exist, they are largely unavailable online.
8.4.4. IMPACT OF BROADBAND ADOPTION ON WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.
Persons out of work indefinitely should have the opportunity to
enter workforce development programs and reskill. However, as outlined
above, many workforce programs and local job centers are currently
closed, operating at limited capacity, available by appointment only,
or only available by phone or e-mail.\59\ In cases where opportunities
are available virtually, access to online training is difficult or
impossible without home broadband access and without overcoming digital
literacy barriers.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Black Americans, Latinxs, and Tribal
groups historically have adopted broadband at lower rates compared to
white Americans. Rural and low-income Americans face similar
discrepancies. These factors lead to a perpetuating cycle: without
access to meaningful employment, households cannot afford broadband,
and without broadband, they cannot upskill or search for jobs, training
programs, and other opportunities. By establishing online workforce
development and training programs, Federal and state governments can
close the broadband utilization gap, connect underrepresented groups to
employment opportunities, and achieve digital equity and inclusion.
The key challenges to overcome to close the broadband utilization
gap through workforce development in the United States include:
Data Gaps. More data is necessary to identify, predict, and
fill workforce gaps. Additionally, few training programs report
outcomes by race.\60\ These data can have numerous
applications, including improving existing programs, building
out and expanding successful programs, and developing best
practices and standards from existing programs.
Low Federal Investment Where Needed. The Federal government
makes significant investments to harness science and technology
to achieve some goals (national security, health, energy,
space, basic science), but not others (education, workforce
development, economic and social mobility, racial disparities).
Agencies such as HUD, Education, Labor, and the human service
components of HHS have little or no capacity to engage with
researchers and entrepreneurs to develop and deploy
breakthrough applications of technology that would advance
equity and inclusion.\61\
Existing Workforce Development Programs Largely Lack Virtual
Service and Training Support. Existing programs such as
Registered Apprenticeship Programs, Career One-Stops, and other
offerings with classroom instruction components and brick-and-
mortar service locations are largely paused, closed, or open
with limited capacity in the wake of COVID-19.\62\ Prior to
(and following) the pandemic, traveling to these locations
placed burdens on low-income and other disadvantaged groups
that needed additional supportive services such as
transportation and childcare.\63\ Virtual support and training
programs would significantly improve ease of access for the
groups that need them most.
Social Spending Not Currently Organized to Support the
Development of Tech-Enabled Interventions. Currently, funding
for workforce-related and other social spending is generally
provided through a block grant or a formula grant, based on
several factors relating to local unemployment figures, to the
states. While there are policy rationales for allocating funds
in this way, it runs counter to key features of most
technology-driven applications, which are characterized by high
fixed start-up costs and very low marginal costs to train each
additional participant. Under existing formulae for WIOA
funding, for example, state funding allotment can only increase
to 130 percent of prior-year budgets,\64\ which is not enough
to incentivize states to invest in the development of tech-
enabled solutions that scale nationally.
Digital Literacy Gaps. Despite strides to close the
broadband availability, adoption, and affordability gaps, as
well as changing perceptions of the opportunities afforded by
broadband use, many Americans still lack the digital literacy
skills necessary to take advantage of online offerings, as
discussed in greater detail in Chapter Four.
8.6. RECOMMENDATIONS
8.6.1. WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT-RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER CHAPTERS.
There are several workforce-related recommendations in other
chapters that we cross-reference here. These include:
Creating a workforce of ``Digital Navigators'' to assist
individuals and small businesses, particularly in communities
of color and low-income communities, with obtaining digital
readiness and literacy skills, as discussed in Chapter 4;
Creating a broadband benefit for unemployed persons so that
they can get and stay online to train, search, and apply for
jobs, as discussed in Chapter 5;
Creating a workforce of on-line tutors to focus on improving
basic reading and math skills, particularly for students in
communities of color and low-income communities, as discussed
in Chapter 10; and
Engaging in research relating to using AI for job training,
as discussed in Chapter 11.
8.6.2. CONGRESS SHOULD DIRECT FEDERAL AGENCIES TO INCREASE DATA
COLLECTION RELATED TO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.
Congress should direct Federal agencies to increase data
collection, data aggregation, and research on workforce development
program trends and programmatic impacts and successes, with a
particular focus on reporting training program outcomes by race.
We also need to aggregate data on national, state, municipal, and
public-private hybrid workforce programs, focusing on diversity,
placement, virtual training elements, the prevalence and impact of such
programs in growing and shrinking sectors, and other measures of
programmatic impact and success. The data, when gathered, should be
used by Congress and Federal agencies to develop and promote best
practices, guidelines, and standards to build new programs, improve
existing programs, and standardize virtual learning components.
To this end, Congress should pass legislation directing the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, the Department of Labor, and the Small Business
Administration to collect and apply this data. These agencies should
work with State Workforce Agencies, through the National Association of
State Workforce Agencies, to aggregate state-level data, and determine
the factors that make up the most successful programs, particularly
when it comes to diversity and job placement.
8.6.3. CONGRESS SHOULD INCENTIVIZE COMPANIES, STATES, MUNICIPALITIES,
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND HYBRID ENTITIES TO CREATE, BUILD
CAPACITY, AND SCALE NEW WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND DIGITAL
SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAMS.
Armed with the data collected by the BLS, DOL, and SBA, Congress
can assess the funding needs and requirements for successful national,
state, and local programs. Congress should use these data and
recommendations to pass legislation that increases investment in
innovation, including implementing virtual training tools to new and
existing programs, as well as scaling up existing programs.
8.6.3.1. Congress should appropriate funding for the U.S. Department of
Labor to dramatically scale up Registered Apprenticeship
Programs.
The U.S. Department of Labor invests $200 million per year in
Registered Apprenticeship Programs. This represents just 2.1 percent of
the agency's $9.4 billion discretionary budget authority.\65\ Congress
should increase the amount it appropriates to apprenticeship programs.
This increased investment would allow the U.S. Department of Labor to
vastly expand its efforts to improve and modernize training programs;
increase apprenticeship opportunities through partnerships between
companies, community colleges, technical schools, universities,
nonprofit organizations, states, municipalities, and other entities;
and add new, 21st-century components to its Registered Apprenticeship
Programs, including robust online training support.
8.6.3.2. Congress should direct the U.S. Department of Labor to
institute new sectoral training programs.
Congress should establish new sectoral training programs to align
training with local job markets, leverage the community college system,
and, by designing training based on an entire sector, ensure that
workers gain skills that are transferable across employers. This model
already exists in several states and cities, with studies finding that
participants in sectoral programs earned 18 percent more than control
group participants and were more likely to work in jobs that offered
benefits such as health insurance or paid leave, among other
results.\66\ Sectoral training would, in particular, assist low-income
communities and communities of color.
8.6.3.3. Congress should direct the U.S. Department of Labor to
formally implement integrated online training components in
Registered Apprenticeship Programs.
The Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration
has acknowledged the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on RAPs,
which require an individual to be employed while in the program.\67\
Congress should direct the Department of Labor to develop standards and
tools for companies to support online learning options for the Related
Technical Instruction portions of their Registered Apprenticeship
Programs (e.g., any parts of the training that do not require hands-on
training). Additional funding support for the development of online
training components would enable widespread development and adoption of
virtual training programs. Further, the investment would have a
positive ROI, as entities would save on funds currently spent to
provide supportive services such as transportation to training
facilities, freeing up capital to improve the performance and outcomes
of the training programs themselves.
8.6.3.4. Congress should direct WIOA to implement support for virtual
trainings under its core programs Federal funding.
Under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, the
Federal government distributes funding to states for six core programs,
including the U.S. Department of Labor's Adult Services, Dislocated
Workers, and Youth Services programs (for employment and training
activities, including the American Job Center and Career One-Stop
systems); Wagner-Peyser programs (employment services for job seekers);
and the U.S. Department of Education's Division of Adult Education and
Literacy (for basic skills) and its rehabilitation services programs
(for employment services for individuals with disabilities). In 2017,
the Federal government distributed over $7 billion in funding under
WIOA. Congress should direct WIOA to include funding earmarked to
develop and implement virtual training components for each of its core
programs.
In addition, the Department of Labor should call out digital
literacy as a priority activity or otherwise incentivize applicants to
address this issue in their responses to existing Federal discretionary
Solicitations for Grant Applications, such as those for apprenticeship
grants. Further, The Department of Labor should also issue a Training
and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) that clarifies how and when
digital literacy activities can be paid for by WIOA Title I dollars
(e.g., as part of technical training for an Integrated Education and
Training [IET] program)
8.6.3.5. Congress should provide additional funds to State Workforce
Agencies to support the development of state and municipal
efforts and public-private partnerships.
Congress should direct the U.S. Department of Labor to work with
the NASWA and individual State Workforce Agencies to develop public-
private partnerships. There are numerous examples of public-private
partnerships between municipalities, companies, nonprofit
organizations, and other groups that focus on economically depressed
and historically underrepresented and marginalized groups. But these
types of partnerships and programs do not exist in every area.
The U.S. Department of Labor and State Workforce Agencies can use
the best practices and standards developed from the data collection
efforts listed in 8.6.1 to encourage the development and scaling of new
partnerships across additional states and municipalities, which can
learn from and replicate strategies from existing successful programs.
8.6.3.6. The Federal Government should ramp up efforts working with the
private sector to provide apprenticeship opportunities and
other efforts to address the labor shortfall in deploying next
generation broadband networks.
The U.S. currently lacks a sufficiently trained workforce to meet
the demand for deploying 5G and other next generation broadband
networks. As additional Federal investment is introduced to build
broadband networks, it will create more demand on a workforce that is
already under-supplied with the proper skills. Expanding and upskilling
this workforce provides opportunities for diversification so those
building the networks reflects the diversity of broadband consumers.
One way to address this need is through apprenticeships that
provide paid work experience, classroom instruction, and a nationally
recognized credential. The Department of Labor has mechanisms in place
to immediately implement support for employers that seek to diversify
and develop their workforce for deploying broadband networks. According
to the Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA), more than 50,000 new
jobs through 2024 will be in occupations that have existing or planned
apprenticeships--including 5G small-cell technician, tower installers,
supervisors, engineers, project managers, and cybersecurity
professionals. In that light:
Congress should fund the Department of Labor to expand
communications and 5G apprenticeships, directly support
employers to provide apprentices with technical instruction,
fund institutes of higher education to develop programs of
study on broadband and 5G training and build pre-apprentice
solutions.
The FCC should lead an interagency working group that, in
consultation with the Department of Labor (DOL) and other
Federal and non-federal stakeholders, undertakes developing
recommendations to address the workforce needs of the
communications industry.
The FCC, in consultation with DOL, should issue guidance on
how states can address the workforce shortage in the
communications industry by identifying all of the Federal
resources currently available to states for workforce
development efforts.
The Government Accountability Office should conduct a study
to determine the specific number of skilled communications
workers the United States needs to build and maintain broadband
infrastructure, including in rural areas, and the 5G wireless
infrastructure needed to support 5G wireless technology.
As part of this effort the communications industry should
continue in its current efforts to develop partnerships with
institutions of higher education, including Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs) to translate job requirements from
employers during the curriculum development process.
8.6.3.7. Congress should fund public outreach campaigns to publicize
online training programs and initiatives.
One key to closing the broadband utilization gap through workforce
development is ensuring that the general public is aware of these
opportunities. Congress should provide funding, and direct agencies
such as the Department of Labor, Department of Education, Department of
Commerce, and Small Business Administration to launch nationwide
publicity and outreach programs to inform populations on available
programs. Additional funding should also be dispensed to State
Workforce Agencies to publicize programs within their respective
states.
8.6.4. THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS SHOULD EXPAND ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR ENTERPRISES LOCATED IN
RURAL AREAS AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
The White House and Congress should support competitive grants
fueling the private creation of urban and rural business incubators,
technology campuses from dormant industrial sites, and other measures
intended to foster targeted and localized small business growth.\68\
This would help with digital equity and inclusion by expanding the
technical skills of those in communities that to date have been largely
excluded by the changes in technology. For example, one such initiative
could support the development of a national network of small business
incubators and innovation hubs on the grounds of Small Business
Development Centers, public libraries, community colleges, Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs), and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs). Such an
initiative would provide essential support for needed services such as
business coaching, opportunities to partner with national laboratories
and commercialize federally funded research, and legal, human
resources, accounting, regulatory compliance, and information
technology services to aspiring entrepreneurs.
The initiative also would specifically emphasize the importance of
establishing the digital footprint of small businesses and include
coaching and training opportunities for digital engagement with
businesses' communities, jobseekers, and staff. Such an initiative
should direct upskilling resources to small and mid-sized companies,
which are more likely to employ workers with digital skill gaps, and
often the least able to mount ambitious in-house upskilling efforts.
8.6.4.1. The White House should reform the Opportunity Zone program in
order to meet its economic and community development goals.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, the Opportunity Zone program
has largely fallen short of meeting its stated goals, with investors
tending to favor high-return projects such as luxury apartments rather
than efforts focused on economic empowerment, such as affordable
housing and local businesses. We propose several reforms to the
Opportunity Zone program, including:
Incentivizing Opportunity Funds to partner with nonprofit or
community-oriented organizations, and jointly producing a
community-benefit plan for each investment, with a focus on
creating jobs for low-income residents and otherwise providing
a direct financial impact to households within the Opportunity
Zones.
Directing that Opportunity Zone benefits be reviewed by the
Department of Treasury to ensure these tax benefits are only
being allowed where there are clear economic, social, and
environmental benefits to a community, and not just high
returns--like those from luxury apartments or luxury hotels--to
investors.
Introducing transparency by requiring recipients of the
Opportunity Zone tax break to provide detailed reporting and
public disclosure on their Opportunity Zone investments, and
their impact on local residents, including poverty status,
housing affordability, and job creation.
In addition to the emphasis on affordable housing and local
businesses, investors should be encouraged to invest in training
centers that focus on digital skills training and workforce development
programs. These centers can serve as technology hubs in the community
where workforce and business development programs can rent space and
community members can go for digital literacy and workforce development
programs.
These actions, coupled with the research, investment, and online
workforce development program efforts outlined above, could create
opportunities for disenfranchised communities of color in urban and
rural areas.
8.6.4.2. Support Federal Software Preference for Places Left Behind in
the United States.
Congress should incentivize contractors who sell software to the
Federal government to locate part of their workforce in America, and
specifically in rural areas and communities of color. By incentivizing
relocation of work, there could be a move by government contractors to
open software development locations in areas left behind and create
good paying tech jobs.
8.6.5. STATES SHOULD MODERNIZE THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS SYSTEMS, TO
ENABLE THE NEWLY UNEMPLOYED TO ACCESS BENEFITS AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT MORE EFFECTIVELY.
Chapter 12 discusses a number of steps governments should take to
modernize and improve the delivery of general services in ways that
benefit the public, and which would especially benefit persons in low-
income communities and communities of color. Here, we focus on the
specific need to modernize and improve the unemployment benefits
system. A 2020 study by The Century Foundation, National Unemployment
Law Project, and Philadelphia Legal Assistance reported that fewer than
half of states have modernized their unemployment benefits systems.
Many claimants have found systems that were touted as convenient and
accessible to be in actuality challenging and counterintuitive.\69\ We
agree with the study and believe efforts at modernization should
prioritize the following principles:
Unemployed workers should have 24/7 access to online and
mobile services.
Unemployment websites and applications should be optimized
for mobile devices. As discussed throughout this Plan, low-wage
workers and workers of color are particularly likely to rely on
their phones for Internet access.
Call-back and chat technology should be used to deal with
the large surges on incoming calls and be implemented as part
of a permanent solution. Such technology would improve access
while saving money for the government.
All websites and applications should be translated into
Spanish and other commonly spoken languages. Translating online
materials would not only ensure equal access, but also be more
efficient for those needing assistance who may never get
through to a person on the phone or who get stuck on hold for
hours.
8.6.7. CONGRESS SHOULD INCREASE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE DIVERSITY.
As discussed in Chapter Nine on Health Care, greater diversity in
the health care workforce can help address racial and ethnic health
care disparities. Health care professionals who identify as racial or
ethnic minorities are more likely to provide care to lower-income,
minority, and uninsured populations. Only 23 percent of Black
Americans, 26 percent of Latinxs and 39 percent of Asian Americans have
a physician who shares their race or ethnicity, compared to 82 percent
of white Americans. Racial concordance between the health care provider
and patient correlates with improved health outcomes, patient
satisfaction, and communication. It can help overcome harmful racial or
cultural biases in the provision of health care, mistrust of the
medical community, as well as cultural attitudes and beliefs about
health care.
Although the overall health care workforce is becoming more
diverse, the majority of people of color remain in entry-level and
often lower-paying jobs with little opportunity for advancement.
Further, BLS reports that 6 of the 10 fastest-growing occupations are
related to health care,\70\ presenting opportunities for people of
color to seek stable, high-wage jobs in these fields. More investment
in programs that combine social, academic, and financial support are
needed to address the financial challenges, disconnected pipelines,
unclear career pathways, and lack of academic and social supports
hindering workforce diversity.
8.6.7.1. Congress should pass legislation increasing education support
for workforce diversity in health care.
Congress should authorize assistance for increasing workforce
diversity in underrepresented professions (e.g., allied health care
fields including physical and occupational therapy, audiology, and
speech-language pathology). This assistance might take the form of
grants to education programs to provide scholarships, or support for
recruitment and retention efforts for students of color.\71\
8.6.7.2. Congress should increase funding for workforce development of
underrepresented groups in health care.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should increase
funding to support the development, recruitment, and retention of
health care professionals from underrepresented groups. Funding should
augment student training, internships, fellowships, and mentoring
programs, as well as ongoing professional development. HHS should
ensure coordination among efforts across agencies (e.g., HRSA, CDC's
Office of Minority Health and Health Equity (OMHHE), Office of Minority
Health, etc.).
Chapter 9.
HEALTH CARE
``OF ALL THE FORMS OF INEQUALITY, INJUSTICE IN HEALTH IS THE MOST
SHOCKING AND THE MOST INHUMAN''--DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., CHICAGO,
1966
9.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
The failure to achieve digital equity and inclusion drives up
health care costs for all Americans because it deprives the system of
the full cost savings these technologies can generate. It particularly
harms those with lower incomes and communities of color who cannot
receive health care services that are increasingly provided online.
Even when the tools to take advantage of online health care are
available, members of these communities often lack the knowledge and
skills to use them.
Instead of closing gaps in access, quality of care, and patient
experience, ironically, digital technologies are exacerbating long-
standing disparities, resulting in declining health outcomes for at-
risk populations, as well as higher costs systemwide. In part, these
problems are a function of existing regulations, which unintentionally
hinder adoption of online health care services by patients, providers,
and insurers.
9.2. VISION
We need a health care system that empowers everyone to attain their
best possible health outcomes. Every American should be able to get the
right care, at the right time, wherever they are. A zip code should no
longer be a strong predictor of health outcome, as it is today. To do
so, all persons should have access to user-friendly health-enabling
tools and technologies that connect them to high-quality, affordable
health care services and information they can understand.
9.3. GOALS
The key goals for the digital equity and inclusion agenda in health
care are directed at improving health outcomes while lowering costs:
Reduce disparities in access to care, quality of care, and
patient experience.
Ensure all individuals benefit from technology-driven
advances in health technology--including broadband-based
service delivery--independent of race, income level, or
location.
Enable individuals receiving government-supported health
care benefits (including Medicare, Medicaid, and state-level
assistance) to enjoy the benefits of telehealth services to the
same extent as other patients.
Enhance digital health literacy among low-income persons and
persons of color.
Engage in and disseminate evidence-based research on
improving care equity for communities of color.
9.4. CURRENT SITUATION
Low-income communities and communities of color face profound
disparities in health status. They experience higher incidence or
prevalence of disease, earlier onset or faster progression of disease,
poorer daily functioning and quality of life, premature or excessive
mortality, and greater global burden of disease.\72\ In particular,
these communities suffer higher rates of heart disease, high blood
pressure, diabetes, asthma, HIV/AIDS, and infant mortality. Infant
mortality for Black Americans, a key indicator of a population's
health, is almost twice the national average.\73\ (Please see Appendix
9A--Health Disparities). As the National Broadband Plan noted a decade
ago:
A significant problem plaguing the nation's health care system
is the fact that there are health disparities across different
ethnic groups. Black Americans, for example, experience the
highest rates of mortality from heart disease, cancer,
cerebrovascular disease, and HIV/AIDS than any other U.S.
racial or ethnic group. Hispanic Americans are almost twice as
likely as non-Hispanic whites to die from diabetes. Some Asian
Americans experience rates of stomach, liver and cervical
cancers that are well above national averages.' Further
exacerbating this problem, members of ethnic groups are less
likely than whites to have health insurance, have more
difficulty getting health care and have fewer choices in where
to receive care.
Challenges accessing care contribute to these disparities.
Longitudinal research comparing quality measures across racial/ethnic
minorities and lower income groups shows that while overall quality is
improving for these groups, their access is worse and there has been no
progress in lessening disparities.\74\ A study in the greater
Rochester, NY area showed that introducing telehealth to impoverished
inner-city children redressed socioeconomic disparities in acute care
access, thus contributing to a more equitable community.\75\
Broadband has the potential to address many of the key failings of
the health care system that contribute to disparities, including
inadequate access to care, inconsistent quality of care, and variations
in patient experience due to location. Because the Internet is
indifferent to time, distance, location, and technology, it has great
potential to erase many inequities. However, this is only possible if
everyone is connected, and only if the tools for utilizing health care
are usable by everyone, not just the tech savvy. Again, as noted in the
National Broadband Plan, ``Broadband is not a panacea. However, there
is a developing set of broadband-enabled solutions that can play an
important role in the transformation required to address these
issues.''
Internet-based health care delivery is generally referred to as
telehealth. The defining feature of telehealth is that the clinician
and patient are not physically in the same room. Telehealth
technologies today already include live video conferencing, mobile
health (mHealth) apps, text messages, ``store and forward'' electronic
transmission, and Internet-enabled and wearable devices for remote
patient monitoring (RPM) that are used to provide care. The future, no
doubt, will see many more exciting innovations in this area.
Telehealth is not a separate form of health care, but rather a
means for health care professionals to provide care that is more
convenient and less expensive for patients, to connect patients in
rural and urban areas that are underserved in terms of specialists
(such as cardiologists and neonatologists) who would be otherwise
inaccessible, and to engage individuals in managing their health and
wellness. It expands the reach of health care professionals so people
can obtain linguistically and culturally appropriate care. (Please see
Appendix 9B--Benefits of Telehealth).
It is important to recognize that access to and utilization of
telehealth by at-risk communities is a rural and urban issue, not a
rural versus urban solution. However, the Medicare statute, which was
waived during the pandemic, generally restricts telehealth eligibility
to beneficiaries in rural areas. Further, setting up and maintaining
telehealth infrastructure is expensive and most large health systems
that would do so are located in urban areas. The private capital
investment in telehealth infrastructure needed for rural areas is more
likely to be financed if it can be leveraged to also care for local
urban populations who suffer similar access challenges.\76\
Telehealth is proving that it can improve health outcomes. It can
also lower costs. (Please see Appendix 9B--Benefits of Telehealth). But
a lack of digital equity and inclusion is making it more difficult to
achieve potential cost savings in providing health care. The need to
reduce costs is urgent, as the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) projects health costs will grow to a staggering $6 trillion by
2027,\77\ and Medicare's Trustees warn that the Medicare system will go
bankrupt in 2026.\78\
Although comprehensive, population-wide analysis is needed and
should be undertaken by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation
(as recommended and discussed in Chapter 5), there are numerous
examples of Internet-enabled health care lowering costs.
Research shows that telehealth could potentially save
companies more than $6 billion a year, for example, by keeping
employees healthier and more productive.\79\
Goldman Sachs estimates that connected devices could reduce
health costs by $300 billion, by increasing access to
diagnostic treatments, preventative care, and chronic disease
management.\80\
Digital therapeutics, which are technology-based solutions
that have a clinical impact on disease comparable to that of a
drug, have the potential to provide effective, low-cost ways to
prevent and treat chronic diseases and their consequences.\81\
(Please see Appendix 9C--Digital Therapeutics).
One study estimated average savings of $97 to $145 per
patient per month when digital therapeutics were used for type
2 diabetes and hypertension.\82\
For its Diabetes Telehealth Network, Mississippi became the
first state to pay mobile connectivity fees for telehealth and
projected Medicaid savings of $189 million a year.\83\
A more recent study of a tele-video health care program
found that ``the majority of health concerns could be resolved
in a single consultation and new utilization was infrequent.
Synchronous audio-video telemedicine consults resulted in
short-term cost savings by diverting patients from more
expensive care settings,'' with the net cost savings per
telemedicine visit ``calculated to range from $19-$121 per
visit.''
In recognition of the ability to improve outcomes and lower
costs, Kaiser Permanente, one of the Nation's largest not-for-
profit health plans, makes telehealth a key component of its
integrated approach to high-quality care delivery.\84\
Even a decade ago, it was clear that health care provided over
communications technology could help reduce U.S. health care costs. As
the National Broadband Plan noted:
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) coordinates the care
of 32,000 veteran patients with chronic conditions through a
national program called Care Coordination/Home Telehealth
(CCHT). CCHT involves the systematic use of health informatics,
e-care, and disease management technologies to avoid
unnecessary admission to long-term institutional care.
Technologies include videophones, messaging devices, biometric
devices, digital cameras, and remote monitoring devices. CCHT
led to a 25% reduction in the number of bed days of care and a
19% drop in hospital admissions. At $1,600 per patient per
year, it costs far less than the VHA's home-based primary care
services ($13,121 per year) and nursing home care rates
($77,745 on average per patient per year). Based on the VHA's
experience, e-care is an appropriate and cost-effective way to
manage chronic care patients in urban and rural settings. Most
importantly, it enables patients to live independently at home.
In 2012, telehealth services provided to over 150,000 beneficiaries
resulted in average annual savings of $6,500 per patient, which equated
to nearly one billion in annual savings for the VHA.\85\
Although telehealth has been available for decades, the pandemic
has greatly accelerated its adoption across all patient and provider
populations.\86\ The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
reported unprecedented increases in telehealth, with 1.7 million
beneficiaries receiving services in the last week of April, 2020,
versus only 13,000 a week before the pandemic.\87\ Early CMS data show
telehealth to be an effective way for people to access health care
safely during the COVID-19 pandemic, whether it is getting a
prescription refilled, managing chronic conditions, or obtaining mental
health counseling.\88\
However, early signs of disparities in access to care via
telehealth are emerging. COVID-19 both highlighted and added to these
disparities, as the pandemic disproportionately impacts communities of
color. Federal data show that Black American and Latinx individuals are
nearly three times more likely than Whites to contract COVID-19, almost
five times more likely to be hospitalized, and twice as likely to die
from it.\89\ Furthermore, vaccine appointments are largely made online,
leaving persons of color that lack Internet access unable to sign up.
The effects of missing care and having diseases go undiagnosed and/or
untreated since the onset of the pandemic are disproportionately
harming persons of color. According to the CDC, excess deaths increased
nearly 15 percent for Whites, but almost 45 percent for Latinx and over
28 percent for Black populations last year.\90\
Large primary care practices have found that patients identifying
as Non-Hispanic White represent a higher proportion of provider visits
once telehealth was scaled up; whereas, communities of color and those
with a non-English language preference saw decreases in provider
visits.\91\ Similarly, a study in the Journal of the American Medical
Informatics Association shows that Black and Latinx patients in New
York City during the early peak of the crisis had lower odds of using
telehealth instead of the emergency room or an office visit compared to
Whites or Asians.\92\ Another recent study found that 60 percent of
Black and over 70 percent of Hispanic adults age 65+ are incapable, for
different reasons, of conducting video visits.\93\ These trends,
coupled with excess-death data, are concerning as they suggest declines
in primary care, inadequate chronic disease management, and increased
mortality long-term due to lack of detection and treatment among
marginalized populations.
A reliance on digital technology to accomplish essential tasks,
including disseminating health information and monitoring conditions,
as well as communicating with and engaging patients in their health
care, has the unfortunate potential to add to, rather than erase,
current health disparities for patients without access to or the skills
to use these technologies.\94\ COVID-19 has brought new attention to
some of the key challenges to achieving digital equity and inclusion in
health care. These include the availability and adoption of home
broadband (which includes, by definition, reliable and affordable
service) and Internet-enabled devices; eligibility to receive
telehealth services and corresponding reimbursement; limitations in
digital literacy and workforce diversity, which affect interactions
with providers; and limited research and data specific to telehealth
and communities of color.
Further, there are few national standards for telehealth, and
reimbursement for eligible services and type of technology used varies
by state and insurer. These inconsistencies hinder broader telehealth
adoption, especially for Medicaid beneficiaries, the majority of whom
are people of color.
9.6. RECOMMENDATIONS
There are enormous disparities in health and health care.
Telehealth is part of the solution to reduce them, but it can only be
successful if low-income communities and communities of color are
connected, have connected devices, and know how to use them for health
care purposes (e.g., find and download a health care app, log into it
using an e-mail address, and comprehend the language on the screen).
There is a confluence of factors that adds to the urgency of driving
telehealth adoption among communities of color. First, telehealth is
growing and will remain a feature of service delivery even post
pandemic. Second, telehealth is a path for achieving more equitable
health outcomes while still containing costs. The recommendations below
outline steps that Congress and the Administration should take to
advance digital equity and inclusion in health care.
9.6.1. LEVERAGE THE FEDERAL ROLE IN FUNDING HEALTH INSURANCE TO CLOSE
THE HEALTH CARE BROADBAND GAP FOR INDIVIDUALS
As discussed throughout this Chapter, Americans seeking health care
rely increasingly on broadband services for essential services. Some of
that increase is driven by COVID-19. Unfortunately, the benefits of
telehealth have not been experienced by those without access to
broadband, a population group that could most benefit from access to
telehealth. As discussed in Chapter 4, broadband adoption is lowest
among low-income communities and communities of color.
There are many reasons non-adopters would benefit significantly
from telehealth. They are more likely to work in hourly jobs, so saving
the time that would be taken up traveling to and from a doctors' office
results in increased wages. They are less likely to have cars, and
therefore being able to visit with a health care professional without
having to resort to the use of public transportation, which may not be
convenient to the doctors' office, or an expensive taxi ride, is also a
significant benefit. Finally, non-adopters are more likely to lack
affordable childcare, and might otherwise skip or delay necessary
doctor visits if they are unable to access care from their homes.
But without access to broadband, such benefits are unlikely to be
realized. The Federal Health IT Strategic Plan calls for advancing
``equitable access to technology and broadband for individuals,
families, and communities.''95 Policymakers must now proactively
promote and support broadband at home, both to improve health outcomes,
and to achieve needed cost savings for its covered population. As
described in Chapter 5, the way to do so is through the proposed
LifelineMed program, which would mandate that Federal government health
insurance programs support broadband adoption by covered persons who
are not connected and who are below a set income level, ensuring they
have the necessary devices, training, and other tools needed to take
advantage of the full range of expanding telehealth services.
9.6.1.1. Conduct a Large-Scale Study of Paying for Patient
Connectivity.
As the Nation's largest payer, and henceforth beneficiary of
telehealth cost savings, CMS should explore creative approaches to
ensuring communities of color can receive care via telehealth. Either
as a step in designing the LifelineMed program described in Chapter 5,
or in piloting it before a full-scale roll-out, CMS, in conjunction
with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), should create a
scalable demonstration program to test the effect of providing patient
connectivity and corresponding digital health education on health
outcomes and the cost of care for communities of color.
Broadband access has been shown to be a crucial determinant in the
use of digital health tools.\96\ There is also growing consensus that
broadband access is a social determinant of health generally (please
see Appendix 9D--Social Determinants of Health), and disparities in
access should be treated as a public health issue.\97\ As such,
participation in this demonstration program must purposefully target
racial and ethnic minorities. Medicare beneficiaries are approximately
10 percent Black, 9 percent Hispanic, 4 percent Asian/Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander, and less than 1 percent American Indian/Alaskan
Native.\98\ Conversely, nearly 60 percent of Medicaid and half of the
10.9 million dual eligible beneficiaries are from communities of color.
Aligned incentives, particularly the accrual of financial benefits
to the payer, contribute to the feasibility and success of the VHA
program. The demonstration program needs to recognize that the
telehealth experience in fee-for-service may vary from that of
alternative payment models, in which added incentive payments are given
for providing high-quality and cost-efficient care. Program findings
may help accelerate the transition to value-based care.
Such a program would require case management workers and
coordinators to ensure that participating individuals receive the
necessary education and support to take full advantage of telehealth. A
large component of their role would be providing technical assistance
and digital health literacy tools.
9.6.2. REMOVE REGULATORY OBSTACLES TO FULL TELEHEALTH EQUITY AND
INCLUSION
Numerous existing policies and regulations unintentionally hinder
telehealth equity and inclusion. We have the opportunity to elevate
equity and inclusion as priorities in policymaking and revisit
decisions ranging from funding and administration to reimbursement and
eligibility through this lens.
9.6.2.1. Fund Broadband Networks for Eligible Health Care Providers and
Ensure Programs are Accessible to Those Serving Communities of
Color.
As discussed in Chapter 3, Congress should provide robust funding
to close the Availability Gap, making it possible for telehealth
services to be utilized nationwide. Many of the health centers, clinics
and long-term care facilities that serve communities of color do not
have adequate and/or affordable broadband connectivity to serve those
populations. We should ensure that all such providers are able to offer
a full spectrum of telehealth services. One way to do so would be to
build on the FCC effort to help rural health care providers by
broadening support to include non-rural providers and certain for-
profit entities (which are currently excluded as the Communications Act
limits eligibility to public or nonprofit entities) that cannot afford
adequate broadband services to serve their populations. Results of the
FCC's Connected Care Pilot Program (discussed below), which is open to
non-rural clinics, should inform policy decisions. In allocating funds
for underserved areas, the FCC should consider eligibility measures
that focus on economically depressed areas, instead of population
density alone.
The FCC, in conjunction with USAC, should review administration of
the Rural Health Care Program and health care pilot programs, and make
any modifications necessary to ensure that those who stand to benefit
most from funding programs are able to use them. They should assess the
complexity of application processes, ease of navigating online systems,
speed and duration of processes, ability to meet application
requirements (e.g., procuring competitive bids), etc. The FCC should
aim to simplify and streamline administrative aspects and reduce
uncertainty (for example, surrounding subsidy amounts from year-to-
year). The FCC should ensure USAC has adequate internal health care
expertise to effectively manage infrastructure deployment and subsidy
programs serving the health care industry.
9.6.2.2. Drive Consistency Across Medicaid Programs to Reduce
Disparities in Access.
State laws, regulations and Medicaid program policies differ
significantly. Telehealth policy on Medicaid reimbursement, private
payer reimbursement laws, coverage parity, payment parity, covered
modalities (e.g., audiovisual, audio only, store and forward, remote
patient monitoring), establishing clinician-patient relationships, and
professional requirements around interstate licensing compacts and
informed consent also varies by state. For example, only 23 states
reimburse for remote patient monitoring, and only 19 allow service to a
patient's home under certain circumstances. Some laws require
reimbursement be equal to in-person coverage, while others only require
parity in covered services. And some states require in-person visits
before telehealth can be used.\99\ This creates a complex
administrative landscape for health care providers to navigate,
diminishes access to care, and reinforces disparities in health care
and health outcomes. Some of these disparities among states are
exacerbated by differences in Medicaid expansion, with state borders
creating Medicaid haves and have-nots. HHS should work with state
legislatures and the National Governors Association to increase
consistency across Medicaid programs and ensure that state-based
policies do not unintentionally discriminate against communities of
color in accessing telehealth services.
9.6.2.3. Remove Geographic and Originating Site Restrictions.
The ability to connect clinicians and patients without regard to
their respective locations is one of the most compelling benefits of
telehealth.\100\ Current Medicare rules generally allow telehealth
services only for beneficiaries in rural areas and specify the type of
facility (known as originating site) where a patient must be located at
the time of service. An unintended consequence of these geographic and
originating site restrictions is the exclusion of the majority of
members of communities of color from using telehealth, as these
individuals live predominantly in non-rural areas.\101\ This can hinder
linguistically and culturally appropriate access to mental health,
specialty, and general care. Congress should remove both geographic
restrictions on where a patient must be located to utilize telehealth
services and originating site restrictions that limit access from home
and other locations. The latter is particularly important for rural and
Tribal residents who will rely increasing on telehealth to access
health care services.
9.6.2.4. Remove Limitations on Eligible Providers and Services.
Congress should remove the remaining statutory restrictions on
practitioners eligible to provide services via telehealth, including
licensed respiratory therapists, physical therapists, occupational
therapists, and speech language pathologists, and allow these
practitioners to provide telehealth services from their homes without
updating their Medicare enrollment.
9.6.2.5. Remove Limitations on FQHCs and RHCs.
Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Rural Health Clinics
(RHCs) serve highly vulnerable populations. Prior to the pandemic,
FQHCs and RHCs were not eligible to furnish ``distant site'' (where the
physician is located) telehealth services. Given the increasingly
important role of telehealth in supporting low-income communities and
communities of color, Congress should permanently authorize FQHCs and
RHCs to provide distant site telehealth services.
9.6.2.6. Adjust State Licensure Requirements to Enable Greater Access
to Care.
State laws vary, and clinicians may not be able to treat patients
across state lines, thereby hindering access to care. Notably, the VA
telehealth program enables VA practitioners to treat veterans no matter
where the veteran or physician are located.\102\ Progress is being made
through the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an agreement among
states (currently 29 and the District of Columbia) \103\ to streamline
the licensing process for physicians who want to practice in multiple
states, the Nurse Licensure Compact, the Psychology Interjurisdictional
Compact (PSYPACT), and a handful of reciprocity arrangements. CMS
should work with the Federation of State Medical Boards, the National
Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures
to ensure that Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries are not
denied the benefits of telehealth because of the state in which they
reside.
9.6.2.7. Augment Organizational Resources to Reflect Equity and
Inclusion Concerns Beyond Rural.
Recognizing that telehealth is a vital aspect of health care
delivery, and that its application and current limits are not limited
to rural areas, the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth (OAT)
should be elevated within the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA.) Rather than house OAT under the Federal Office
of Rural Health Policy (FORHP), OAT should be on par organizationally.
It would then more easily coordinate with both FORHP and the Office of
Health Equity (OHE), as well as other agencies.
9.6.3. LEVERAGE FCC CONNECTED CARE PILOT PROGRAM TO BROADEN IMPACT ON
LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
The current FCC pilot program makes available up to $100 million
over three years to support the provision of telehealth, in particular
to low-income individuals and veterans. It differs from the current
Rural Health Care Program in two important aspects: (1) it is open to
eligible health care providers in non-rural areas and, (2) it allows
funding for patient connectivity. Like the FCC COVID-19 Telehealth
Program (please see below), this presents an opportunity to address
broadband affordability, a major telehealth barrier for communities of
color.
The FCC should work with the HRSA to solicit applications from
appropriate non-rural providers (especially those unfamiliar with FCC
programs) and assist them with the application process. The FCC should
prioritize selection of eligible health care providers that serve low-
income communities of color and request support for patient
connectivity. The FCC should coordinate with CMS to (1) ensure that
patients covered by the pilot are deemed eligible for telehealth
services, and (2) evaluate the pilot results. The FCC and CMS should
analyze the effects of providing patient connectivity on the provision
of care (including types of services, providers, modalities, and
locations), total cost of care (including savings and avoided costs),
and health outcomes. The learnings from this pilot could substantively
inform future policy recommendations for ensuring low-income
communities and communities of color benefit from telehealth.
9.6.4. GENERATE TELEHEALTH RESEARCH & DATA SPECIFIC TO COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR.
An important objective in the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan is
to support research and analysis using health IT and data at the
individual and population levels. It calls for research conducted to
reflect the Nation's diversity so that findings can be applied across
populations. For too long, racial and ethnic minorities have been
underrepresented in clinical research. There needs to be prospective
research focused on the potential of and limitations to telehealth in
improving care equity for communities of color. Collecting and
reporting accurate race, ethnicity, and language (REAL) data is
essential to advancing granular understanding of the impact of
telehealth on communities of color. Data capture must be emphasized at
the point of care and electronic health records updated accordingly.
9.6.4.1. Evaluate FCC COVID-19 Telehealth Program with Specific Focus
on Impact on and Lessons for Communities of Color.
The FCC should conduct an ongoing assessment of and reporting on
the results of the COVID-19 Telehealth Program. Understanding the
composition of funding recipients, how recipients used the funds, and
the corresponding outcomes on populations served, will inform future
policies. As this program includes funding for patient connectivity and
devices necessary to provide telehealth services, evaluation findings
will be useful in designing future program parameters. In the interests
of promoting digital equity and inclusion, the FCC should seek a
granular understanding of the populations served via telehealth and the
health impact on end-user beneficiaries. The FCC should also evaluate
the operational aspects of the program and apply those learnings to
other programs as appropriate. For example, factors that may have
simplified and/or streamlined the application process, reduced
processing timelines, aided prospective awardees in navigating the
system, helped target specific populations, etc.
9.6.4.2. Evaluate COVID-19 Telehealth Experience with Specific Focus on
Communities of Color.
In light of the increase in telehealth usage stimulated by COVID-
19, HHS should specifically collect and analyze data on telehealth and
communities of color. Evaluation of utilization, outcomes, cost,
patient/provider satisfaction, and other data, would help build an
evidence base. Analyses should inform the work of several agencies
within HHS, including CDC, CMS, HRSA, NIMHD (National Institute on
Minority Health and Health Disparities), and AHRQ (Agency for Health
care Research and Quality), as well as the VHA.
9.6.5. FUND TELEHEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WITH THE
STRATEGIC INTENT OF REDUCING DISPARITIES.
Congress should provide funding to HHS for telehealth
infrastructure and technical assistance. Funds would support clinician
training in technologies, investment in telehealth infrastructure, and
development of tools and resources to improve health-related digital
literacy.
HRSA, specifically, should receive increased funding for the
existing 12 Regional and two National Telehealth Resource Centers
(TRCs), which provide real-time assistance to states, providers, and
communities. TRC funding stands at $29 million a year and has seen
relatively modest increases over the last decade, despite explosive
growth in telehealth. Increasing the budget to $50 million a year would
improve TRC's ability to support members of communities of color in
benefiting from telehealth.
9.6.6. ENHANCE DIGITAL HEALTH LITERACY.
As discussed in Chapter 4, digital readiness is a major barrier to
broadband adoption and the need to improve digital literacy is urgent.
In the health care context, lacking digital health literacy can
adversely impact health outcomes. For example, many elderly persons of
color, who are at greatest risk for COVID-19, are unable to sign up for
vaccines without help from family or friends. The Federal government
states that ``improving access to electronic health information--
especially for populations in rural areas, persons with disabilities,
racial and ethnic minorities, and those with low socioeconomic status--
should be prioritized if we are to achieve equitable care outcomes for
all. In addition, patients and caregivers should have access to
resources that allow for improved health IT literacy so they understand
how their health data may be used, how to choose safe and secure health
apps, and how to set their privacy preferences.'' Digital health
literacy requires: (1) basic reading and writing skills; (2) working
knowledge of using smartphones, laptops, computers, and other Internet-
enabled devices; and (3) an understanding of how, why, and when online
health information is created, shared, and received.\104\ These skills
are applied when using tools such as health apps, live video consults,
online patient portals, and remote monitoring devices. Without these
skills, low-income communities and communities of color will be unable
to take advantage of telehealth. The Office of the National Coordinator
for Health IT, in conjunction with the Federal organizations that
contributed to the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan and the proposed
Office of Digital Equity, should ensure that its objective to improve
individual access, particularly for those in low-income communities and
communities of color, to usable health information is met.
9.6.6.1. Increase Support for Practitioners Promoting Digital Health
Literacy to Their Patients.
HHS should support practitioners at the point of care in promoting
digital health literacy.
First, HHS should work with organizations and professionals to make
the health information and services that they provide more
understandable and actionable and help develop education and training
to teach patients digital skills to conduct video visits and navigate
apps and portals. Second, HHS should collaborate with adult basic
education programs to simultaneously meet the goals of providing
relevant instruction while offering adult learners the chance to
improve their health outcomes by building their digital health
literacy. Third, HHS should increase the dissemination and use of
evidence-based health literacy practices and interventions. Leveraging
community health workers, faith-based organizations and schools can
help reach those individuals most in need.
9.6.7. INCREASE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE DIVERSITY TO IMPROVE ACCESS,
QUALITY AND PATIENT EXPERIENCE FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
Greater diversity in the health care workforce can help address
racial and ethnic health care disparities. Health care professionals
who identify as racial or ethnic minorities are more likely to provide
care to lower-income, minority and uninsured populations.\105\ Only 23
percent of Black Americans, 26 percent of Latinxs and 39 percent of
Asian Americans have a physician that shares their race or ethnicity,
compared to 82 percent of White Americans.\106\ Racial concordance
between the health care provider and patient correlates with improved
health outcomes, patient satisfaction and communication.\107\ It can
also help overcome harmful racial or cultural biases in the provision
of health care, mistrust of the medical community, as well as cultural
attitudes and beliefs about health care. Although the overall health
care workforce is becoming more diverse, the majority of people of
color remain in entry-level and often lower-paying jobs with little
opportunity for advancement.\108\ As discussed in greater detail in
Chapter 8 on Workforce Development, Congress needs to appropriate more
funds for programs that combine social, academic and financial support
to address the financial challenges, disconnected pipelines and unclear
career pathways, and lack of academic and social supports hindering
workforce diversity. A lack of workforce diversity should not be
allowed to persist as a barrier to communities of color benefiting from
telehealth.
9.6.7.1. Pass Legislation Increasing Education Support for Workforce
Diversity in Health Care.
Congress should pass legislation, such as that proposed to
authorize assistance for increasing workforce diversity in
underrepresented professions (e.g., allied health care fields including
physical and occupational therapy, audiology, and speech-language
pathology). This assistance might take the form of grants to education
programs to provide scholarships or support recruitment and retention
efforts for students of color. As allied health services are
increasingly provided online, it is important that individuals be able
to receive linguistically and culturally appropriate care.
9.6.7.2. Increase Funding for Workforce Development of Underrepresented
Groups in Health Care.
HHS should increase funding to support the development,
recruitment, and retention of health care professionals from
underrepresented groups. Funding should augment student training,
internship, fellowship, and mentoring programs, as well as ongoing
professional development. HHS should ensure coordination among efforts
across agencies (e.g., HRSA, CDC's Office of Minority Health and Health
Equity (OMHHE), Office of Minority Health, etc.).
HRSA should receive increased funding for programs within the
Bureau of Health Workforce that advance diversity among health
professions. These include the Centers of Excellence (COE) Program,
Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students (SDS) Program, Area Health
Education Centers (AHEC) Program, and National Health Careers
Opportunity Program (HCOP) Academies. FY 2020 funding for these
programs stands at $131.4 million; the President's FY 2021 budget
proposes continued funding only for the COE ($23.7 million a year). The
Bureau of Health Workforce should help further develop professional
pathways for entry-level health professionals to advance in their
careers and explore the impact of recruiting and hiring diverse faculty
in higher education.
Chapter 10.
REIMAGINING CONNECTED EDUCATION
``IT IS REQUIRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OUR MOST BASIC PUBLIC
RESPONSIBILITIES, EVEN SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES. IT IS THE VERY
FOUNDATION OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP. TODAY IT IS A PRINCIPAL INSTRUMENT IN
AWAKENING THE CHILD TO CULTURAL VALUES, IN PREPARING HIM FOR LATER
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING, AND IN HELPING HIM TO ADJUST NORMALLY TO HIS
ENVIRONMENT. IN THESE DAYS, IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT ANY CHILD MAY
REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO SUCCEED IN LIFE IF HE IS DENIED THE
OPPORTUNITY OF AN EDUCATION. SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY, WHERE THE STATE HAS
UNDERTAKEN TO PROVIDE IT, IS A RIGHT WHICH MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE TO
ALL ON EQUAL TERMS.''--BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
10.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Almost seventy years after the Brown v. Board of Education
decision, America still does not provide all children with an equal
opportunity to receive a high-quality education. Disparate educations
lead to disparate achievements and opportunities to become fully
engaged, active, and successful citizens.
Since the beginnings of public education, the level of investment
made for each individual student has depended primarily on their zip
code. Today, districts serving the greatest proportion of students of
color spend $1,800 less per student than districts serving the fewest
students of color.\109\ This disparity in funding creates a vicious
cycle of disparity in opportunity. Under-resourced, low-income school
districts are unable to attract and retain well-qualified teachers,
provide rigorous curricula and assessments, or meet even basic needs
such as safe and adequate facilities. Investments in state-of-the art
technology solutions are even more unlikely.
Yet, for students in these districts, digital technology offers a
tremendous opportunity to break free of barriers imposed by traditional
models of instruction, where teaching was confined to the four walls of
a classroom.
Unfortunately for many students, the opportunities offered by
technologies including the World Wide Web and video conferencing, let
alone self-paced learning tools with adaptive algorithms, digital
curricula and classroom materials, and augmented and virtual reality,
are little more than additional opportunities that remain out of reach.
Education Superhighway estimates that 9.7million K-12 students do not
have reliable Internet at home. Students who lack home Internet risk
falling behind, as well as being unable to learn the technology skills
that are needed for many jobs.
This digital education gap has long been referred to, somewhat
inaccurately, as the ``homework gap.'' But the problem goes far beyond
an inability for some students to complete assignments that require
broadband service at home, forcing them to use libraries and other
public buildings or even fast-food parking lots to connect to free Wi-
Fi networks, often with inadequate devices such as smartphones. As
digital tools have become more deeply embedded in the education
process, the homework gap has continued to increase, and now extends
far beyond homework to every facet of learning.
The COVID-19 pandemic has turned the ``homework gap'' into a full-
fledged classroom gap for students systemwide, as many schools are
forced to offer virtual-only learning. Computing devices and broadband
service instantly mutated from helpful learning tools to necessities,
essential for all in and out of classroom and school related learning.
And while some schools are returning to more normal classrooms, most
are still using virtual mechanisms in a hybrid manner. There is no
certainty as to how long this will last or whether other health
situations will cause a similar shut down of physical classrooms.
Digital inequity and exclusion in education, moreover, does not
just manifest itself solely through lack of broadband services and
devices in the home. We also see it in digital literacy skill gaps; the
inability of curricula authors to keep up with evolving technologies; a
dearth of research and development, leading to curricula which itself
enables increased digital inequity and exclusion, a lack of access to
respectful and culturally responsive content; the lack of evolving
teacher training and support; the challenges faced by working parents
(particularly in sectors not conducive to telecommuting) in supervising
and assisting their kids' remote learning throughout the school day;
and the absence of a coherent strategy across all levels of education
to address these issues.
10.2. VISION
We should develop a new educational infrastructure that supports
all students, that provides equitable access to the tools and content
of fast-evolving digital learning, that uses those tools to assist them
wherever they are developmentally and personally, that accelerates and
supports them to learn in ways that represent their diverse needs and
at a depth of mastery that is required to succeed in the modern
economic and social context, that provides teachers the support they
need to enable students to maximize the use of digital content, and
provides a future where the vast expanse of opportunities available are
truly open to all students.
10.3. GOALS
1. By the end of 2023, every K-12 student and teacher in America
should have broadband service at home, Internet-connected
devices that support basic and advanced learning applications,
and the offline support they need to engage securely in
effective remote or online learning.
2. All policymakers should fully embrace education as a national
strategic priority and fund a robust research and development
agenda focused on advancing models of digital teaching and
learning to promote equity, and advance outcomes for all
students.
3. Governments at the federal, state, and local levels should
provide funding sufficient for adequate and equitable education
outcomes, ensuring that the most vulnerable students have
access to the resources they need for digital learning.
4. By the end of 2024, every K-12 student in America should have
access to culturally responsive and relevant curricula for
their core subjects in a form usable for online learning.
5. By the end of 2023, every K-12 teacher should have the tools,
training, infrastructure, resources, and support they need to
deliver effective online or remote learning experiences for
their students.
6. Federal and state education agencies should employ executive
level technology leaders (CTO/CIO) to advance policy and program
initiatives designed to unlock the value of technology safely and
securely and infrastructure.
All students have valuable and unique perspectives, skills, and
knowledge, as well as an innate drive to learn more, gain greater
expertise, and contribute to a future where the full range of
opportunities are truly available to them. Yet not all students are
given equal opportunities and support to develop themselves in these
ways.
Inequities in education continue to create a gap between students
in well-funded, well-supported public and private educational systems,
and those students who attend schools that are poorly funded and
inadequately organized. The gap in funding and organization in
educational systems correlates strongly along racial, ethnic, and
income lines. These long-standing problems are much broader than the
issues of educational technology and infrastructure, but gaps in
education technology are accelerating the growth of an increasingly
steep divide for students of color and/or poverty.
Despite valiant efforts to address achievement gaps in public
education over several decades, the pattern of disproportionality in
academic achievement and attainment remains stubbornly resistant to
correction. Students of color read on average at 2 to 3 grade levels
below their white peers. They drop out of high school at twice the rate
and are four times more likely to attend a low performing school.
Poverty accounts for some of this difference, but not all. Only in
the last 20 years have researchers begun to understand the many factors
contributing to these gaps. They have found that students of color are
significantly more likely to be:
Learning in a significantly under-resourced school.
Taught by underprepared teachers.
Enrolled in a school with few, if any, rigorous courses like
Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate.
Taught by adults who are teaching across cultural divides,
with little understanding or appreciation for the culture of
the students they serve.
Disciplined, even suspended, for minor infractions that
would not lead to a similar response if the student were white.
The combination of these and related factors result in a school
system that, by default, rations the quality of education to students
of color and other minorities. That rationing has only been increasing
during the COVID-19 crisis.
The COVID-19 crisis has made abundantly clear that few if any
American schools were prepared for a sudden transition to online
learning.\110\ In a May 2020 survey, more than 70 percent of teachers
did not feel their schools were prepared for the pandemic. Students
also lacked the digital literacy needed for the transition to remote
learning.
That lack of preparation made life more difficult for almost
everyone involved in the educational ecosystem--students, parents,
teachers, administrators, vendors, and others have all been scrambling
to catch up and adapt to the new normal, with little time or
opportunity to figure out the best approach. An April 2020 survey of
over 5,600 teaching professionals from across the United States found
that 55 percent of teachers said that less than half of their students
were attending remote classes. Thirty-four percent of respondents
reported that only 25 percent of their students or fewer were attending
remote classes.\111\
The most vulnerable students have clearly suffered the most. More
affluent learners with home broadband, digital devices, and support
have been afforded alternative opportunities and choice. Students
without access to these resources, whether through a lack of
connectivity or lack of tools/resources or devices, are either denied
learning or have to do additional work just to gain their previous
level of access, introducing additional barriers that set them further
back in their learning. Furthermore, the parents of Black and Hispanic
students are less likely to work jobs that allow for telecommuting, and
so are less likely to be present at home to assist their kids with
remote learning throughout the school day.
When mandatory COVID-19-driven remote learning is lifted, schools
are likely to continue relying on technology and digital forms of
learning to a much greater degree than ever before. Having seen the
potential of technology-supported learning in a crisis, learning will
never go back to exclusively happening within school walls for most
students. Additionally, since technology and digital learning are
constantly evolving, inequities for lower income communities, Black,
indigenous, people of color (BIPOC), English learners (ELs), and
students with special needs will become increasingly pronounced.
The global pandemic has uncovered how unprepared educational
systems nationwide were to respond to evolving and quickly changing
situations. So, we must also focus on reorganizing education systems at
all levels to ensure that they can evolve with and achieve maximum
benefit from continued improvements in technology, including analysis
of costs and benefits to allocate resources where they are most needed.
The risk in not evolving is that the system will continue to enable
those who already have access and will further exclude those who do
not, ensuring that they will be left further behind.
10.5. KEY CHALLENGES TO OVERCOME
The key challenges to overcome to create a more equitable and
inclusive digital learning environment in the United States include:
Funding for connections, devices, and support, both in
schools and at home, is inadequate, especially for schools and
students with the greatest need.
Lack of a holistic long-term national strategy to use
technology to enhance educational outcomes in an equitable and
inclusive manner.
Pervasive systemic and structural racism that impedes
equitable distribution of resources to educational systems that
enable them to provide a high-quality education to communities
of color and poverty. These include:
Local funding disparities.
Structurally enforced biases.
Market incentives against creating solutions for all
students.
Learning content is not designed for diverse learners, and
when developed with public funds, is not released or shared
freely often enough.
Training for LEAs, teachers, students, and families around
online learning is often ineffective or unavailable.
Technical standards and platforms do not do enough to enable
and secure data privacy, security, or interoperability of
learning systems and data.
10.6. RECOMMENDATIONS
To overcome these challenges and to meet our goals, students,
educators, and families first need to be connected to broadband
services and have access to devices for learning in and out of the
classroom. We must invest in a national research and development agenda
to learn and act on solutions that create measurably more equitable and
inclusive digital learning for the most vulnerable populations of
students. These solutions should be shared and implemented with funding
assistance as needed so that students, educators, and families will
have ongoing and evolving access to improved content, aligned tools,
and more comprehensive support. Additionally, all solutions should be
implemented in a way that appropriate and actionable data are gathered
to inform additional research and development activities and that the
privacy and security of students, educators, and families are
guaranteed.
10.6.1. PROVIDE FEDERAL FUNDING TO ASSURE THAT ALL K-12 STUDENTS AND
TEACHERS HAVE THE CONNECTIVITY AND DEVICES THEY NEED TO
CONTINUE LEARNING OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM.
As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5, the Federal government
has long-supported local schools in situations where it is clear that a
Federal commitment is necessary to create a more equitable and
inclusive education system. That is at the heart of U.S. Department of
Education's programs that provide funds to elementary and secondary
school with economically disadvantaged students (the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA or ``Title I'') and to support children
with disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)).
The same principle should be applied to the increasing importance of
digital learning and assuring that all students have access to that
learning platform. In that light, Congress should fund the LifelineEd
program described in Chapter 5 to guarantee that every K-12 student and
teacher, regardless of their financial circumstances, has access to
broadband and Internet connected devices needed for basic and advanced
schoolwork and teaching.
10.6.2. REVISE FUNDING SYSTEMS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE AND EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT WILL ADVANCE
DIGITAL LEARNING.
Ensuring equal access to education is at the core of the Department
of Education's mission, and has been since the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The ESEA has been amended and
reauthorized many times, but with every iteration, Title I, the section
that earmarks Federal funding for poor children, remains at the heart
of the legislation and accounts for the lion's share of the funds
authorized under the Act.\112\ When President Johnson signed ESEA,
along with several other complementary measures such as the Head Start
and the Higher Education Act, he hoped, ``to bridge the gap between
helplessness and hope for more than 5 million educationally deprived
children.'' \113\
Johnson's vision has yet to materialize for many reasons, including
lack of commitment to policy choices outside the sphere of education
that were meant to complement ESEA. Funding problems, some associated
directly with ESEA and its progeny, are chief among them. Overall,
school districts that serve predominantly nonwhite students receive $23
billion less per year than school districts with predominantly white
student bodies based on the total amount of funding per student from
Federal and local funding sources.\114\ While the challenges facing
educators have only increased since the great recession, Federal
support has not kept pace. Authorized funding for Title I, Part A
programs has decreased from $26 billion in 2002 to $16.3 billion for
the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2020.\115\ These funds are
distributed through four separate programs, and inefficiencies and poor
design result in drastically more money going to help rich school
districts or kids not living in poverty, rather than focusing
investments on the students the program was intended to help in the
first place.
Not only is money failing to reach the poorest districts or helping
the poorest children in those districts, but it is also not necessarily
being spent effectively or strategically. Those districts most in need
and most severely underfunded may have to spend all their funding
solely on teacher salaries or basic needs like textbooks, rather than
being able to invest in digital learning resources or methods,
innovative curricula, or other improvements that may be considered
luxuries rather than necessities when operating on shoe-string budgets
heavily dependent on local tax revenue, especially in times of severe
economic downturns.
10.6.2.1. Target funding on areas of need based on quantifiable
technology deficits.
To advance the use of digital learning to further equitable
outcomes, Congress should appropriate additional Title I funding in the
form of formula grants targeted for school districts in areas with
quantifiable technology deficits. Areas with the highest barriers to
online learning will need more funding, so additional appropriations
should be based on criteria associated with computer ownership, home
Internet adoption and affordability, etc. This funding should be in
addition to any funding associated with ensuring students and teachers
have home broadband connections and appropriate devices (Recommendation
10.6.1.1), because areas with quantifiable technology deficits are
likely to face serious challenges in taking advantage of digital
learning. Use of funds should be flexible, so long as funding is used
to promote online learning.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Education should:
Require states to produce Ed Tech plans to access Federal
funding/technical assistance, even for non-technology related
funding streams;
Ensure solutions focused on cultural and linguistic equity
also consider students with special needs and vice versa; and
Require procurement processes to identify open-source
solutions, where possible, before opening procurement to
proprietary alternatives (similar to the Department of
Defense's policy on open source procurement).
10.6.3. INVEST IN A ROBUST FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R&D)
AGENDA FOCUSED ON ADVANCING MODELS OF TECHNOLOGY-EMPOWERED
TEACHING AND LEARNING THAT PROMOTE EQUITY AND ADVANCE OUTCOMES
FOR ALL STUDENTS.
Though not a cabinet level agency until 1980, the Federal
Department of Education's goal of helping states establish effective
school systems by collecting information on schools and teaching has
been a core part of its mission since the first incarnation of the
Department in 1867.
That mission took on heightened significance in 1958, when Congress
passed the first comprehensive Federal education legislation, the
National Defense Education Act, in response to the Cold War.\116\ In
doing so, Congress explicitly recognized the vital role that education
plays in national defense and in global competitiveness. The mission
evolved further during the 1960s with the passage of civil rights
legislation that expanded the role of the Department of Education to
ensure all students had equal access to education.
Despite the critical significance of education and the persistent
inequality, however, the U.S. has never invested meaningfully in a
holistic national strategy or in R&D efforts aimed specifically at
improving educational outcomes and increasing equity the way that it
has invested in other national strategic priorities.
The result is an extremely fragmented and ad-hoc approach to
advancing digital learning across the country. While state education
agencies have made some progress in adopting digital learning tools, as
evidenced by posted state-level education technology plans and the
presence of digital literacy guidelines or standards in most states,
there is still a fundamental disconnect between the plans and the
equitable use of technology envisioned in this chapter. Evidence also
suggests that even though states are investing in new technologies,
they aren't necessarily investing wisely or efficiently. Roughly 14,000
school districts across the country spend more than $13.2 billion on
over 6,000 ed-tech tools each year, but surveys suggest that only 15
percent is spent on tools that are a good fit and implemented
correctly.\117\
Several independent groups like Ed Tech Evidence Exchange or
Learning Policy Institute are stepping in, with philanthropic or
nominal government support, to provide guidance or highlight best
practices for certain aspects of advancing schools' use of ed-tech
tools or strategies. But they cannot compensate for the lack of a
national, coordinated effort that can:
Shape policy more directly, including by working with other
parts of government;
Ensure diverse voices are involved in both shaping and
implementing policies;
Make large scale strategic investments; and
Effectively share information at scale
To address chronic underinvestment at the national level, there
should be a comprehensive National Educational Technology and R&D
Strategic Plan, focused on ensuring efforts across all levels of
government are complementary and on technological breakthroughs that
have the power to transform education and promote equity.
10.6.3.1. The Department of Education should increase its in-house
technical expertise and encourage state and local education
agencies to do the same.
The U.S. Department of Education should create a CTO role,
reporting to the Secretary, to work alongside the Education Technology
Director, to advance policy and program initiatives around technology
infrastructure, such as broadband access, device utilization,
information security, data privacy, and data and systems
interoperability.
Congress and the Department of Education should incentivize states
and districts to create education specific CIO/CTO roles to develop
strategy and coherent systems for equitable and inclusive technology
access, adoption, and systems innovation, in addition to Education
Technology Directors to set policies to increase utilization.
10.6.3.2. Develop a National Strategic Plan for Education Technology
Research & Development.
The U.S. Department of Education should:
Oversee the creation of a strategic plan for education
technology research and development, and work closely with key
partners to ensure that equity remains a central theme of that
plan. The Department should seek input from the White House
Initiative on Educational Excellence for Black Americans, the
White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Latinxs,
the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaskan
Native Education, state and local leaders, and interested
members of the public. In developing the strategic plan, the
Department of Education may also consider input from other
Federal partners, such as Institute of Education Sciences,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, National
Institutes of Health, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, who may
have overlapping areas of interest, as well as private
industry.
Establish the plan's research agenda by identifying
priorities coordinated across all areas of Federal education
technology R&D investments, particularly in the areas of basic
and applied research, and directed development efforts focused
on specific problems and needs in K-12 education. The plan
should also include estimated levels of investment, a
description of the mechanisms that will be used to implement
and oversee the recommended portfolio of R&D initiatives, and
an explanation for how the proposed initiatives will advance
equity.
As part of the implementation of the plan, research and
promote innovations across the spectrum of digital and
equitable learning needs including content, features, tools,
instructional approaches, etc. to create increased and more
equitable student motivation, efficacy, and learning. Update
this agenda regularly to account for progress.
10.6.3.3. Establish technical expertise and organizational
infrastructure necessary to implement the education technology
R&D Strategic Plan.
Congress should consider investing $1B over 10 years in a major
educational R&D effort to strengthen the state of educational
innovation and capability.
The Department of Education should provide executive oversight and
implementation leadership for the R&D Strategic Plan, and Congress
should invest in building additional organizational capacity and
technical expertise necessary to operationalize a visionary and robust
R&D agenda expected from this Strategic Plan. For example, Congress
could authorize the Department of Education to sponsor one or more
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC),\118\ or a
separate initiative within the Department of Education, similar to
either the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative in the Department
of Defense or Advanced Research Project Agency--Energy (ARPA-E), could
be established within the Department of Education.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic-
serving Institutions (HSI), Minority Serving Institutions (MSI), or
other universities with established expertise and programs focused
specifically on using technology to meet the educational needs of
minority students should be selected as partner laboratories or
FFRDCs.\119\
The Department of Education and any federally funded research
partners should also seek to leverage other sources of funding from
private philanthropic organizations, with oversight by the government.
The Department of Education and partner institutions should pursue
a comprehensive approach towards promoting the R&D agenda by:
1. Providing strategic and technical assistance for content and tool
development funded through Federal funding.
2. Supporting and funding product and design level work, through
seminars, workshops, and multi-vendor/stakeholder design
sprints to advance the innovation agenda.
3. Procuring or developing practical solutions to address specific
ed-tech and equity problems, where the market is not meeting
specific needs.
4. Incorporating agile approaches to curriculum development and
authoring to speed up curriculum development, so that curricula
can more quickly and easily evolve as technology evolves.
5. Recognizing that open educational resources (OER) can be a driver
for creating more agile curriculum development, and encouraging
the development of additional OER curricular products.
6. Recognizing that funding or developing open source, open
standards, open APIs, and open data can speed up and improve
the quality of technology innovation in education.
7. Promoting and convening ``plugfests'' to show how curriculum and
technology tools can interoperate and create complete learning
solutions that work for targeted student populations, creating
coherence between curricula and delivery tools. Plugfests are
events where creators and designers come together to
demonstrate how their content and products can work with other
content products from other creators and designers.
10.6.4. INVEST IN COHERENT, CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE, AND RELEVANT ONLINE
LEARNING CONTENT AND TOOLS.
There has been a curriculum renaissance\120\ over the last five
years. The introduction of new standards in most states, an influx of
cognitive science research into the educational landscape, which
emphasizes the importance of building knowledge and conceptual
understanding, and the proliferation of open educational resources
(OER) have all contributed to an explosion in new materials. Several
private and non-profit organizations have engaged in efforts to provide
free or reduced cost learning content and tools, which are widely
available to educators, families, and students. Some of those resources
are also openly licensed and available digitally, so that educators and
other organizations can improve on them and redistribute them for
increased access.
Despite increased access, teachers do not always use those
materials with all students. Teachers are expected to fill many roles
in the lives of their students and tackle all kinds of issues, while
also teaching rigorous, standards-aligned content. They are more often
than not asked to do that with pieces of disconnected content that are
not always optimized for digital learning, a handful of digital tools
that are not integrated and which don't work with the content they have
available to them, and limited support to make it all work together to
provide a positive and coherent learning experience for students. Add
to this the obstacle of having to do all of this remotely, and it is
not surprising that the learning gaps for students are increasing
during the COVID-19 pandemic.\121\
The TNTP, Inc. report, ``The Opportunity Myth,'' \122\ describes a
pernicious issue in K-12 education: Students believe they are getting
an education that will prepare them for life after high school, but the
quality of education many of them receive fails woefully to deliver on
that promise. Without the effective knowledge, skills, funding, access,
and support to set up coherent and integrated digital learning systems
(e.g., structures, environments, learning management processes), and
access to and support in using high-quality instructional materials
that promote learning experiences which communicate that all students
belong and can be successful (``identity safe'' learning experiences),
teachers are set up to perpetuate the opportunity myth.
Additionally, there is significant and ongoing research that has
shown that learning environments which focus on identity safety,\123\
cultural responsiveness (the sense that a student's unique identity and
culture is seen and embraced as an asset rather than an obstacle), and
a growth mindset can lead to greater self-efficacy and increased
motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes.\124\ Relatedly,
culturally responsive teaching has been shown to raise expectations for
all students and create cultural competence.\125\ Research has also
shown that having a coherent curriculum from which to teach has
contributed to improved learning.\126\ However, there has never been a
national investment in creating curricula that actualizes the findings
of research in identity safety, culturally responsive teaching
practices, mindset, and curriculum effectiveness.
10.6.4.1. Establish Curriculum Innovation Centers Specifically Focused
on Equitable Online Learning.
Curriculum developments continue to lag technology developments.
This became obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic as curriculum vendors,
including several private and non-profit vendors developing open
educational resources, scrambled to redesign their content. Given the
lack of time, they resorted to putting out written guidance and relying
on teachers to do the heavy lifting of actually revising the content
and putting it into a technology delivery platform.
Learning content is often integrated into learning systems in
haphazard or inadequate ways, resulting in learning experiences that
fall far short of what the content and the learning systems are
actually capable of delivering. In addition, digital learning content
is often designed for use in printed or PDF formats, and when it is
adapted into interactive learning systems, its usefulness is impaired,
often significantly.
Less well-resourced schools often have to make do with assembled
curriculum and material, manually adapting those resources into
whatever digital learning systems are accessible. If more learning
content (especially openly licensed educational resources) were
designed to work well within a variety of learning systems, more
disadvantaged students could be engaged with content that works well
for them.
To satisfy the need for continued research in what makes curricula
effective in ensuring improved learning outcomes for students in lower
income communities, communities of color, ELs, and students with
special needs, the U.S. Department of Education should create centers
of excellence for curriculum innovation, which exist to research and
find solutions to specific problems of practice for learning content
and curriculum.
The focus of the centers should be on product innovation research,
and development of student-interactive curriculum delivery systems and
tools that enable the use of digital educational content that promotes
equitable and inclusive technology use and identity safe learning
environments. That may include prototyping various online learning
platforms and features to determine which ones provide equitable access
for all students, or on what features most support educators in
implementing a culturally responsive curriculum with integrity. These
centers may use openly licensed content and tools from the private and
non-profit organizations to jumpstart the work.
In light of the above, the U.S. Department of Education should:
Establish Curriculum Innovation Centers to catalog and
demonstrate best practices, and create and share OER
Professional Development materials for supporting teachers
around digital learning. Set up these Curriculum Innovation
Centers either within the organizational capacity set up
through the R&D Strategic Plan, through existing FFRDC, or
through State-run consortia.
Convene a series of learning content design workshops to
advance the state of the art on how to design and author
content for digital platforms.
Convene an ongoing series of learning content and systems
plugfests conferences to demonstrate and explore how content
can be effectively embedded into learning systems.
Fund the development, adoption, use, and advancement of data
standards for integrating learning content more usefully into
learning systems and transferring content between content
management and among learning systems.
Develop and publish standards and best practices for
content/platforms/teaching practices for technology-enabled
learning environments.
Disseminate information and make innovations from the
curriculum innovation centers widely available, and tie them to
competitive grant programs for communities interested in
adopting methods.
10.6.4.2. Build Digital Curricula Designed for Equitable Use.
There is an enormous, untapped opportunity to push the creation of
curricula which connects high quality, coherent digital content with
advances in developing growth mindsets and in creating identity safe
learning environments that are culturally responsive. Additionally, the
digital curricula should promote the equitable and inclusive use of
technology platforms, tools, etc. for content delivery and
implementation.
In creating that curricula, the solutions should be developed by
those in the communities who are most affected by digital
inequities.\127\ Those working with students most directly should be
empowered with the best research in content, product, and learning
design from the curriculum innovation centers, the support of experts
in digital curriculum design and development and historically black
colleges and universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions
(HSIs), minority-serving institutions (MSIs), and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs to create, distribute, and support the implementation of high-
quality, coherent digital instructional materials which can be used
flexibly for different tech-enabled learning environments and which are
targeted at improving learning outcomes for students from lower income
communities, communities of color, ELs, and students with special
needs.
Additionally, to ensure that the curricula created are able to be
widely distributed and used, those authoring the content will need to
have increased access to culturally relevant texts and the rights to
share those texts for educational use. To create such curricula, the
U.S. Department of Education should establish a competitive grant
program to award funding to States or a consortium of states to create,
distribute, and support the implementation of high-quality, coherent
digital instructional materials which can be used flexibly for in-
person, remote, and hybrid learning, and which are targeted at
improving learning outcomes for students from lower income communities,
and black, indigenous, and students of color. Pursuant to this program:
Grantees should create design and authoring committees of
individuals from communities most affected by digital
inequities, and work with the curriculum innovation centers and
other curriculum and/or education technology vendors, as
appropriate, to create, distribute, and support the digital
curricula, which may include the creation of supporting digital
products (e.g., websites, delivery platforms, applications,
software). The materials developed should reflect the needs and
cultures of the populations who use them.
Grantees should demonstrate how they will maintain and
continuously improve their digital curricula rapidly and
efficiently, drawing on continued research and development in
how to make the digital instructional materials more equitable
and inclusive.
Grantees should demonstrate to the Department of Education
how they will fund the maintenance and continued use of the
digital instructional materials after they are released.
Also, Congress should consider taking legislative action to
encourage copyright holders to grant educational digital rights of use
for texts, without prejudicing their other rights.
10.6.4.3. Promote Collaboration and Sharing of Research to Improve
Digital Curricula.
To encourage collaboration and sharing of research, best practices
in content, product, and learning design, and open-source technology
for wider use, there should be a yearly convening of grantees,
researchers, education technology specialists, and others involved in
the work of the competitive grants. During this time, grantees will get
the opportunity to collaborate with other grantees and experts to
improve their products. There should also be a focus throughout the
competitive grants and the yearly convenings on studying the impact of
the grant and whether it is creating more equitable and inclusive
technology use, and whether and how more equitable and inclusive
technology impacts learning outcomes for students from lower income
communities, communities of color, ELs, and students with special
needs.
While additional research is necessary and can be accomplished
through the development of curriculum innovation centers, there is a
need to make that research practical in the service of providing
solutions for educators. As curricula are created and implemented,
educators who work with students in lower income communities,
communities of color, Els, and students with special needs can provide
much needed feedback on what works and does not in light of the
research and then the curricula can be improved accordingly. This kind
of information should be emphasized and made available as part of the
yearly convening. The Department of Education should host an annual
convening of grantees, researchers, education technology specialists
that will focus on collaborating and sharing research, best practices,
content, and digital tools developed as part of the competitive grant
to improve the curricular products and ensure they reflect the needs
and cultures of the populations who use them.
10.6.4.4. Create Coherent Digital Tools that Support the Use of Digital
Curricula Designed for Equitable Use.
With the global pandemic, educators and families are having to
provide instruction flexibly in different types of technology-enabled
learning environments. Digital tools that educators are using must be
integrated into the digital learning systems within schools, and they
must work with the content teachers are using. Additionally, given that
students are often learning at school and at home, students, educators,
and families need consistently easy and open access to the digital
products and tools (e.g., digital texts, websites, delivery platforms,
applications, software) that enable the effective distribution and
implementation of the high-quality, coherent digital instructional
materials produced through the competitive grant. Without that access,
the curricula go unused.
Some of those digital products and tools will be designed and
created as part of the competitive grant process and should be done
using open-source technology. Some digital products and tools will
likely already exist, and states will select them for the distribution
and/or implementation of their high-quality, coherent digital
instructional materials. In these cases, it is important that the
digital products and tools are built with open-source technology so
that they can be accessed for educational use or the product owners
should be encouraged to make the product openly available for
educational use. Equitable and inclusive use of the technology should
be promoted by having:
The U.S. Department of Education require all digital
content, online learning systems, tools, and resources produced
under Federal funding be openly licensed as the default, with
exceptions granted only with publicly released justification.
Congress appropriating funding incentives for video
companies to open their infrastructure to educational systems
(whiteboards, classroom management, process, etc.).
10.6.5. ENSURE STUDENTS HAVE SUPPORT FROM TEACHERS AND OTHER
APPROPRIATELY TRAINED ADULTS.
As research has begun to show how much curriculum matters for
learning, there has also been a shift in where to focus training and
support for educators and families.\128\ There is now a shift from
training and support in creating content to training and support in
implementing content, so that all students realize the intended
outcomes of the curriculum.
The job of the teacher is to get really good at teaching, and the
job of the family is to get really good at supporting students in their
learning. However, this assumes that educators have access to a high-
quality, coherent digital instructional materials which can be used
flexibly for different tech-enabled learning environments, and which
are targeted at improving learning outcomes for students from lower
income communities, communities of color, ELs, and students with
special needs, the necessary digital texts that are used with that
curriculum, and the aligned digital products and tools needed to
distribute and deliver that curriculum. If these assumptions are true,
then they will be better equipped to create an equitable and inclusive
learning environment.
However, that is just one part of the job of educators and
families. Educators must also have the knowledge, skills, funding,
access, and support to set up coherent and integrated digital learning
systems (e.g., structures, environments, learning management processes)
that promote equitable and inclusive technology use and promote
identity safe learning experiences. Furthermore, educators must have
the knowledge, skills, and support to use technology to prepare and
deliver curricula and support all students equitably. If an educator
has a high-quality curriculum and is expected to teach that curriculum
digitally with no training on how to use the curriculum or the
associated digital tools, then the likelihood that educator will be
effective in implementing that curriculum is low.
10.6.5.1. Support educators during their transition to digital and
remote learning.
Professional development and training for K-12 public school
teachers has led to uneven and unreliable outcomes, despite the
billions of dollars invested in it.\129\ Additionally, training and
support often focus on classroom management or superficial details
(e.g., strategies for grouping, questioning techniques, etc.) which can
be boiled down into hour-long PowerPoint presentations. This kind of
training doesn't advance teacher knowledge or skill enough to make a
difference for student learning. Educators need training on how to set
up identity safe and equitable learning environments and structures,
and how to implement content using aligned tools in a variety of tech-
enabled learning environments. While this needs to happen for current
educators, there is a real need to ensure that those entering the
teaching profession are equally as equipped.
The U.S. Department of Education should provide funding to
allow states to extend the development of equitable,
technology-enhanced teaching and learning standards.
The U.S. Department of Education should provide additional
funding to states to develop and provide openly licensed
professional learning materials and training programs
specifically organized to help teachers work with minority and
disadvantaged groups.
The U.S. Department of Education should provide funding to
state consortia to develop and provide openly licensed
professional learning resources and training programs that are
specifically aligned to the open educational digital curriculum
used by those States.
The U.S. Department of Education should establish a program
to fund year-long digital learning residency programs for
preservice teachers with a trained mentor teacher, focused on
providing digital learning for schools in lower income
communities and schools which serve a majority of communities
of color, ELs, and students with special needs. Preference for
funding should be given to HBCUs and HSIs.
The U.S. Department of Education should provide additional
funding, advocacy, and support for its ``Future Ready Leaders''
initiative, to train school and state education leaders to be
more knowledgeable about and effective with technology.
10.6.5.2. Support families and educators in establishing partnerships
that enable greater coherence between learning digitally at
home and school.
As we have seen with the global pandemic, families and other adults
in communities also play an important and expanded role in the learning
experience of students. As students were no longer able to go to school
regularly, their homes and their communities became their classrooms.
As such, there must be a dynamic partnership among families, educators,
schools, and educational support organizations with a focus on
supporting student learning. There should be increased interaction and
coherence across in-school and at-home learning (e.g., technologies,
tools, learning systems, content) led by educators and supported by
families. Students should be able to access and use digital tools both
in school and at home easily. Features like single sign-on can support
this.
Additionally, families should also have the access, knowledge, and
support to help students leverage technology outside of school,
promoting equitable and inclusive technology use. Families need clear
and actionable guidance on what technologies and digital tools are
needed for learning, how to access them, and how to support students in
using them. States should accordingly develop and/or update digital
literacy content for students and families. Whether through SMS
messaging or other familiar and easily accessible communication
methods, families need consistent, clear, and open access to the
guidance and information in how to support their learners outside of
school.
The U.S. Department Education should provide funding to
states to provide greater coherence between the technologies
and digital tools used at school and at home.
State education systems should update digital literacy
standards to incorporate a focus on supporting families and
digital learning happening outside of the school building.
State education and local education systems should develop
communication systems and relevant content, so that they can
easily and consistently share guidance and information with
families about the digital learning content students are
receiving in school and how to support student learning at
home.
The U.S. Department of Education should provide funding to
develop digital resources for parents and educators around
Transitional Kindergarten.
10.6.5.3. Support the development and adoption of online platforms that
connect at-risk students with college students, recent
graduates, and others willing to act as tutors, coaches, or
other supports.
Digital platforms can support students far beyond the day-to-day
activities associated with distance learning or online activities
associated specifically with classroom instruction. Services such as
one-on-one tutoring, supplemental small-group instruction, and
personalized coaching to encourage students to plan for life after high
school can play an important role in helping students succeed.
Individualized tutoring is a proven intervention that improves
children's educational competencies and increases their self-
confidence.\130\ Online platforms that deliver a tutoring curriculum
addressing the concepts with which students need additional time and
support can make it easier for qualified tutors to provide students
with support during school and after hours. Other philanthropically
funded groups at the state level like the Tennessee Tutoring Corps were
created specifically to help stave off the ``COVID slide'' of learning
loss likely to occur as a result of the educational disruption caused
by the pandemic.
In addition to tutoring, organizations like Beyond12 rely on mobile
applications to connect students with personal coaches, and track
progress towards transitioning from high school to college and beyond.
While the technology is novel, the value of all these services
depends primarily upon their ability to connect individuals who are
willing and able, and who have access to high-quality tutoring content
to help students who need assistance. Many of the organizations closest
to at-risk students may lack funding or the technical expertise needed
to develop those sorts of solutions. Groups with funding and technical
expertise, similarly, may lack the access to high-quality tutoring
content or cultural connections to communities or individuals most
likely to connect well with at-risk students to attract individual
users that make the service valuable.
The Federal government can help bridge these gaps by promoting
existing applications that serve at-risk students or funding the
development of new services aimed at at-risk students or groups whose
needs are not being met by existing solutions. The government can also
encourage participation from existing government employees, offer
additional financial assistance to the organizations operating these
platforms to attract individuals who can serve as tutors, coaches, or
offer other individual support to students.
The Department of Education should support the creation and
development of platforms that can connect at-risk K-12 students to
supplementary services like individualized tutoring or coaching by:
Providing financial support to grantees who are willing to
make these platforms available to at-risk students free of
charge, and who have the organizational capacity to attract
tutors and students in need of the services.
Investing in the development of open-source platforms that
local organizations can easily white-label to create platforms
of their own.
Hosting an online platform to help students, teachers,
parents, or interested volunteers identify resources such as
local organizations that provide additional support, including
individualized tutoring and coaching.
10.6.6. FUND EDUCATIONAL-FOCUSED TECHNOLOGY STANDARDIZATION AND
INNOVATION ACTIVITIES FOCUSED ON DATA USE, INTEROPERABILITY OF
CONTENT, AND DIGITAL PRIVACY AND SECURITY.
With the immediate disruption of in-person instruction, vendors,
educators, and families have been scrambling to figure out how to
navigate remote learning. One approach that has been used is to make
non-educational digital tools and applications available for free
educational use for a limited amount of time. While this has helped
solve immediate access problems, these kinds of practices risk creating
longer term issues that could further perpetuate inequities in
technology use.
For example, if educators build lessons based on short-term access
to a digital application and then that application is no longer offered
for free, will educators and families be able to afford the costs to
continue using the application, or will teachers have to locate another
tool and rebuild their content? Additionally, if the applications and
tools educators and families are using were not built for educational
use, do those applications and tools have the appropriate data use,
privacy, and security needed by law for student data? Can the data
gathered through those tools and applications be accessed by educators
and families?
The security of students' data as well as the schools'
infrastructure are an important but generally overlooked and
underfunded area of Education Technology. To start, schools,
educational support organizations (e.g., nonprofits that offer
educational programming, tutoring organizations), educators, students,
and families need to be confident in the reliability and security of
the technology they are using for digital learning in school and at
home.
Inequities in student access and progress are often hidden in areas
where data are not collected, or not used effectively. The lack of
systems interoperability, data access, and needed standards and
innovation tools often impede the ability to serve all students, and
particularly to ensure that each student receives the support they
need.
Accurate, timely data about every student is vital for providing
effective services, especially in large urban school systems, where
struggling students or students with special needs are more easily
overlooked.
10.6.6.1. Unlock the underutilized value of data.
Data have the potential not only to help us better understand how
and why technology systems are helping students learn, but can
themselves act as an intervention, targeting resources where need is
greatest, the discontinuation of strategies that are not proving
fruitful, and the acceleration of those that are. But to serve this
powerful role, several critical revisions must be made to create better
alignment and focus, to strengthen the data infrastructure, and to
build necessary transparency.
According to the Committee on Developing Indicators of Educational
Equity from The National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and
Medicine, ``To be useful to policy makers, educators, and other
stakeholders, two types of equity indicators are needed: (1) indicators
that measure disparities in students' academic achievement and
attainment outcomes and engagement in schooling; and (2) indicators
that measure equitable access to resources and opportunities, including
the structural aspects of school systems that may impact opportunity
and exacerbate existing disparities in family and community contexts
and contribute to unequal outcomes for students.'' \131\
Measuring success against the goals above will require investment
in significant capacities in data collection and data integration.
Understanding the benefits of the investments recommended here will
require multivariate analysis and multi-modal data collection, which
should include the lived experiences of teachers, students, and parents
whose capacity we are looking to expand. As a baseline, there is a need
to track change in the following rates over time:
Percent of students powerfully and persistently connected to
digital learning opportunities (by state, race, gender, class,
grade level, school type, community and home language, special
needs, and school type).
Average costs borne by families to connect to digital
learning opportunities powerfully and persistently (by state,
race, gender, class, grade level, school type, community and
home language, special needs, and school type).
Student performance variation by connection to powerful
digital learning opportunities (by state, race, gender, class,
grade level, school type, community, and home language, special
needs, and school type).
In all of these we would be looking for the impact of equitable
resourcing on the rate of growth, i.e., the students furthest from
success, who pay the least and who grow the most over the same period.
Once the measure of baseline success is possible, we need to
understand how the learning system infrastructure changes based on the
investments suggested herein:
Percent of teachers trained to integrate tech-based,
culturally responsive materials in their instruction.
Percent of teachers effectively leveraging on-line learning
as a part of their classroom instruction.
Percent of teachers using technology to connect with parents
on the learning needs of their students.
Percent of schools and districts able to achieve and
maintain 100 percent online enrollment in district sponsored
platforms.
Percent of families who are using effective tools and
resources to support their children and connect with their
teachers.
Variations of these data based on the demographics of
interest (by state, race, gender, class, grade level, school
type, community and home language, special needs, and school
type)
Lastly, we need to understand whether changes measured in the first
two groupings influence patterns of achievement and attainment. In
short, we need to see some of the long-standing gaps in achievement and
attainment begin to close:
Percent of students on grade level at 3rd grade in reading
and, mathematics.
Percent of students successfully passing algebra by the end
of 8th grade.
Percent of students meeting high school readiness standards
by 9th grade.
Percent of students graduating on time.
Percent of students graduating college and career ready.
Percent of students enrolling in 2 and/or 4-year colleges.
Variations of these data based on the demographics of
interest (by state, race, gender, class, grade level, school
type, community and home language, special needs, and school
type)
Additionally, to establish robust systems which will make it easier
to collect these data:
The U.S. Department of Education should provide direct,
competitive grant funding for the development, adoption, use,
and advancement of data standards for electronic education
records. This funding should include efforts to increase the
accuracy and the timeliness of electronic education records.
The U.S. Department of Education should set specific
learning record interoperability targets for schools receiving
Federal funding to enable the movement of learning data
securely and with explicit authorization, both between systems
within a school system, and between school systems and states,
where appropriate.
The U.S. Department of Education should fund additional
investments in State Longitudinal Data Systems to improve data
quality/accuracy, scope, security, and timeliness of the data
collected by these systems.
The U.S. Department of Education should fund data systems
upgrades to school financial and educational program systems,
to enable schools to effectively track the progress and
investment in educational services, cost, and progress of each
individual student.
The U.S. Department of Education should fund the development
of more specialized and capable interoperability standards to
ensure easier transfer of content and data across technical
platforms.
US Government entities such as the U.S. Department of
Education, the Federal Communications Commission, and other
Federal agencies should collate and publish data on their use
of funds around technology in an easily located and navigable
website hosted by the U.S. Department of Education.
10.6.6.2. Ensure learning data are secure and private.
Students deserve privacy protections to secure their information
and protect it from unauthorized use. While legally mandated,
information security in education is often overlooked and underfunded.
The U.S. Department of Education and state education
agencies should require schools who invest in technology using
their funding to ensure the products they purchase comply with
Information Security and Data Privacy Standards. While not
unique solutions, the Student Data Privacy Pledge program, the
Student Data Privacy Consortium, and Project Unicorn
interoperability, as well as ISTE's emerging Ed Tech Product
standards work, represent potential requirements that would
assist schools in identifying qualifying products.
The U.S. Department of Education should host an ongoing
series of information security and privacy plugfest conferences
to demonstrate and showcase products that meet information
security and data privacy standards, and to encourage and
educate vendors and educators on how to acquire, configure, and
operate technology with effective security and privacy.
10.6.7. IMPROVE THE ACCESS OF STUDENTS OF COLOR AND OTHERS TO
EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES THAT WILL IMPROVE THEIR ABILITY TO
UTILIZE THE TECHNOLOGY.
10.6.7.1. Assure computer science is part of every student's
educational experience.
We recommend amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to
add ``Computer Science'' to the list of subjects for which states
create academic standards. Currently, that list requires ``mathematics,
reading or language arts, and science'' to be part of the base
curriculum for all K-12 students nationwide. Computer science should be
added to the list.
10.6.7.2. Revive Rural and Minority STEM Scholarship Program.
We recommend reviving and improving the now-defunct ``SMART
grants'' which were a smaller scholarship program for students studying
STEM that ended in 2010. To do so, the Department of Education should
fund scholarships for students of color and students from rural
communities studying STEM in undergraduate, graduate, or certificate
programs.
Chapter 11.
HIGHER EDUCATION AND A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
11.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
While colleges and universities have some of the best networks and
highest levels of connectivity in the world, problems persist. Some
students, forced to study from home or facing greater economic
difficulty due to COVID-19, risk being disconnected from an education
that increasingly relies on broadband at home. A larger problem is that
colleges and universities remain an underutilized resource for digital
equity and inclusion. Colleges and universities that directly serve
students negatively impacted by failings of digital equity and
inclusion often lack the resources to assist students in developing
skills to thrive in the digital economy and society. Broadband skills
and resource that are in abundance in leading universities has not been
tapped to reach locations where robust networks are absent. Research
has failed to close the gaps in performance in our current educational
system with digital solutions.
11.2. VISION
Today, some American campuses enjoy the highest performing
networks, highest adoption rates, and most effective use of digital
technology anywhere in the world. We should engage knowledge transfer,
so that all colleges and universities, particularly those institutions
educating disadvantaged students, can enjoy the same benefits,
improving utilization, enhancing education, and providing equal
opportunities.
11.3. GOALS
All college and university students stay connected,
regardless of their financial situation and the mode of
classroom instruction.
Existing and underutilized university and college talent is
used to help those institutions educating disadvantaged
students.
Existing and underutilized university and college resources
are used to help connect unserved or underserved communities.
Greater research on digital education and how it can improve
outcomes.
The development of best practices for using digital
education to build a more equitable and inclusive society.
11.4. BACKGROUND
11.4.1. THE OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES TO IMPROVE DIGITAL
EQUITY AND INCLUSION.
Viewed from the outside in, universities and colleges encapsulate
many of the problems caused by a lack of digital equity and inclusion.
Poor relationships between campuses and surrounding urban centers are
hardly new and have grown to include gaps in digital access and
opportunity.
Plato's academy set up shop outside the walls of the City of Athens
to escape the mundane concerns of life in the city. Centers of learning
moved back into the city when it was convenient to share and make
common purpose of available infrastructure. Medieval Oxford University,
for example, appreciated the availability of town water and early
sewage systems. Dozens of Oxford scholars died during an ``invasion''
of the campus by local townspeople. Infighting and deteriorating
relations between the university and the two led to a spin off
university called Cambridge.
About 50 years ago, in some of American's great research
universities, the infrastructure of what would become known as the
Internet was being designed and to connect parts of the same
institution in different locations, across town or across the country.
These new networks, as with previous academic infrastructure, bypassed
surrounding communities. The Internet opened new opportunities for the
universities and surrounding research parks, as well as the campus-like
settings of new Internet enterprises. But those in the urban centers
surrounding the campus were left out.
The time is right for colleges and universities to re-think
community service, the traditional third pillar of academic life that
includes learning and research.
Universities and colleges can collaborate with city and private
sector partners to help address the broadband availability, adoption,
affordability, and utilization gaps. Universities are uniquely
positioned to provide engineering expertise, technical support, and
outreach and digital literacy support to promote adoption. Universities
and community education partners also control educational content that
can be leveraged to fulfill the vision of universal learning.
11.4.2. THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR
IMPROVING OPTIONS FOR AVAILABILITY, ADOPTION AND UTILIZATION.
Federal investments in research and development, coupled with
private research and product development, have created the robust
broadband ecosystem users enjoy today. In the 1970s, research funded by
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and later the
National Science Foundation (NSF), played a vital role in the
development of Internet protocols. In the late 20th century, likewise,
American companies led in the development of nearly all of the key
technologies involved in digital networks, including digital switching
technologies, optical communications, cellular communications, Internet
hardware and Internet applications. These investments facilitated the
creation of multibillion-dollar companies that are global leaders in
networking, search, and other Internet-based businesses.
As with other key technologies, R&D activity drove innovation and
productivity gains, which aided economic growth. The National Research
Council found that in the case of information technology (IT), ``The
unanticipated results of research are often as important as the
anticipated results.'' Further, ``[t]he interaction of research ideas
multiplies their impact,'' and ``[p]ast returns on Federal investment
in IT research have been extraordinary for both United States society
and the United States economy.''
America's top research universities and laboratories continue this
R&D leadership. Their efforts accelerate the pace of innovation,
placing next-generation technology in the hands of individuals,
investors, and entrepreneurs. The next generation of networks will
undoubtedly lead to even more exciting, unanticipated discoveries that
will improve how people connect, work, learn, play, and contribute
online.
The broadband ecosystem--networks, devices, and applications--has
benefited from research breakthroughs in a variety of areas, including
networking, software, semiconductors, material sciences, applied
mathematics, construction, and engineering. Continued investment and
advancement in all these fields, and many others, is essential for
future innovation. For U.S. companies to continue leading in the global
broadband ecosystem, they must continue to generate and benefit from
scientific innovation.
The gap between R&D returns for private companies, on the one hand,
and those for society on the other, however, presents a challenge.
Government can help fill an R&D investment gap by funding research that
would yield net benefits to society, but that would not earn sufficient
returns to be privately profitable, or at least not on a predictable
timetable. The Federal government needs to create a clear agenda and
priorities for broadband-related R&D funding in particular. The
government can also promote R&D through regulatory policies that
promote increased use of government resources, such as by establishing
research centers of excellence, or allowing experimental access to
radio spectrum to evaluate new technologies in ways that theoretical
studies and simulations cannot.
11.5. RECOMMENDATIONS
11.5.1. KEEP ALL STUDENTS CONNECTED WITH FREE TECHNOLOGY LOAN PROGRAMS
FOR STUDENTS.
Universities and colleges should ensure that students remain
connected. Many students enrolled at American's colleges and university
now live in poverty. Half of community college students and nearly half
of four-year college students experience food insecurity. More than a
third of college enrolled students have insecure housing, many with
nowhere to live other than a car or on the street.
During the pandemic, colleges and universities, in part through
funds provided by the CARES legislation, have made hundreds of
thousands of laptops and hotspots available through library lending
programs, keeping computing labs open, and using personalized
notification systems to keep all students motivated. While these
efforts are far from perfect, colleges and universities have
demonstrated that it is possible to close the adoption gap through
intentional policies and commitments to at-risk students and employees.
As the state of the classroom remains uncertain, future COVID-19
relief packages should ensure that all institutions of higher education
have the resources they need to keep students connected.
11.5.2. USE UNIVERSITY RESOURCES TO HELP THOSE INSTITUTIONS SERVICING
THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DISADVANTAGED BY THE DIGITAL DIVIDE.
As discussed in Chapter 10, failings of digital equity and
inclusion affecting K-12 students is about more than networks, devices,
and other technology. There is also a need for teachers and students to
utilize technology to improve educational outcomes. Institutions of
higher education whose mission is to serve the disadvantaged,
specifically community colleges and HBCUs, are generally those most
lacking in resources to help students develop skills needed to thrive
in the digital economy. Congress acknowledged and acted on this concern
in its December 2020 COVID-19 relief package, appropriating $285
million to NTIA to for a grant program for HBCUs, Tribal Colleges or
Universities (TCU), a minority-serving institution, or their respective
consortiums, for the purchase of broadband Internet access service, or
any eligible equipment, or to hire and train information technology
personnel.
That amount, however, will not be sufficient to fully address the
need. Further, community colleges have not received new funding. We
need to supplement Congressional efforts by applying underutilized
resources in other institutions of higher education, particularly the
technical expertise of faculty and students, to address unmet needs.
11.5.2.1. Create A National Urban Service Education Project (NUSEP).
NUSEP would advance a new role for America's colleges and
universities, encouraging them to scale up their involvement with and
commitment to assisting K-12 institutions in improving utilization of
digital tools. The project would create a network of National Service
Universities, and a coalition of university partners, HBCUs, community
colleges and national urban organizations, working together to design,
promote, and support scalable and sustainable adoption practices
informed by the needs and priorities of those it serves.
The project would build on existing infrastructure that encourages
students to perform public service and otherwise supports intentional
and sustainable participation in community life by colleges and
universities by extending their physical facilities and program
offerings. For example, dental medicine students may participate in
community dentistry curriculum, and provide oral health sealants to all
school-aged children in a local metropolitan school district. Social
work departments are co-locating in public housing facilities and
mental health facilities. Engineering students and fashion design
students are setting up techshops, fablabs, and hackerspaces embedded
in the local community. College clubs may likewise support Girls Who
Code, or offer computing classes to those living in homeless shelters
to help them apply for public housing. Community service learning
programs offer college students an opportunity to assist small local
businesses get online and set up e-commerce sites. Business and
economic students are partnering to deliver digital financial literacy
to residents of senior citizen facilities.
The project would build on these efforts, but provide a national
platform through which programs can be evaluated, best practices can be
identified, and practitioners can come together to discuss how to
continually improve on the effectiveness of their efforts. The project
could be housed in the Digital Equity and Inclusion Office, discussed
in Chapter 4.
11.5.3. USE UNIVERSITY RESOURCES TO HELP CONNECT COMMUNITIES WHERE
CONNECTIVITY REMAINS A PROBLEM.
As discussed in Chapter 3, our country has a significant
availability gap. The Plan proposes numerous methods for closing that
gap.
But it may be that there are areas where neither market forces nor
government support will fully close the gap. In those areas, we should
consider whether, in addition to or as alternative, there are
university resources that can be called upon. America's colleges and
universities are among the most connected ``cities'' in America. When
an institution acquires property around its campus for housing or other
services, the communications network is often extended beyond the
traditional boundaries to connect these new assets.
Likewise, universities and colleges who are now extending Citizens
Band Radio Services (CBRS) networks, using shared spectrum, to support
the wireless needs of the campus and extend wireless beyond the
traditional campus. Low-powered wide area radio networks (LoRa) are
specifically designed to extend research, monitoring, and the
burgeoning Internet of Things networks that touch both the campus and
extend well beyond it. Millimeter Wave mesh wireless networks are used
by campuses to support point-to-point (connecting one building to
another) or multi-point (one building to more than one building) at
very high speeds.
In addition, we note that the broadband service levels we expect to
become ubiquitous will not serve every need. It is likely that some
kinds of institutions, such as those providing STEM education or health
care, may need upgraded or otherwise different kinds of connectivity.
Every major research university is using tools known as software
defined networking to provision different kinds of networks for
different kinds of users with different attributes across the campus.
As an example, the network needs of a research lab working on high
energy physics is very different from the needs of students majoring in
English. Software defined networking allows providers to provide
virtual ``swim lanes'' unique to the specific needs of different user
groups.
Using these and other resources, technologically advanced, colleges
and universities should partner with other public sector technology
leaders along with legacy, incumbent, and new entrants in the
communications marketplace, to assure that specialized needs for
institutions serving low income and communities of color, including
HBCUs, and community college, obtain the networks they need to advance
digital equity and inclusion.
11.5.4. FOCUS RESEARCH ON UNDERSTANDING HOW DIGITAL EDUCATION CAN
IMPROVE OUTCOMES AND OVERCOME PERSISTENT PERFORMANCE GAPS.
The pandemic forced educators across the country to flip the entire
education delivery model to remote everything. Key lessons regarding
availability and adoption across the education landscape were learned,
often painfully. One major and largely unanticipated challenge was the
absence of a 21st century pedagogy for teaching 100 million learners,
based entirely on a live remote model. Once a vaccine is widely
deployed, we will likely be faced with new questions regarding
classroom experiences. Should be go back to the previous approach,
support the continuation of 100 percent live remote offerings, or
evolve a hybrid model based on the insights of educators and the
preferences of families and their students? The response to that
question the coming years may be as important as any development in
education for the last century.
To help resolve these issues, the Administration should commission
the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
and the National Research Council to urgently assess and present the
potential for 21st century, technology-enhanced, adaptive, and
personalized learning opportunities, based on lessons learned from the
global pandemic. It is now twenty years since the publication of
Bransford et al's How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and
School, which presaged the need for comprehensive insights on the
potential and risks of fully immersive, digitally remote learning into
the 21st century. The time is right to investigate our capacity to
leverage human knowledge, augmented by the Internet, and mediated
through both human and machine interactions. The academic research
community, in partnership with HBCUs and community colleges, working
across disciplines including cognitive science and educational
technology research, should be engaged in documenting, assessing, and
recommending how we preserve and advance the art and science of
learning. Particular attention should be paid to digital tools that can
help overcome persistent performance gaps that have characterized
educational outcomes in our current system.
11.5.5. UNDERSTAND AND HONOR BEST PRACTICES FOR USING DIGITAL EDUCATION
TO BUILD A MORE EQUITABLE AND INCLUSIVE SOCIETY.
The COVID-19 pandemic tested our educational institutions as never
before. Many efforts, understandably, were disappointing, but some
schools, administrators, and teachers seized the moment to create
effective platforms for digital education.
To recognize that achievement, the White House should convene a
ceremony for America's Great Teachers During the COVID-19 Pandemic,
nominated by students and institutional leadership, honoring their
commitment, innovation, and resilience. The White House and OSTP, in
partnership with NSF and other agencies and private companies, has
previously used its convening power to advance and celebrate STEM
education through White House Olympiads and the like. As the country
works its way through the pandemic, the White House should similarly
recognize urban teachers, rural community teachers, elementary school,
middle school, high school, community college, and university teachers
exemplifying the best of human ingenuity, adaptation, and commitment to
the craft of teaching.
11.5.6. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONTINUE TO FOSTER THE
DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH NETWORKS AND BROADBAND TESTBEDS THROUGH
A CLEAR R&D FUNDING AGENDA THAT IS FOCUSED ON DIGITAL NETWORKS,
EQUIPMENT, SERVICES, AND APPLICATIONS, WITH A PARTICULAR FOCUS
ON DIGITAL EQUITY AND INCLUSION.
11.5.6.1. Support efforts to identify, develop, test, and deploy
applications of digital technologies that could foster economic
and social mobility.
As discussed in Chapter 8 on workforce development, there is a
mismatch between the jobs people from communities of color and low-
income communities often have training to do and the jobs of the
future. In that light, the government should seek to identify, develop,
test, and deploy applications of digital technologies that foster
economic and social mobility, including development of a technology-
enabled, short-term workforce training that can enable low-income
workers to obtain the skills they need for higher-paying jobs.
There are several barriers to such an effort. The Federal
government currently undertakes significant investments aimed at
harnessing science and technology to achieve some goals (national
security, health, energy, space, basic science), but not others
(education, workforce development, economic and social mobility, racial
disparities). As a result, agencies like HUD, Education, Labor, and the
human service components of HHS have little or no capacity to engage
with researchers and entrepreneurs to develop and deploy breakthrough
applications of technology that would advance equity and inclusion.
Further, while there are notable private and philanthropic efforts
offering online education and training, the private sector
systematically underinvests in applications of technology that serve
low-income communities. For example, there are currently approximately
36 million adults reading at the third-grade level or below, yet no
private enterprise has committed itself to developing tools to solve
that problem.
In addition, the development and rigorous evaluation of technology-
enabled solutions is likely to be characterized by high fixed costs but
low marginal costs--meaning that up-front costs may be substantial, but
that, once developed, the resulting tools can be deployed widely and
cheaply. Government social spending is not generally organized to
support scalable applications. Funding is historically provided as a
block or formula grant to states. States in turn then typically provide
smaller amounts to local service providers. There is no national
approach to developing scalable applications.
There are, however, examples of how such an approach could pay
significant dividends. Over the last decade, DARPA sponsored the
development of a digital tutor by a Silicon Valley firm that uses AI to
model the interaction between an expert and a novice. Navy recruits who
use the tutor to learn IT systems administration can outperform Navy
experts with 9 or more years of experience. The firm believes that,
with an investment of $40 million, they could adapt their technology to
dramatically improve the performance of students who are currently
failing 8th grade math. Although this is the kind of experiment worth
doing, the Department of Education does not have the capacity to
support it.
11.5.6.2. Support R & D efforts in developing alternatives to current
network architecture, particularly relating to 5G.
One of the most promising developments in broadband is the
deployment of 5G mobile networks. Over time, 5G holds the promise of
greatly improving the coverage and availability of broadband networks,
increasing competition and reducing costs to consumers.
5G technology can also be used to improve both the character and
quantity of jobs in the United States. One promising example involves
the development of Open Radio Access Networks (ORAN). Today, mobile
operators rely exclusively on closed, end-to-end Radio Access Networks
(RAN), hardware and software primarily supplied by non-American
companies. The current RAN Architecture is based on proprietary
interfaces, which increases the costs of deployment and upgrades.
Industry has begun to coalesce around a different approach, which
utilizes a non-proprietary, multi-vendor ORAN, an approach that has
already demonstrated its ability to lower capital and operational
costs. That in turn, can improve the economics for closing the
availability gap, enabling broader deployment and adoption by lowering
the costs to build and therefore the price to use.
The Federal government can support and accelerate the ORAN effort
through R & D efforts including the following:
11.5.6.2.1. Create an innovation fund to spur R&D and deployment based
on open, interoperable standards, including ORAN, and software-
based wireless technologies.
To accelerate the development of ORAN, the Federal government
could, as it has done with other technologies, create an innovation
fund that would help the private sector create viable 5G alternatives
from all ends of the supply chain, while at the same time laying the
foundation for increased employment in the United States. Such a fund
could be managed by NTIA, with input from the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and the FCC, among others.
11.5.6.2.2. Design a program to incentivize investment and job creation
in the U.S. by offering R&D credits and other incentives for
network technology suppliers, including incentives to contract
with minority owned enterprises.
As has been true of other industries where global leadership began
with Federal government support, there is an opportunity to improve the
competitiveness of the U.S. in next-generation mobile networks based on
targeted incentives to build local capacity. Policymakers should
include in such efforts specific incentives for contracting with
minority owned enterprises.
Chapter 12.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
12.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
As documented in Chapters Three and Four of this Plan on the
availability and adoption gaps, digital equity and inclusion requires
all Americans to have networks available to their communities, the
means to afford broadband and the skills necessary to use it. But it
also requires that those providing services to low-income and
communities of color also have the necessary digital tools to provide
those services in an effective manner. There are a myriad of ways that
government could be more effective in delivering such services but,
unfortunately, many government IT systems are outdated, government
budgets are constrained in upgrading and maintaining digital
infrastructure, government agencies do not face competitive pressures
that force private sector actors to stay on the cutting of digital
services and to prioritize citizen-centric experiences.
These problems all result in a lack of innovation and poorer
service that negatively impacts all Americans, but they have a
particularly problematic impact on those who depend more on government
services. Further, there several government technology shortfalls, such
as with mobile transfer payments and mobile applications that
disproportionately affect lower income persons and communities of
colors who rely more on mobile phones than the general population. The
current situation also creates a data divide, where certain communities
do not have sufficient data collected about them, creating social and
economic inequalities. In addition, there are opportunities, such as by
creating APIs to enable non-governmental organizations to link
Americans to services, to better serve low-income and communities of
color that our country has utilized.
12.2. VISION STATEMENT
We should have our government institutions improve their online
services to offer solutions on par with the best private sector actors,
where competition drives continuous innovation. The government should
take advantage of digital technology to make it easier for all persons,
but particularly those from low-income communities and communities of
color, to understand and benefit from the full range of government
services, interact with those services, such as in making or receiving
payments, and in enabling non-government organizations to assist
Americans receive the help they need. The government should also
collect data that fairly represents the activity of all Americans, not
just those currently online.
12.3. GOALS
Surveys should reflect that Americans are as satisfied with
their interactions with government digital interactions as they
are with the best private sector actors.
In order to improve usability and measure use, by the end of
2021, all Federal and most state and local government agencies
should monitor and report metrics about their website
performance to a public dashboard.
By the end of 2022, interactions with Federal government
websites should be as easy to do on a mobile device as on
laptop.
By the end of 2022, all government forms should be able to
be accessed and filled out online.
The government should end the data divide by collecting data
that fairly reflects the activity of all Americans, not just
those currently online.
12.4. THE CURRENT SITUATION
Broadband provides access to critical government information and
services, such as obtaining reliable health information, applying for
and receiving government benefits, searching for community news and
activities, and accessing voting resources. Many government agency
leaders recognize that citizens and businesses have grown accustomed to
high-quality digital services in the private sector and increasingly
expect the same from the public sector, whether it is on their mobile
device or personal computer.
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, many Federal government agencies
have been pursuing digital strategies to improve government service
delivery and organizational efficiency. Unfortunately, governments at
all levels often fail to meet the standards set by the private sector
or leverage the full potential of emerging technologies to deliver
better and more efficient services. There are several reasons this is
the case.
First, many government IT systems are outdated. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has identified multiple Federal government
IT systems that are more than 30 years old, with some over 50 years
old.\132\ Another GAO analysis found that only about 11 percent of
Federal IT systems run in the cloud.\133\ One recent analysis found
that the Federal government had more than 930 million lines of code
using more than 70 obsolete programming languages, like COBOL and
Fortran.\134\ These systems not only present significant security
risks, but they also can be difficult and expensive to maintain,
especially when agencies cannot find programmers with this experience
or must pay a premium for their services. GAO sampled 10 legacy systems
in the Federal government and found that they cost $337 million per
year just to maintain.\135\ These systems make it harder for government
agencies to provide the kind of seamless, online experience citizens
expect.
Second, agencies typically do not receive sufficient funding to
invest in necessary IT upgrades, let alone state-of-the-art innovation
in adopting new IT systems and applications and using them in cutting-
edge ways. Federal agencies have massive IT budgets, but most of this
funding goes to operations and maintenance: ``keeping the wheels from
falling off.'' The Federal government spent more than $90 billion on IT
in 2019, but 80 percent of these expenses went to operating and
maintaining existing systems, up from around two-thirds a decade
earlier.\136\ Upgrading IT systems requires substantial investments,
even if they reduce operating costs in the long-run, and appropriators
at all levels of government usually prefer to commit funds to other
purposes.
Third, government agencies do not face competitive pressures that
force private sector actors to stay on the cutting of digital services
and to prioritize citizen-centric experiences--people do not move to
another jurisdiction because their government's website is lousy.\137\
In contrast, when a private sector firm fails to effectively embrace
the Internet, it loses market share, its profits shrink, and it may go
out of business. That focuses the mind of business leadership. As a
result, the bar for excellence is relatively low and government
agencies tend to lag in effective digital adoption, which affects their
performance and how citizens feel about these government institutions.
And all too often, online or ``e-government'' services are organized
around the interests and needs of the particular agency, rather than
the citizen or business user. To take one example, Montgomery County,
Maryland was named the top digital county in the United States in 2019,
yet its citizens rate their experiences on county websites as mediocre,
at best. But, compared to other counties, Montgomery County received
top marks.\138\
Moreover, government services must be usable for everyone cannot
merely cater to a target market. Governments must build digital
experiences that can be used by the less literate, less digitally
literate, non-English speakers, and citizens of all ages, backgrounds,
and disabilities. This makes usability and user testing even more
important for government products at all levels. Unfortunately,
government products frequently lag private-sector equivalents in terms
of usability and user testing. This is why usability is the first goal
of this chapter and is featured across multiple recommendations.
Recently enacted bipartisan Federal legislation has prioritized
efforts to digitize government: the 21st Century Integrated Digital
Experience (IDEA) Act requires government agencies to produce modern,
mobile-friendly websites, mobile applications, and online forms; the
Modernizing Government Technology (MGT) Act established the Technology
Modernization Fund, albeit initially with only around $100 million to
fund IT modernization projects in Federal agencies; and the Open,
Public, Electronic and Necessary (OPEN) Government Data Act mandates
Federal agencies to publish information online, using standardized,
machine-readable data formats.\139\
While all helpful, these initiatives have had relatively little
funding, as has been the case in most states and localities.
12.5. RECOMMENDATIONS
To improve online government services, as well as government
adoption of digital technologies more broadly, there are several things
governments should do. We have organized these into three sections.
12.5.1. EMBED INNOVATION IN GOVERNMENT.
At the core of improving digital government is innovation.
Americans experience innovation every day, and they expect continued
innovation. But innovation is hard and is often not seen as essential
to accomplishing the mission of government. As a result, it is as if
the government is living in a 20th-century analog world full of
bureaucracy, paper, and delay, with users of Federal services suffering
from higher costs, less functionality, and lower quality.
There are several unique challenges that make innovation in
government more difficult than in the private sector. Federal agencies
suffer from all the limitations large businesses suffer from--including
bureaucracy and middle-manager resistance--plus a host of other
challenges unique to government. First, it is harder for older
organizations to innovate, because innovation would require challenging
a status quo that, for Federal agencies, is decades old. In addition,
compared to businesses, agencies have limited funds to pursue novel
ideas. Finally, unlike private companies, agencies face no competition
that will take their market away if they do not innovate, but they do
face consequences if they try to innovate and fail. This means senior
government leaders have little incentive to innovate, and even
significant disincentives to do so, therefore opportunities to pursue
digital innovation get short shrift.
While there are many steps that government can take to pursue
digital innovation, these steps would be strengthened by embedding
innovation into the DNA of government itself. By transforming itself
through a combination of bottom-up efforts that foster innovation and
top-level leadership that encourages and prioritizes innovation, the
Federal government can improve the lives of Americans, boost
productivity, and restore faith in government.
12.5.1.1. Establish a position of Chief Innovation Officer within the
White House.
The major challenge in transforming the Federal government into an
innovation-based enterprise is that there is no one who ``owns'' the
challenge. Presidents do not have the time or usually the inclination
to focus on innovation. And they face little electoral consequence for
not innovating. If voters must fax in an employment form to the Office
or Personnel Management (OPM) instead of e-mailing it, this issue
likely won't be the key one that swings their votes. As a result,
issues of innovation are relegated to the second tier, with agencies
generally having leeway to call their own shots. At the same time,
political appointees running agencies all too often ignore the
innovation agenda in favor of a more front-facing political agenda. Why
do the hard work of improving the internal operations of an agency when
the average tenure of political appointees is just two-and-a-half
years? In short, no one is on the bridge steering the Federal ``ship''
toward innovation.
To solve this, the next administration should establish a chief
innovation officer (CINO) whose responsibility would be to coordinate
and drive innovation within the Federal enterprise. The CINO would
complement the chief technology officer (CTO), whose role should be
focused on supporting technological innovation in the broader society
and economy, and the Federal chief information officer (CIO), whose job
is to focus on the Federal IT enterprise. The CINO would work closely
with the CIO but would not necessarily be a tech-centric role. For
instance, if the CINO is tasked with leading a cross-agency process
improvement project to streamline services for low-income working
mothers, the CINO would leverage process improvement, human-centered
design practices, and other innovation methods to define and tackle the
challenge--some solutions pursued would involve digital government
tools and some might be nontechnical.
12.5.1.2. Increase the size of the Presidential Innovation Fellows
Program.
Change agents are key drivers of innovation in many organizations.
While many private sector firms seek to embed change agents in their
companies, doing this in government can be a struggle. One program to
address this challenge is the Presidential Innovation Fellows (PIF).
The PIF program brings in a diverse group of product designers,
engineers, and executives with industry expertise and entrepreneurial
perspectives to pursue digital innovation in the Federal government.
This program is an important avenue from bringing in outside talent but
is relatively small with only around 20 individuals per year entering
the program.\140\ To rapidly increase the rate of digital innovation,
the next administration should increase the program to an annual new
cohort of at least 100 individuals and maintain this new rate going
forward.
In addition, we recommend that the Administration consider adding a
new intergovernmental element to the expanded Presidential Innovation
Fellows Program. While Federal government services are important, many
citizens witness government most frequently at a local level. When it
comes to innovation (performance management, process improvement,
digital services, open data, replacing legacy systems), there is high
variability across city and county governments in the United States.
Presidential Innovation Fellows could provide remote and in-person
project-based consulting to local governments seeking advice on best-
in-class e-gov implementations that could then be shared with other
jurisdictions. This resource could be invaluable, especially to more
rural or resource-strapped areas who have the political will to
innovate but lack the time and expertise to start.
12.5.1.3. Establish a bottom-up innovation tool for Federal employees.
Frontline workers often generate important new ideas for how an
organization should operate. Unfortunately, the Federal government is
not well-designed to harness ideas from these workers. It still by and
large embraces a hierarchical management culture, where frontline
workers' job is to perform, not innovate. A survey by the Partnership
for Public Service and the Hay Group found that just 39 percent of
Federal employees felt that creativity and innovation were
rewarded.\141\ And according to a recent survey by Eagle Hill
Consulting, 72 percent of Federal employees say their agencies rarely
or never seek their ideas for improving their agency, while half say
that they don't know how to submit ideas to their agencies.\142\
But the emergence of powerful and scalable social-networking
technologies could allow Federal workers to easily engage in generating
innovation ideas. The OMB should develop a tool to enable any Federal
employee to propose innovation ideas, especially for the better digital
delivery of services, in a structured format. In reviewing these ideas,
the focus should be on ideas that can be implemented across government,
not just a single agency. The initiative could be akin to an internal
challenge.gov.
12.5.1.4. Expand the number of innovation ``skunk works'' in Federal
agencies.
Because innovation in government is not a key electoral issue, it
is often deprioritized. Government agencies can accelerate innovation
by creating dedicated spaces to develop and debate ideas that can solve
challenges and create new approaches to agency practices. Pioneered by
Lockheed Corporation in the 1950s, several major corporations have
created ``skunk works''--separate organizational entities not
constrained by the dominant corporate mindset or rules. The idea behind
skunk works is to create a dedicated space, less encumbered by the day-
to-day concerns of providing services or products, as well as the rules
and routines governing companies. Many of these skunk works are not
just focused on identifying and launching new ideas, but on killing old
ones. For example, the National Security Agency (NSA) has an internal
accelerator called ``Incubation Cell'' that views its mission as
killing bad ideas because they will otherwise persist. A few agencies,
such as the NSA, CIA, and HHS, have skunk works-like efforts. However,
the next administration should establish a pilot program where four or
five additional agencies establish skunk works focused on disruptive
digital innovation within their operations.
12.5.1.5. Establish a digital innovation ideas panel within OMB.
The private sector often has valuable knowledge and extensive
expertise about potential solutions to problems in government agencies,
but the process of proposing new ideas to the Federal government is
complex and opaque to many outsiders. This prevents agency leaders from
learning about potential solutions to problems that are common across
government. To address this issue, the next administration should
create a process to allow individuals in the private sector to apply to
present digital solutions to a panel of OMB officials, who could then
work with agencies to ensure relevant solutions are considered in the
procurement process.
12.5.1.6. Allow agencies to divert a small share of their budgets to
innovation projects.
Agencies need funds for innovation. For an agency that truly wants
to innovate, most have limited capital for internal ``venture''
investing, and many lack the ability to quickly prototype, refine,
fail, and try again, because it can be almost impossible to get sign-
off on new projects quickly. To solve this, Congress should allow
agencies to allocate a small share of their operating budgets to serve
as an internal innovation seed fund, so they can start pilot projects
more easily. In particular, agencies should prioritize projects that
deliver better government services or improve government productivity.
The authority could be set to expire after five years, at which point
GAO could assess the results.
12.5.2. IMPROVE GOVERNMENT SERVICE DELIVERY.
Digital technologies offer many opportunities to improve government
services. Indeed, the widespread availability of broadband and mobile
Internet means that government services can always be accessible,
allowing for more convenience and flexibility. However, agencies should
continue to improve their online services to offer solutions on par
with the best private sector actors, where competition drives
continuous innovation.
To start, agencies should meet basic standards such as ensuring
every website loads quickly, meets all accessibility requirements, and
is optimized for both mobile devices. Moreover, they should ensure
every form is digital, allowing for electronic data entry, signing, and
submission. The Federal government should also require its internal
teams and vendors undertake representative UX/UI (user experience/user
interface) testing be done before web products are launched or
revamped.
Unfortunately, more than two decades after the Federal government
started on its digital journey, many have still not even accomplished
these basic steps. And the track record of many state and local
governments is no different. This means agencies have a significant
opportunity for improvement. First, they should all receive the
resources needed to meet these basic standards. Second, they should
develop roadmaps to start leveraging emerging technologies like
artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, augmented reality and
virtual reality (AR/VR), and blockchain to offer next-generation e-
government services.
12.5.2.1. Monitor and report metrics about Federal agency website
performance to a public dashboard.
As noted, too many Federal websites perform poorly compared to the
best-in-class private ones.\143\ The Federal government should better
track website metrics to promote agency accountability. OMB should
require that Federal agencies participate in the Digital Analytics
Program (DAP) hosted by GSA, and OMB and GSA should expand DAP to
include additional metrics, such as page-load speeds, mobile
friendliness, and accessibility. The government also should consolidate
the data it collects on Federal websites into a single public
dashboard. Since most website tests can be automated, OMB should
mandate that each agency regularly test its websites against each of
these metrics and provide the data to the public dashboard. States
should mandate the same kind of measures, perhaps collected by an
organization like the National Association of State CIOs (NASCIO).
12.5.2.2. Launch a website modernization sprint to fix known problems
with Federal websites.
Many Federal agencies have known problems with their websites but
lack clear solutions to resolve them. OMB should direct agencies to
launch a series of ``sprints'' to address known problems, especially
failures to meet security and accessibility requirements. Through the
sprint process, agencies can identify the underlying technical or
functional causes of these issues and determine the best approach to
mitigate them. This approach to problem solving is widely used in
product development and allows for rapid, iterative responses to known
issues. Addressing security weaknesses quickly is especially prudent
given the threats that cyberattacks pose to the U.S. government. The
U.S. Digital Service playbook offers recommendations for iterative
product design that agencies can use as a starting point to launch
these sprints.\144\
12.5.2.3. Improve automated and personalize online government customer
support.
One of the major opportunities to improve service in government is
by providing more automated and personalized online experiences. In
particular, government agencies can use automation technologies
including machine learning, robotic process automation, and chatbots to
deliver faster and better services. For example, online chatbots
leverage technologies like natural language processing and analytics to
answer questions from users. Multilingual chatbots could prove to be
particularly helpful to help non-English-speaking populations navigate
government resources, such immigration services. Similarly, robotic
process automation can streamline routine services, such as
automatically processing an e-mail request.
These technologies not only expedite government services for the
end user, but they also make government significantly more efficient by
freeing up government staff from routine activities and allowing them
to focus on higher-value work. For example, if all state unemployment
insurance agencies had adopted this technology prior to the pandemic,
they likely would have been able to handle many more transactions more
effectively. For this reason, federal, state, and local IT investments
should focus on increasing productivity and online service through
digital transformation and automation.
12.5.2.4. Expand use of user-centric design interfaces.
Virtually all best-in-class private sector companies that depend on
the Internet for survival spend considerable amount of money and time
improving the design of the user interfaces of their websites to make
it easy for users to find what they want. They leverage design-thinking
processes to immerse themselves in the customer experience which allows
them to develop and test online services that meet the specific needs
of their customers.\145\ For example, the financial services and tax
software company Intuit employs individuals with a variety of skills to
``design for delight'' by taking steps to deeply understand the needs
of their users and conduct user testing to make decisions based on
actual user behaviors.\146\ The U.S. Digital Service has developed a
comprehensive web design framework for Federal agencies, and while some
200 agencies have adopted this modern code base, many more have
not.\147\ The next administration should require Federal agencies to
adopt this standard for all new websites. In addition, states should
either adopt the Federal codebase or pool their resources, perhaps
through NASCIO, to develop similar code libraries that they can deploy
across similar services (e.g., employment services, parks, etc.).
12.5.2.5. Establish desktop and mobile page-load speed benchmarks for
websites.
Users will expect government websites and apps to load at speeds
similar to their private sector counterparts. But many local, state,
and Federal agencies have yet to optimize their websites to ensure they
load quickly on desktops and mobile devices. This could further slow
development and adoption of digital government services as users will
find less value in online alternatives that they see as inconvenient.
The Federal government already has established standards and best
practices for Federal websites based on consumer convenience,
accessibility, and security. Given that the majority of Federal
websites still need to significantly improve their page-load speeds,
OMB should work with the Federal CIO to develop Federal guidelines on
page-load speed across devices. And state and local CIOs should do the
same.
12.5.2.6. Establish video streaming best practices for all public
government events.
Many government events--conferences, panel discussions, and
speeches--take place all over the country. For most Americans,
attending these events in person is not an option, especially with the
pandemic. While many Federal agencies put some or all of their events
online through streaming video, they do this inconsistently and using a
variety of platforms, many with significant capacity restrictions which
limits their potential audience. Moreover, some of these platforms are
not accessible, such as not enabling live automatic captioning when
manual captioning is not provided. To address this problem, OMB should
establish video streaming best practices for all public government
events and provide agencies with funding to implement these
requirements. Federal agencies should no longer procure event video
streaming services from contractors that do not meet these best
practices.
12.5.2.7. Launch a Federal website consolidation initiative.
There are so many Federal government websites that finding the
right information, or up-to-date information, can be a major challenge.
While it is important to provide comprehensive information about
government agencies in an accessible online format, this complex system
of agency-affiliated websites complicates the user experience and
reduces the efficiency of digital services. OMB should launch a website
consolidation initiative with the goal of eliminating and consolidating
duplicative or unnecessary websites. Additionally, each newly created
website should have a planned life cycle, which sets a specific date
when it should be removed and archived or renewed and refreshed. The
same planning mechanism should be employed for old government websites.
12.5.2.8. Optimize government websites for mobile use.
As with other web services, government website visitors do not
necessarily use a desktop computer to access them. During the summer of
2020, half of all visits to government websites participating in the
Digital Analytics Program used mobile devices.\148\ Not only are a
significant portion of visitors using mobile browsers; for around 20
percent of Americans, mobile devices are their only form of home
Internet access.\149\ Despite the demand for mobile-friendly websites,
many government websites are not optimized for mobile use, which
excludes a significant portion of the population, particularly from low
income and communities of color who rely more on mobile devices than
the general population, from using web-based government services.
Government agencies should ensure all websites are mobile-friendly to
make these services more accessible to the communities that need them.
This includes informational website pages as well as web forms or other
interactive elements.
12.5.2.9. Expand the use of mobile payments.
Compared to other developed economies, contactless payment adoption
in the United States has been relatively slow, but concerns about
spreading disease are changing this: 60 percent of users report feeling
more comfortable making contactless payments now than before the
pandemic.\150\ Greater adoption of mobile payments would allow
individuals to make payments without making physical contact with
others or other devices, reducing the risk of transmitting infections
during the pandemic. While many high-contact government services, such
as transit, are provided by state and local authorities, the Federal
government can provide funding and best practices to encourage adoption
of these technologies, including working with private sector payments
systems innovators. In addition, while some states have adopted mobile
payments for electronic benefits transfer (EBT) programs like the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
in ways that particularly benefit low income and communities of color,
others have not, and the Federal government should expand these
programs.
12.5.2.10. Make all government forms digital.
Given the unnecessary costs involved in ordering, sending,
preparing, and filing paper and non-fillable electronic forms, all
Federal agencies, including the IRS, should upgrade their automated
processing systems so they can receive fillable electronic forms and
implement an e-filing system. Agencies can base their e-filing systems
off the Business Services Online program provided by the Social
Security Administration, which provides several services, such as
allowing employers to electronically complete and file up to 50 W-2
forms through its website. And if agencies want to offset the costs of
building an e-filing system or processing scanned paper filings, they
can do so by charging fees for government customers to obtain and file
paper forms. This will both fund the development of new systems and cut
costs by discouraging filers from using the more expensive paper-based
filing options.
12.5.2.11. Create an ``offline mode'' for government apps to allow use
when not connected.
Some people, such as those in rural areas, do not always have full-
time access to the Internet. Others, particularly in low income and
communities of color, may only connect to the Internet through public
Wi-Fi hotspots. Government agencies should design apps with an
``offline mode'' that would, for example, allow individuals to complete
a form offline, but then submit the results when they are back online.
These would also allow individuals to work when they are offline, such
as on an airplane. Many government websites require an active
connection which limits the utility of these apps for individuals with
sporadic connectivity.
12.5.2.12. Mandate the use of Login.gov across all Federal government
services.
GSA has developed Login.gov as a shared service for Federal
agencies to use to authenticate users to online services. Not only does
this simplify the authentication process for users and provide a single
trusted authentication service for both users and developers, it also
allows agencies to replace outdated methods for remote verifying the
identity of online users. Many agencies rely on ``knowledge-based
verification'' where users must provide certain information from the
credit files about themselves to prove their identity. However, since
many individuals have had sensitive personal information stolen from
data breaches, this method is not reliable. Instead, services like
Login.gov use more secure methods, such as verifying physical
credentials like a driver's license or passport, or verifying someone's
possession of a mobile device with a cell phone carrier.\151\
While many government agencies have begun using the Login.gov
service, it is not yet universally adopted. The next administration
should require all government agencies to move to this newer platform
to ensure citizens can securely and easily access government services.
GSA should expand the program to also allow state and local governments
to join the program.
12.5.2.13. Establish a one-stop-shop for citizens to access and share
personal data held by government agencies.
To provide necessary services and allocate resources, many
government agencies collect personally identifiable information about
individuals as part of their day-to-day operations. This often results
in individuals having to provide the same information to multiple
government agencies, adding both time and cost to multiple government
services. This information should be consolidated in a single secure
online location that can be accessed by individuals as well as
authorized government agencies.
This consolidation will improve the efficiency and accessibility of
digital government services. When collecting personally identifiable
information, GSA should offer individuals a single website where they
can access all the information Federal government agencies have
collected about them, and share this information as necessary with
others, such as when applying for government benefits. Ideally, GSA
would form a partnership with states to allow the same functionality
across all levels of government.
12.5.2.14. Build more government APIs to enable non-government
organizations to link citizens to services.
Government agencies provide access to many important services and
information online, but citizens may prefer to access these services
and information through non-government websites and applications,
particularly given the fact that best-in-class private sector web
applications are usually significantly better in terms of user
interface and ease of use. Rather than only building government apps
and websites, government agencies should build application programming
interfaces (APIs) that allow third-party developers to integrate
government services into their own applications, while ensuring that
consumer data and privacy remains protected. For example, rather than
requiring people to use a government website to make reservations and
purchases at state and national parks, open APIs would enable qualified
travel websites to allow individuals to book reservations for campsites
or pay for day passes.
Likewise, it is an arduous process for small businesses to find out
what their regulatory requirements are or what help they can get from
governments, including in the COVID-19crisis. And while most agency
websites try to list these things, figuring this out is extremely
difficult for companies. Open APIs, powered by better technology, could
let businesses and individuals enter into private sector for-profit or
non-profit applications information about their company or themselves
and have the applications automatically identify the right information
and resources tailored specifically to them.
12.5.2.15. Establish a Federal Grant Program to Eliminate Data Poverty.
One of the primary reasons that individuals go online is to get
information. But sometimes individuals cannot find the information they
want or the information they find is not very accurate for themselves
or their community. For example, cities may only collect air quality
data or traffic data for wealthier areas of the city creating pockets
of data deserts in communities. Or certain hospitals serving higher-
income individuals may have better data sharing practices than those in
lower-income neighborhoods, limiting the availability of data that
researchers can use to address health conditions disproportionately
affecting people with lower incomes. As an increasing number of digital
services are built to make sense of data, people living in data-rich
environments stand to benefit considerably, but others living in data
poverty will miss out on these opportunities.[i] Similarly,
decisions made from these datasets may overlook important opportunities
to identify and serve the needs of all citizens.
The answer to this problem is not to limit the use of data, but
rather to ensure that everyone stands to benefit from data-driven
innovation. To close the gap, the next administration should establish
a $100 million grant program to eliminate data poverty. The goal of
this program would be to fund projects that take concrete steps to
close the data divide, such as by training citizens in under-
represented communities how to submit feedback through city mobile apps
or subsidizing wearable medical devices to increase representation in
health datasets. The program should focus on updating legacy systems
that limit data generating and reporting capacities; equitable
deployment of IoT--likely in partnership with universities; building
data trust and literacy; Research grants for under-examined and
analyzed local topics with community demand; and support for local
anchor institutions to conduct data inventorying and auditing, open
data platform building, internal training.
12.5.3. INVEST IN MORE MODERN SYSTEMS, INCLUDING NEW APPLICATIONS.
To fully equip the government for a digital future, agencies should
not only update current practices, but also invest in systems at the
cutting edge of innovation. In the private sector, such investments
have yielded higher productivity and efficiency. Government agencies
can similarly benefit from investments in digital technologies that
will help them become more productive, such as by automating routine
processes, benefiting from digital economies of scale, and using data
analytics to make better decisions.
To accomplish this, the Federal government should introduce
investment programs and initiatives that focus on modernizing existing
systems and strengthening them against disruptions such as those from
the COVID-19 pandemic. Many government websites and digital tools are
outdated, vulnerable to cyber-attacks, and lacking low-contact or
contactless alternatives necessary to protect employees and maintain a
largely virtual workforce. Government agencies should invest in
modernizing and securing existing systems, as well as developing low-
contact and remote alternatives to existing practices.
Further, as technologies continue to evolve, systems that align
with industry standards today could become outdated in a matter of
years. Agencies' digital transformation should include policies and
practices that enable them to keep pace with innovation in Internet of
Thing (IoT) devices, blockchain, robotic process automation, immersive
reality, cloud computing, and emerging technologies of the future.
Government agencies should consistently explore potential uses for
these new and emerging IT systems to improve government services and
facilitate effective digital transformation.
12.5.3.1. Launch a ``Digital New Deal'' to modernize outdated
government systems.
Many government agencies have critical operations running on
outdated computer systems. During the spike in unemployment
applications due to COVID-19, many government unemployment systems
crashed because they were unable to handle the surge in demand. Given
the capabilities of cloud computing today, this was an eminently
preventable problem. In addition, making changes to these older systems
can be difficult due to a lack of programmers with the right skills.
For example, at least 12 states use COBOL, an outdated programming
language from the 1970s, in their unemployment agency.\152\ All
government agencies using outdated systems should move to modern,
cloud-based systems that can accommodate fluctuating demand and provide
services more efficiently. Similarly, many local governments have not
digitized property parcel data and property tax records, an improvement
that would not only help broadband mapping, but also potentially
significantly reduce title search costs when people buy residential
properties.
As Congress pursues further national recovery legislation, it
should allocate substantial funds to federal, state, and local
governments to modernize their IT systems. Too many government agencies
are using systems that are outdated, not customer-friendly, and
expensive to maintain. These older systems pose a drain to their
budgets and limit their ability to meet future challenges. The
Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) established an innovative funding
vehicle for government agencies to obtain funding for IT projects.
While the TMF has received some funding, it has been significantly
lower than originally proposed. Congress should provide at least $3
billion in funding to significantly expand the TMF for Federal agencies
and dedicate the funding to modernizing IT systems that support public-
facing services.
12.5.3.2. Develop and fund a globally competitive smart-cities program
and national Internet of Things (IoT) strategy.
When governments implement new policies, such as stay-at-home
orders, they struggle to understand the impacts these decrees have on
their communities. To prevent this barrier in the future, Congress
should allocate at least $2 billion for smart city funding. This
program could be jointly managed by HUD, NIST and NSF. Increasing
adoption of IoT devices is necessary to generate key datasets that
could help communities better respond to a pandemic, such as smart
thermostats to track public health trends and fitness trackers to
understand how people's fitness habits, sleep behavior, and overall
health indicators change during a pandemic. Moreover, as discussed in
the recommendation on eliminating data poverty (12.5.2.15), our country
faces a data divide--where certain communities do not have sufficient
data collected about them, creating social and economic inequalities.
Smart city data can be another tool to help ensure national datasets
are diverse and representative, helping to close that data divide.\153\
Local governments can also use connected technologies to better
manage public services and resources, thereby improving their
resilience in times of crisis, whether it be a health epidemic,
terrorism, or natural disaster. All of this would also make broadband
adoption, particularly mobile, more valuable to citizens.
12.5.3.3. Fund a government blockchain pilot projects program to expand
the number of blockchain initiatives.
Many transactions, such as buying or selling property, require
using a trusted intermediary such as a bank or a government agency,
which creates a constraint during physical distancing when these
institutions are unavailable. Blockchain allows multiple parties to
engage in secure, trusted transactions with one another without an
intermediary and without physical contact. Government agencies could
benefit from greater adoption of blockchain technology to improve the
accessibility and security of digital services. Blockchain-driven
solutions not only reduce physical contact, but also allow for more
efficient, timely, and cost-effective processes and services in both
the public and private sectors.
The Federal government should fund a dedicated blockchain pilot
projects program to facilitate development and deployment of these
solutions, in collaboration with the private sector, which has been
innovating across a range of blockchain use cases. By investing in and
supporting blockchain projects, government agencies can accelerate the
deployment of this technology, thereby creating more opportunities for
automation and digitalization in the economy and taking steps to
increase financial inclusion.
12.5.3.4. Develop and implement policies to enable long-term
teleworking.
While virtually all major corporations in the United States
seamlessly transitioned to enabling telework, including for their
customer service representatives, too few government agencies were
fully prepared to enable much of their workforce to telework long-term.
This meant many lower-level GS workers were without work for months
because their agencies could not adequately provision them for remote
work.
Preparing to adapt for long-term telework now can mitigate the
potential workforce impacts of such a transition in the future. Due to
improvements in technology, many jobs, especially public-facing
customer service jobs, can be performed remotely at home. For two-
income working families, caregivers, multigenerational households, and
individuals with disabilities, teleworking presents enormous
opportunities. Government agencies should ensure they have the
technology systems and organizational procedures in place to enable
long-term telework. Doing so would also have benefits long after
physical distancing requirements are lifted, as telework has been shown
to improve productivity, cut costs, and improve employee morale if done
effectively.
Congress should establish a one-time telework modernization fund
for government agencies to upgrade their IT to modern standards--and to
qualify, their agencies would be required to act within the next six
months. They should also institute a fund for state governments to do
the same.
12.5.3.5. Establish an ``18F'' for cybersecurity.
One factor that is critical to ensuring adequate use of e-
government services is that systems are secure. Unfortunately, many
government agencies lack the resources and expertise to fully address
their systems' cybersecurity risks: a 2018 GAO study identified
addressing ``cybersecurity workforce management challenges'' as one of
ten critical actions needed to address cybersecurity vulnerabilities in
the U.S. government.\154\ Without a fully equipped cybersecurity
workforce, government systems continue to lag behind their private
sector counterparts in security measures, making government systems
particularly vulnerable. As digital services expand and more Americans
rely on these systems, these vulnerabilities will be exacerbated.
Private sector expertise would improve agencies' capacity to build and
maintain more secure e-government systems.
The next administration should direct the General Services
Administration (GSA) to establish an office that brings in top private-
sector talent to collaborate with other agencies on cybersecurity
issues to improve government security. This team should be modeled off
some of the most successful aspects of the existing GSA office known as
18F, which focuses on user-centered product development, rapid
prototyping, reviewing, and refining of its products, and coaching
peers throughout government. The goal of this initiative would be to
incorporate private-sector knowledge and nongovernment culture into
high-impact, high-priority Federal government cybersecurity projects.
Members of this team could serve short-term stints based on new
projects, agency needs, and available funding.
12.5.3.6. Invest in augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) solutions.
Augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR), immersive technologies that
enable users to experience digitally rendered content in both physical
and virtual space, can reduce costs and increase productivity in the
Federal workforce. AR/VR offers a range of potential uses in
government, including providing realistic scenario-based training for
emergency response, enabling government employees to communicate more
effectively with members of the public, and improving efficiency of
high-tech manufacturing and machine repair. These technologies also
support health care training and patient care, education, job skilling,
infrastructure planning, and new opportunities for small businesses
through retail and commerce. As technological improvements make AR/VR
more affordable and user-friendly, government agencies should explore
opportunities to utilize these technologies. Several agencies including
FEMA, Veterans Affairs, and NASA have already started to explore AR/VR-
based solutions for workforce development and public engagement. Rather
than continue this ad-hoc approach to investment in these technologies,
the Federal government should develop a government-wide procurement
strategy for AR/VR investment.
12.5.3.7. Replace annual reports with dashboards.
Almost every government agency, no matter its size, publishes a
yearly report about its activities. While these reports are a useful
tool for providing insight and accountability on public-sector
operations, they are no longer the best option for an increasingly
digital government. Annual reports do not accurately reflect the
current activities and priorities of an agency at a given moment, nor
do they offer readers the ability to easily seek out answers to
specific questions or concerns. To function within a more digital
government, annual reports should be dynamic, accessible, and easy to
read.
Agencies should begin replacing annual reports with dynamic
dashboards that provide real-time information on government programs.
GSA can provide the technical building blocks for agencies to implement
dashboards, and OMB can provide guidance on best practices for data
visualizations so that dashboards present information in the most user-
friendly way possible. This transition will be an important element of
any agency's digital transformation.
12.5.3.8. Expand FedRamp Metrics
To improve the overall efficiency of e-government services,
agencies will have to rely on cloud computing services more now than in
the past. FedRAMP is a Federal program that helps Federal agencies
procure secure cloud computing services, but it suffers from long
timelines, high costs, and review processes that are inconsistent
across Federal agencies. These issues have created barriers to
businesses offering their services to the Federal government, thereby
slowing agencies' access to cloud services.
To ensure FedRAMP is not acting as a competition barrier for cloud
providers, especially smaller ones, OMB should track how long it takes
different sized vendors to get through the authorization process and
pilot a tiered authorization approach that would allow providers to
operate on a provisional basis. This will accelerate agencies' adoption
of necessary cloud computing services and ensure consistency in
procurement across the government.
CONCLUSION
A variety of Internet applications like e-commerce, streaming
video, online banking, social media, and more have driven broadband
adoption, both fixed and mobile. Building better e-government services
can continue to support adoption and provide more value to those who
are online. More importantly, taking bold steps to bring government
agencies at the federal, state, and local levels much closer to private
sector best practice will go a long way to improving opportunity,
boosting quality of life, and ensuring a better civic life for all.
Chapter 13.
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
13.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Failings of digital equity and inclusion limit the ability of all
Americans, and particularly those with lower incomes and communities of
color, from full engagement in the political and civic lives of their
communities, both offline and online. At the same time, while broadband
and applications such as social media have encouraged and facilitated
new forms of civic engagement, misinformation, online voter suppression
tactics, and hate speech have endangered those who live in low-income
communities and people of color. Further, social media platforms have
created new harms related to micro-targeting in advertising and other
uses that results in discriminatory outcomes for communities of color.
13.2. VISION
We need improved sources of accurate and relevant information, and
tools that enable Internet users to improve their own welfare, and to
engage productively with the democratic and civic institutions of their
communities and the Nation. The Internet ecosystem must become a
healthy, self-sustaining environment, with effective mechanisms for
quickly identifying and countering dangerous misinformation and toxic
behavior.
13.3. GOALS
The key goals for the digital equity and inclusion in civic
engagement are to:
Reduce the amount and negative impact of harmful
misinformation, online voter suppression, and hate speech on
the Internet;
Increase the amount of content that addresses the concerns
and needs of low-income communities and communities of color;
Improve the tools available for low-income persons and
persons of color to engage in civic discussions, giving them a
stronger voice both offline and online in policy decisions.
13.4. CURRENT SITUATION
Civic engagement is the lifeblood of any democracy and the bedrock
of its legitimacy. Increasingly, our national conversation, our sources
for news and information and our knowledge of each other ride on
broadband networks and applications. The transition to new information
technologies and services have opened new doors that enhance America's
media environment, but have left traditional sources of news and
information, including journalism, under severe stress.
Broadband holds the potential to strengthen our democracy by
dramatically increasing public access to news and information, and to
provide new tools for Americans to engage with their government and one
another online. For example, we have seen how social media responded to
some of the problems with the 2016 elections by improving the
information provided in the 2020 election. We have also seen efforts by
social media to keep people informed and limit misinformation about
COVID-19. However, there are still misinformation campaigns about the
pandemic and vaccine that proliferate on social media platforms and
target people of color.
The Internet has enabled the wide-spread dissemination of
misinformation that can weaken our country. Unfortunately, we have seen
several examples of that phenomenon recently, with a particularly
negative impact on communities of color. Without better controls, both
public and private, there is genuine risk that the Internet could widen
racial, partisan, educational, gender and other divides, rather than
achieve its potential to close them.
One example involves information about public health. The COVID-19
pandemic provides a tragic, and important, example of what can happen
with information targeted to minority communities. As the report,
Canaries in the Coal Mine: COVID-19 Misinformation and Black
Communities, documented:
[T]he Black community was awash in medical misinformation about
the coronavirus pandemic, even as Black people were dying from
COVID-19 at a rate much higher than other demographics.
Dangerous health misinformation hit the community like a second
virus, a confounding and inflaming new factor injected into an
already depleted immune system, making it that much harder for
the Black community to survive the pandemic.
The damage done by the misinformation is exacerbated by a long
history of medical abuses against the Black community. The report noted
that ``Black people across the U.S. have for centuries and for good
reason been skeptical of government interventions and the medical
community, relying on community knowledge for their very survival. That
necessary self-reliance, when it comes to matters of health, can make
the community a vulnerable target for disinformation.'' The report
further noted that the risk was compounded ``by failures of tech
companies and elected officials to speak to the Black community in ways
that are culturally accessible.'' The report found that the predominant
narratives spreading in Black communities in the United States posed
``an immediate threat to the health of Black people and is a symptom of
an information ecosystem poisoned by racial inequality. Black lives are
consistently put in danger, and it is incumbent upon community actors,
media, government, and tech companies alike to do their part to ensure
that timely, local, relevant, and redundant public health messages are
served to all communities.''
A second example involves Internet disinformation campaigns
directed at minority communities aimed at suppressing voting
rights. As documented in The State of Black America 2020, in a
chapter titled ``The Vote and the Virus: Inoculating the
Election From Disease and Disinformation,'' the 2016 election
was marred by a number of ``hoaxes (that) were aided and
abetted by Russian internet trolls whose systematic attempts to
suppress the Black vote were motivated by geopolitical rather
than political objectives.'' While the authors viewed the
impact of those efforts as likely to have been minimal, they
suggest the impact of similar efforts could be much larger in
2020. As the authors point out, ``one of the time-tested
truisms of disinformation is that it thrives in times of
uncertainty when there is both a large demand for information
and a short supply of available facts. Thus, any change to
standard voting procedures, however reasonable, necessary, or
lifesaving, will create a potentially nightmarish scenario
where the increased demand for up-to-date information is met
with a manipulated supply meant to misinform parts of the
electorate.''
A third example relates to the decennial census disinformation. As
Spencer Overton, President of the Joint Center on Political and
Economic Studies recently wrote to Congress, related to his testimony
at a hearing on ``A Country in Crisis: How Disinformation Online is
Dividing the Nation,'' census disinformation threatens to result in an
undercount of underserved communities, which would fall short of the
constitutional mandate that apportionment of Representatives be based
on ``persons'' counted by a census conducted in such a manner that
Congress directs by law. In 2016, the Russian Internet Research Agency
coordinated a campaign to impersonate Black Americans and encourage
Black Americans to ``boycott the election'' (Black Americans made up
12.7 percent of the U.S. population but accounted for 38 percent of the
U.S.-focused ads purchased by the Russian Internet Research Agency).
These kinds of targeted ads discourage Black communities from
participating in the political process. A similar disinformation
campaign targeted at marginalized groups attempting to sow distrust of
the census or boycott the census could result in a serious undercount
of marginalized communities, which could result in diminishing the
votes and resources of these populations and their fellow residents,
and unfairly inflating the political influence and government benefits
enjoyed by those communities where there was not an undercount.
The danger of misinformation campaigns has become more acute, due
to the crisis affecting traditional news outlets, particularly those
designed to serve communities of color.
As the authors of the report ``African American Media Today:
Building the Future from the Past,'' summarized their findings:
Today, the Black press struggles to remain in operation. While
the virtual disappearance of traditional advertising has
challenged the news industry as a whole, it has been
particularly damaging to the Black newspaper industry.
Shrinking staffs have left many operations without tech savvy
or the manpower to quickly pivot to new revenue building
operations. And while some mainstream news institutions
establish paywalls for their digital media platforms, many in
the Black American community understand that readers are
unlikely to accept news through the paywall model.
That report did hold up hope. In looking at the most prominent
Black American oriented websites, it noted that ``Each of these sites
seems positioned for future growth'' and that ``Many social trends also
seem to be fueling the bright futures of Black American-oriented news
and culture sites.'' To serve Black American audiences, these digital
news platforms will need funding to be sustainable. That potential,
however, may not be achieved, unless we address the availability,
adoption, and affordability gaps discussed in Chapters Three, Four, and
Five.
13.5 KEY CHALLENGES TO OVERCOME
Information technology legal scholar Ellen Goodman suggests that we
find mechanisms that increase the ``signal'' and decrease the ``noise''
in information delivered through the Internet. ``Signal,'' in this
context, is information that is truthful and supportive of democratic
discourse. ``Noise'' misinforms and undermines discursive potential.
``When signal overpowers noise, Goodman write, ``there is high fidelity
in the information environment.'' She further explains ``Digital
platforms can overwhelm signal with noise. Scale and speed, user
propagation, automated promotion, inauthentic and hidden amplification,
and the mixture of sponsored and organic speech all make digital
discourse different . . . It is therefore not shocking that platform
architecture not only tolerates but even favors low-fidelity speech.''
The challenge then, is improving the mechanisms by which key
stakeholders, including public institutions and individuals have the
resources to eliminate or at least reduce the noise, while elevating
the signal. Of course, there are First Amendment issues here that must
be respected. Government should not be in the position to compel or
censor speech. But just as the government can prohibit certain kinds of
speech that create a public health hazard or sponsor speech designed to
provide information to enhance public health and safety, so here, we
should search for ways that, consistent with First Amendment
precedents, address the challenges of improving signal to noise ratio.
This also applies to social media companies that allow users to
promote `noise' online. Companies have the power to prohibit speech
that are unhealthy and unsafe for Black and Brown communities. Online
content has real-world consequences for people of color, and, unlike
Government, social media platforms have the authority to remove content
that is harmful. Tech companies must publish and update rules or
community guidelines to create strong mechanisms to eliminate the
noise.
13.6 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the above, we offer the following recommendations
related to elevating relevant and reliable information and providing
tools for individuals and countering misinformation.
13.6.1. CIVIC ENGAGEMENT RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER CHAPTERS.
There are several civic engagement related recommendations in other
chapters that we cross-reference here. These include:
Provide Digital Readiness Training. To enable greater use of
broadband functionality, including for purposes of civic
engagement, state and local governments should ramp up digital
readiness efforts, as described in Chapter Four.
Optimize Websites to Facilitate Engagement. To enable
greater civic engagement, state and local governments should
improve their websites to facilitate utilization and feedback
on policy issues, such as budgeting, as described in Chapter
Twelve.
13.6.2. HOLD HEARINGS TO HELP INFORM PUBLIC.
Congress should hold a series of civil rights-focused hearings with
high-level executives from the companies that have been the major
sources of disinformation to discuss their content moderation practices
and how those practices can be augmented to protect public health,
civic engagement, and civil rights.
13.6.3. PASS LEGISLATION TO PREVENT VOTER SUPPRESSION ON SOCIAL MEDIA.
As a follow-on to those hearings and as part of a broader effort to
restore and enhance voting rights, Congress should enact laws that
prevent deceptive voter suppression tactics on social media.
13.6.4. CLARIFY THAT SECTION 230 DOES NOT IMMUNIZE RACIALLY
DISCRIMINATORY AD TARGETING BY PLATFORMS.
Social media companies should be held accountable if they target
(and/or deliver) employment or housing ads away from communities of
color and other protected groups or target (and/or deliver) voter
suppression ads toward Black users and other protected groups. Congress
should consider making this an explicit carve-out to Section 230--that
Section 230 does not provide a defense to Federal and state civil
rights claims of underlying discrimination through online ad targeting
and delivery. Section 230 carve-outs already exist for violations in
various areas of the law. A clear congressional carve out would prevent
companies from asserting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair
Housing Act, and other landmark civil rights laws are inapplicable
simply because a platform discriminates online rather than at a brick-
and-mortar storefront.
13.6.5. RESTORE FUNDING OF OTA.
Congress should restore funding for the Office of Technology
Assessment and add to its mandate that it help Congress understand and
address how best to combat disinformation and other practices that
discriminate against communities of color and create barriers to civic
engagement.
13.6.6. EMPOWER FTC TO ADDRESS NEW DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.
Congress should specifically empower the FTC to address deceptive
practices related to public health and safety, voting, and other
actions related to civic participation such as the census.
13.6.7. EMPANEL A COMMISSION TO STUDY PUBLIC INFORMATION ON COVID-19.
The President or Congress should empanel a Commission to study what
information about the pandemic was made publicly available, how this
information affected societal response, and what should be done to
limit the impact of false and dangerously misleading information moving
forward, while ensuring robust opportunity for debate and expression.
There should be particular attention to what information was targeted
at low-income communities and communities of color. The purpose of the
Commission should not be to impose civil or criminal liability for
misinformation spread during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather, the
Commission should seek to understand and explain how different media
platforms--and the ideas shared on them--shaped societal response to
the pandemic and to provide advice to all stakeholders for how to
better provide information in a public health emergency.
13.6.8. EMPANEL A COMMISSION TO STUDY THE IMPACT OF THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
ON THE 2020 CENSUS.
The accuracy of the 2020 Census, which relied heavily on online
answers, has been called into question because of how failings of
digital equity and inclusion may have skewed the results, a situation
likely made worse by COVID-19. An expert panel should be commissioned
to study the impact on the results and if necessary, the Census results
should be adjusted to reflect a more accurate count.
13.6.9. ESTABLISH BEST SOCIAL MEDIA PRACTICES.
Social media platforms should provide banner notices with accurate
information, redirect to deradicalizing sites, and refuse ads that
promote voter or public health misinformation or that link to websites
promoting such misinformation. In addition, social media should be
transparent about how they are acting to ensure that algorithms used
are not biased and serve all communities.
13.6.10. ESTABLISH RULES RELATED TO POLITICAL MICROTARGETING.
Political microtargeting involves using large data sets to tailor
and deliver messages to small subgroups of the electorate. It has some
benefits, for example, in terms of get-out-the-vote and community
mobilization ads. But it has also been used to spread targeted
misinformation. As Spencer Overton of the Joint Center for Political
and Economic Studies has noted, microtargeting ``allows those intending
to deploy misinformation about elections the opportunity to target ads
at those most likely to believe the misinformation, while steering it
away from those more likely to challenge and correct the
misinformation, thereby hardening polarization.'' Senator Ron Wyden has
asked platforms for a moratorium on political microtargeting, which
would be useful to preventing disinformation, but such an action should
be done in a way that ensures that the actions do not prevent less-
wealthy candidates that lack resources for television ads from
targeting their supporters online and mobilizing them and marginalized
communities to the polls.
13.6.11. ENABLE REAL-TIME AD TRANSPARENCY AND ARCHIVES.
Congress should enable real-time ad transparency and access to
archives, such as proposed in the bipartisan Honest Ads Act, by
requiring digital platforms that reach a critical size with to display
information about the audience targeted, the number of views generated,
the dates and times of publication, the ad rates charged, and contact
information for the purchaser. The information should be made available
in a public, online file that should be user-friendly, easily
searchable, and sortable through an application programming interface
(API).
13.6.12. PROTECT PRIVACY ON SUBSIDIZED DEVICES AND SERVICES.
Privacy protection is also a fundamental bedrock of civic
engagement so, as described in Chapter Four, the FCC should take
actions to assure that recipients of Lifeline subsidies or other
broadband related subsidies are not provided devices or services that
violate privacy rights consistent with the FTC's privacy framework
policy by using preloaded tracking software to collect personal
information from the user without disclosing this practice to the user.
13.6.13. INCREASE INVESTMENT IN RELIABLE, RELEVANT AND TRUSTED
INFORMATION FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.
To enable greater civic engagement, the Federal government should
make grants through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to local
noncommercial stations for journalism by and for underserved
communities.
Chapter 14.
INSTITUTIONALIZING DIGITAL EQUITY AND INCLUSION
IN THE POLICY PROCESS
14.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Achieving digital equity and inclusion requires a sustained,
systemic, and appropriately resourced effort. It also depends on inter-
agency coordination, and collaboration with federal, state, and local
governments. Currently, policymakers do not have the tools to monitor
and evaluate the success of efforts to close the digital equity gap.
Responsibility is diffused across multiple agencies and stakeholder
groups. Data collection practices are inadequate to capture the
obstacles individuals face in broadband availability, adoption, and
affordability. A lack of effective outreach results in provider-centric
coverage maps that do not reflect the challenges faced by diverse
communities.
To achieve full utilization, agencies will need to centralize
efforts, and coordinate with federal, state, and local partners to
collect data and implement programs. Without a coordinated approach,
agencies will continue to solve disparate pieces of the problem,
leaving holes in otherwise-potent efforts to close the gaps.
14.2. VISION
Governments must develop tools they currently lack to evaluate and
improve, in a centralized and systematic manner, efforts to achieve
digital equity and inclusion, ensuring that as the economy, society,
and technology change, policymakers can find and address evolving and
emerging sources of inequity. Agencies expanding broadband access at
the Federal level will need to collaborate effectively and share data
while developing partnerships with state and local authorities who are
working on on-the-ground efforts to expand broadband access in their
communities.
Robust data collection, including individual and household data,
should be available for decision-making, and made open to the public so
that governments can be held accountable. Additionally, considerations
of availability, adoption, and affordability should be included in all
new legislation on the digital economy.
14.3. GOALS
By the middle of 2022, the Federal government should have
the data it needs to evaluate progress towards digital equity
and inclusion.
By the end of 2021, personnel in key positions in federal,
state, and local governments should be hired to ensure that
digital equity and inclusion remains an on-going, high-priority
goal.
By the end of 2021, mechanisms should be in place to
disseminate information through an Office of Digital Equity and
a Digital Equity and Inclusion Administration Task Force. These
entities should have the tools they need to review data on past
performance, and make and communicate necessary adjustments to
strategies and policies adopted to achieve digital equity and
inclusion.
14.4. THE CURRENT SITUATION
The 2010 National Broadband Plan was clear in noting that, ``This
plan is in beta and always will be.'' The authors emphasized that a
constantly evolving economy, society, and technology required
continuous review and update of the plans, goals, strategies, and
measurement. The same is true for the digital equity and inclusion
agenda. But to evolve, policymakers seeking to achieve digital equity
and inclusion will need to have data, personnel, and information
sharing strategies essential to understanding changing conditions, and
to develop and communicate needed course corrections.
Today, that is not the case. Federal programs to expand digital
equity and inclusion have been channeled through a variety of executive
departments and agencies, coordinated through the American Broadband
Initiative, an inter-departmental effort launched in 2019. According to
the American Broadband Initiative's 2019 Milestones Report, over twenty
Federal agencies have been tasked with some level of responsibility for
achieving the overall goal. Agency staff also lack the data, personnel,
and institutional structure needed to achieve their goals. There are
inadequate mechanisms for bringing agencies together to evaluate
progress and align on tactics and strategies.
While access to information on digital equity and inclusion, such
as the FCC's public interactive Broadband Map, has become more readily
available over time, the value of this information cannot be fully
realized without a clear central vision. There are also significant
limits to the value of the information that is being collected. The
FCC's dataset, for example, is updated based on Form 477 data,
submitted twice a year by service providers. As discussed in Chapter 3,
however, there are structural and procedural flaws to the current data
collection process. These flaws are expected to be addressed through
implementation of the 2020 Broadband DATA Act, which requires the FCC
to collect data and prepare maps that report broadband availability at
a much more granular level.
Additionally, each agency participating in the American Broadband
Initiative relies on their own personnel to carry out specific agency
workstreams. Without dedicated staff to carry out the broader vision of
institutionalizing digital equity and inclusion, it remains difficult
to adapt to changing conditions. The USDA and FCC carry out the bulk of
the Federal government's grant, loan, and subsidy programs for
broadband, for example, but there is little coordination between these
organizations, and no centralized staff focused on the issue of equity
in broadband access, adoption, and utilization.
Finally, the agencies included in the American Broadband Initiative
lack a common review and oversight process to bridge their separate
information and personnel. There is no incentive for public-private
partnerships between industries and government agencies to collaborate.
Many of the American Broadband Initiative's problems are structural;
the program lacks authority, incentives, and adequate budgeting. There
are inherent conflicts which affect chain of command and reporting.
Without better data, a deep well of personnel, and a coherent review
and oversight structure, efficient and sustainable solutions are
impossible to achieve.
14.5.1. DATA COLLECTION.
A fundamental challenge to institutionalizing a digital equity and
inclusion agenda is how the Federal government defines and prioritizes
the data that need to be collected. If surveys and maps leave out
crucial segments of the population or limit the respondents who can
provide their input, the data will not be useful for improving overall
broadband utilization.
Much of the focus so far has appropriately been on coverage maps.
Unfortunately, as Congress has recognized on a bi-partisan basis, the
maps are updated infrequently, limiting their accuracy and consistency.
Moreover, coverage maps are often inaccurate due to differences in the
criteria for determining ``unserved'' areas, with rural areas served
poorly by definitions that may work well in urban areas. For instance,
the assumption that all households in a given Census Block Group (CBG)
are covered if any one household in that CBG is covered is less
applicable to rural areas, where a few households may be separated by
hundreds of miles.\155\ These maps do not have a defined level of
geospatial granularity, such as household level, so it is difficult to
find households affected by poor coverage, and for households to
advocate for better coverage from their local politicians. Most
important, coverage maps often have missing or incomplete data.\156\
This can impact the frequency of updating coverage maps, since dealing
with missing data can take valuable time and resources. Again, these
flaws are expected to be addressed through implementation of the 2020
Broadband DATA Act.
14.5.2. EQUITY IN DATA COLLECTION.
As with any type of data, the Federal government needs to examine
critically any biases that could affect its collection, analysis, and
interpretation. Fundamentally, when collecting survey data and coverage
statistics, sampling bias is a concern-if surveys are conducted
exclusively online, households who already have broadband access will
be more easily able to fill out the survey. Data collection efforts
need to have alternative ways for people to fill out surveys, such as a
booth set up at a library or local park that provides devices and
broadband access for the survey. Self-selection bias or ambiguously
worded questions can also lead to confusion for respondents and
generate poor quality results.
Data collections efforts should also be designed to consider how
different methods can underrepresent the challenges facing specific
demographic groups. For example, if data collection methods primarily
involve surveys conducted by public schools, these methods may
overrepresent households with school-age children, and underrepresent
older individuals who may face additional challenges to participating
in surveys. A survey that is collected only in English may exclude
individuals who are not fluent in English. Surveys should be easily
completed, ideally within 5-15 minutes per household, so that
individuals are not burdened by the request for data collection. A
burden of several hours of data collection, for example, will privilege
individuals who have the time and resources to dedicate to filling out
these surveys.
When collecting survey data, collection efforts should promote
community engagement at the local level so that anchor institutions and
groups are mobilized to participate in the data collection process.
Local legislators, public schools, community organizations, houses of
worship, and other focal points in the community can be excellent
advocates for data collection efforts.
Data collection is fundamentally linked with public policy and
accountability. Non-confidential survey data should be open to the
public in accessible formats, so that individuals and organizations are
able to hold local, state, and Federal offices accountable for
enforcing broadband policy. Transparency also requires an open forum
for complaints, such as a helpline or Federal point of contact that can
process reports of broadband issues or incorrect coverage statistics
and coverage maps.
14.5.3. PERSONNEL.
Institutionalizing digital equity and inclusion requires hiring
people with strong technical expertise, structuring teams so that they
are incentivized to make progress toward achieving the goals and
ensuring coordination across teams. Right now, ownership of digital
equity is thinly spread across several individuals in a variety of
agencies, preventing coordinated efforts and progress. Many people have
diffuse responsibilities, with digital equity as only one goal among
many. Even if the individuals appointed to work on digital equity and
inclusion have the right expertise and skill set, split
responsibilities and part-time assignments distract individuals from
making necessary contributions.
14.6. RECOMMENDATIONS.
The recommendations for institutionalization involve three basic
strategies: Data Collection, Dissemination of Information, and
Personnel. Each strategy is discussed below.
14.6.1. DATA COLLECTION.
The Federal government should collect the necessary information for
agencies to monitor, evaluate, and course-correct policies related to
digital equity and inclusion. That includes but is not limited to
affordability, devices, digital literacy, digital readiness, technical
support, and applications and content. This leads us to make the
following recommendations:
14.6.1.1. Federal agencies should expand broadband data collection.
Federal agencies, including the proposed Office of Digital Equity
(see Chapter 4), should expand the collection of data on broadband use
by target populations, particularly underserved communities. This data
would be in addition to the indicators specified below in Table 1, as
the goal is to have specific data related to how constituents interact
with Federal agencies. Each Federal agency should collect the data
necessary (the broadband availability, adoption, affordability
challenges, etc.) of each population it serves, and more specifically,
should track how constituents interact with the agency. Areas of data
collection could include:
percentage of case files that were created via in-person,
telephone, or online mechanisms;
percentage of respondents who use online platforms from
home, via mobile devices, or at anchor institutions such as
libraries, community centers, or schools;
the ratio of cost of broadband relative to the average
income in the community.
The data should be made public in a format that can be collated and
compared across agencies and programs. The FCC could leverage
government websites like Data.gov and Strategydata.gov, which have
demonstrated a willingness to improve data user interfaces. These
websites are ideally positioned to inform the public on broadband
access and adoption throughout the country. For information deficits
that require additional personnel to gather the data, a crowdsourced
option sponsored on social media or popular public forums can reduce
the time required and stimulate participation.
14.6.1.2. The FCC should explore alternatives to coverage maps to
contextualize geographic data with additional indicators
focused on broadband availability, affordability, and adoption.
Coverage maps, while useful for gauging access, are limited in
their ability to pinpoint concerns related to quality of availability,
affordability, and adoption, which are the three factors driving
utilization and the achievement of digital equity and inclusion. Table
1 below lists possible questions and indicators in each of the key
goals that would elicit more granular and actionable data, measuring
whether individuals are truly seeing a positive impact of broadband in
their lives. Collection of this information should primarily be through
individual or household surveys as the goal is to assess the practical
impact of broadband in people's day-to-day lives, though care should be
taken to avoid imposing burdensome disclosure obligations on consumers
and service providers as well as avoiding disclosure of competitively
sensitive or proprietary information.
Current coverage maps are limited in that they only report whether
an area does or does not have broadband availability. Ideally, the data
collection suggested in Table 1 would be layered over coverage maps.
For example, one layer could include the original coverage map, but
another layer could include a gradient of upload and download speeds to
determine where broadband quality needs improvement. In addition to
presenting layered digital maps, the FCC should also maintain a public
database that would include county-by-county census data which we
propose should be supplemented by the indicators in Table 1. This would
allow researchers and policymakers to cross-reference coverage with the
contextual data provided in Table 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOAL KEY QUESTION INDICATOR(S)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Availability: Does the area have broadband Number of broadband providers in the area
Do households have access to service?
broadband?
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Do the services meet minimum Upload speed
Federal requirements? Download speed
Latency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the broadband service of Number of interruptions to service per day
good quality? Number of customer complaints
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Affordability: Is broadband affordable for Median net income of household
Are households using the households in an area? Size of household
broadband? Household members by gender, race, national
origin, and immigration status
Median price of broadband plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is broadband being made Local or Federal programs in the community
more affordable? that provide discounted or free broadband plans
Programs operated by providers to provide
discounted/subsidized service
Programs operated by NGOs to provide
discounted/subsidized service
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Adoption: What is broadband used for? How often do members of households use
How are households using broadband for education, health care, and jobs?
broadband? Are you able to access telework/remote
learning/social media/streaming with your
household's broadband plan?
How many interruptions to any of the above
services--especially telework and remote learning--
do you generally experience in a day?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do broadband plans meet the Number of available broadband plans that
needs of different vary in speed and cost
customers? Key locations where broadband is free
Are you aware of any low-cost/no-cost
broadband services in your area?
If you are aware, do you subscribe to one
of these services?
If you are aware and do not subscribe, what
is the primary reason for not subscribing?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are broadband services Number of languages spoken in the area
available in the languages Number of languages of broadband services
spoken in the area?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does broadband usage Unemployment rate in the area
correlate with more job Number of people actively looking for jobs
opportunities? online
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Supplemental Data Collection for Coverage Maps
To collect these data, which appropriately rely significantly on
individual/household participation, the Federal government would need
to embrace novel approaches to data collection, leveraging existing
Federal data collection infrastructure. The Census Bureau, for example,
conducts the American Community Survey on an annual basis to gauge
certain community indicators. This survey currently collects data on
how many households have a computer, how many households have a
broadband Internet subscription, and the population over age 65 that
does not have a computer in the household. Expanding that data
collection could include incorporating additional coverage statistics,
as described in Table 1, to better understand how broadband is being
adopted and utilized, beyond how many households have broadband
availability.
Expanding data collection efforts, though necessary, could prove
costly, as it is labor intensive. The Federal government should rely on
existing outreach infrastructure to avoid duplicative efforts while
collecting data. For example, the Federal government could provide
additional funding for USPS employees to conduct surveys (either online
or paper) when delivering mail to various households, and the seasonal
workforce that supports the U.S. Census every decade could also be
charged with collecting more detailed data on broadband experience in
years when the Census is not running.
14.6.1.3. The Federal government should conduct mobile surveys to
isolate problems with broadband access.
One way to conduct online research would be to use underlying data
from coverage maps to develop a machine learning model that isolates
areas of low coverage. Individuals in low coverage areas could then be
asked to complete surveys on mobile devices that ask questions similar
to those in Table 1. Individuals without mobile devices can be reached
by Federal workers from a partnering agency. If these surveys are
conducted once a quarter, this could help generate relevant, timely,
and accurate coverage statistics that cover not only broadband access,
but also adoption and utilization.
14.6.1.4. The Federal government should identify, study, and publish
research on the benefits of universal availability and
adoption.
The Federal government should identify, study, and publish
potential benefits to national goals and agency goals if all people in
the U.S. fully utilized broadband with increasing performance and
efficiency. This Plan identifies many benefits in areas such as
education, health care and workforce development, and has identified
new funding sources and mechanisms to obtain those benefits. But as the
economy, society and technology evolve, the Federal government should
continually identify and reevaluate the benefits, so that Federal
agencies can focus attention and resources on issues that would yield
the greatest benefit. Identifying targeted benefits of universal
availability, adoption, and affordability will also help the Federal
government effectively prioritize work streams within efforts to
achieve digital equity and inclusion, and to determine funding
mechanisms that are closely aligned to expected benefits.
14.6.2. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD ESTABLISH AN OFFICE OF DIGITAL
EQUITY.
Once the government has collected the data, it should develop
strategies for making it public. The result will be a more informed
debate about how to improve digital equity and inclusion. It will also
lead to greater accountability for agencies charged with improving
digital equity and inclusion. This leads us to make the following
recommendations:
14.6.2.1. The Office of Digital Equity should create an online hub that
catalogues digital inclusion resources.
As described in Chapter 4, we recommend that the Federal government
create an Office of Digital Equity. That office, working with the FCC
and its Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC), and in partnership with
other agencies working to promote broadband adoption, such as NTIA,
HUD, and the Department of Education, should create an online hub that
catalogues digital inclusion resources, including those provided by
states and local governments, non-governmental organizations, and
private enterprises. The hub should list resources according to the
component of digital inclusion that they address, including but not
limited to affordability, devices, digital literacy, technical support,
and applications and content. With a growing number of organizations
working on digital inclusion initiatives, this would help groups avoid
duplicating efforts, and to inform those groups of multiple available
resources. For example, a community organization that is operating a
successful digital literacy program in a public housing community may
be able to secure funding for teachers, and to give devices to
students, but be unable to afford antivirus security or operating
software. In that instance, the organization could access the online
portal and learn about programs like Microsoft's Citizenship Licenses,
or the software lending libraries offered by several public libraries.
14.6.2.2. The Office of Digital Equity should convene annual National
Digital Inclusion Summits.
The Office of Digital Equity should convene a series of in-person
and online National Digital Inclusion Summits to bring together
stakeholders with digital inclusion organizations, Tribal leaders, and
community anchor institutions including community media organizations,
libraries, faith-based organizations, schools, civil rights
organizations, foundations, and disability rights advocates. These
gatherings should include press and media outlets, as well as content
creators who may be able to inform campaigns to promote the relevance
of broadband for underrepresented communities. Grassroots digital
inclusion organizations would also be able to share the challenges they
are facing and connect with local and Federal government
representatives as well as businesses who may be able to assist in
filling the gaps.
14.6.2.3. The Federal government should set minimum standards for
Federal benefits programs' use of websites.
As discussed in Chapter 12, the Federal government should pursue
steps to improve government performance that would also help to promote
digital equity and inclusion. To institutionalize digital equity and
inclusion in ongoing policy considerations, the government should
study, identify best practices, and adopt policies to set minimum
standards for Federal benefits programs' use of websites and online web
portals. Increased availability of broadband means that more
individuals can apply for Federal benefits online, as well as monitor
their applications, receive communications, or update eligibility
information. This kind of access can benefit both applicants and
agencies. Conversely, poorly created online portals or websites can
make the application process more difficult, or jeopardize security.
Best practices, evaluation, and timelines for compliance should be
replicated government wide. Developing and promoting a foundational
template for how online portals and websites are created can help
further institutionalize digital equity and inclusion. The inter-agency
process should share information across institutional silos,
identifying the best agency resources for creating websites and
portals, and a common set of evaluation benchmarks for these tools.
These evaluation benchmarks should include ease of use, cybersecurity
precautions, digital accessibility, and language translation capacity.
The Federal government should publish clear data use policies, so
citizens understand how their data is being used.
14.6.3. PERSONNEL.
Government must have personnel with the authority and
accountability for promoting digital equity and inclusion. This leads
us to make the following recommendations:
14.6.3.1. Create a Digital Equity and Inclusion Administration Task
Force within the Office of Digital Equity.
Digital equity and inclusion require inter-agency collaboration,
and the expertise of a broad set of stakeholders. To guide the progress
of digital equity and inclusion, the President should sign an Executive
Order to create a Digital Equity and Inclusion Administration Task
Force housed within the Office of Digital Equity. The task force will
differ from the American Broadband Initiative, serving in a consulting
capacity instead of an administrative role. The Office of Digital
Equity should consult the Task Force on its collaborations with state
and local digital equity offices, process for data collection, and
progress toward national digital equity goals. The Task Force should
recognize where its respective agencies can support the Office of
Digital Equity's efforts, especially in terms of data sharing and
identifying permanent Federal personnel needs to maximize long-term
progress.
Task force membership should include agency leaders from the FCC,
NTIA, Department of Education, HUD, HHS, and Department of Labor, and
experts in technology infrastructure, city planning, community
development, workforce development, and education technology. For
accountability purposes, the task force should publish a semi-annual
report of its findings and progress, with a goal to dissolve once
processes are put in place to streamline data collection and
cooperation across agencies. Once these benchmarks are met, the task
force should dissolve in two years.
Experts on the task force can also provide input on potential bias
in the data collection process (see 14.5.3 Equity in Data Collection)
and develop mechanisms to address concerns. A multi-stakeholder
approach, as opposed to government-only representatives, increases
opportunity for diverse discussion surrounding best practices for
equity in data collection.
14.6.3.2. Designate staff responsible for implementing agency digital
equity and inclusion plans and require them to provide updates
on progress on a regular basis.
At least two staff positions should be created within the Office of
Digital Equity to monitor the implementation of digital equity and
inclusion programs. One would be responsible for overseeing the data
collection process, including the collection of relevant broadband-
related data and the assessment of evolving benefits of availability,
affordability, and adoption. A second staff member would be responsible
for overseeing the dissemination of information, including the creation
of an online resource hub for digital access, the organization of
national digital inclusion summits, and the creation of a minimum
standard for Federal benefits programs' use of websites.
Both staff members should regularly report to the head of the
Digital Equity and Inclusion Administration Task Force, described in
14.6.3.1. The staff members should submit a publicly available report
detailing progress semi-annually.
14.6.4. COVID-19.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare stark disparities in
broadband availability, affordability, and adoption, and in the
ownership of devices needed to connect to remote schooling, telehealth,
job search and training, and other critical services that have shifted
operations largely or entirely online. Any plan that the Federal
government undertakes regarding COVID-19 needs to integrate with
longer-term digital equity and inclusion efforts.
14.6.4.1. The Federal government should partner with state and local
governments to collect relevant data, including efforts to
expand access, adoption, and utilization carried out at the
local level.
State and local agencies, including public schools, have taken
significant action to expand broadband and device access to help
individuals engage with services and programs that have been moved
online, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, local
authorities may be best equipped to provide up-to-date information on
new initiatives to improve broadband utilization in partnership with
schools, transportation services, parks, and other community centers.
Federal agencies should work with state and local authorities to
determine best practices, and to evaluate the impact of these programs
to identify community-based programs that would benefit from increased
Federal funding or guidance for implementation.
14.6.4.2. The Federal government should advocate for funding for short-
term programs that are temporarily bridging the broadband
access gap.
Given the rapid shift to virtual delivery of critical services,
including education, workforce, and health care, state, and local
governments, along with private sector providers, have raced to fill
gaps in broadband utilization, providing everything from mobile
hotspots for individuals to use at home to equipping school buses with
Wi-Fi to support students in neighborhoods with limited broadband
access. In many cases, these are short-term solutions that have emerged
that only temporarily bridge availability and affordability gaps. But
significant expenditure on mobile hotspots and other equipment creates
a strain on school districts and local governments, which are already
facing the economic effects of the pandemic. The Federal government
should fund short-term programs to expand broadband access, and the
Office of Digital Equity could promote these efforts to state or local
digital equity offices as they distribute broadband access grants to
school districts, libraries, park authorities, and any other state or
local agency that is operating a short-term program to support
individuals in the community who do not have broadband access.
14.6.4.3. The Office of Digital Equity should be charged with
collecting data related to the minimum standards for critical
service delivery during COVID-19 and racial disparities related
to how these services are currently being provided.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, critical services, including public
education, workforce, and health care, have experienced a significant
transition to virtual delivery. The Federal government should collect
data about these critical services to determine minimum and optimal
standards for online delivery. These benchmarks could include speed,
latency, service design, website and application design, and data
utilization characteristics. Once the Office of Digital Equity has
determined the minimum and optimal standards in these key scenarios,
the benchmarks should be incorporated into the coverage statistics
shown in Table 1, so that data collection efforts can include whether
individuals have broadband service necessary to effectively utilize
these services. The Office of Digital Equity should conduct further
analysis to understand any racial disparities that may result in
communities of color having limited access to remote schooling,
workforce, telehealth, and other critical services that are now being
delivered online.
CONCLUSION
THE FIERCE URGENCY OF CONNECTING NOW
As we finished the writing of this Plan, the Biden Administration
and Congress had just begun developing a comprehensive infrastructure
plan for the U.S., one that will consider substantial steps toward
ending the longstanding failings of digital equity and inclusion
described in this Plan. It is our firm hope that our detailed
recommendations will prove helpful in designing and implementing those
efforts.
In politics, as elsewhere, timing is everything. The awful
combination of 2020s pandemic and the multiple incidents demonstrating
continuing racial discrimination, most notably with George Floyd's
murder, has reignited stalled efforts to address many forms of
inequity. Both crises revealed in the starkest terms what it means,
among other hardships, to be without broadband at home, whether the
reason is because one cannot get it, cannot afford it, or cannot make
effective use of it. What was once considered a luxury instantly became
essential to prepare for and secure employment, to get a basic
education, and to receive health care of nearly any kind.
With the arrival of multiple COVID-19 vaccines, there is strong
hope of a return to normalcy sometime in 2021. But we will never return
to a time when debates about the importance of Internet availability,
adoption, and affordability seriously entertain the possibility that
the millions without connections don't need or want them. That bridge
has been crossed.
Now it's time to do something bold to reap the benefits of full
utilization of a wide range of digital tools and services to improve
the economic, social, and political life of the U.S.; not just for
those without service but for everyone.
It's time because we now have clear and convincing evidence of both
the need and the value of universal adoption. It's time because the
failures of digital equity and inclusion are vivid in the minds of
Americans and their elected representatives. It's time because this
moment of clarity will not last long, despite how clear the calculus of
costs and benefits of equity and inclusion has been conclusively
proven.
In the next few months Congress will consider major legislative
initiatives to address long festering areas of public underinvestment.
Broadband must be one of those areas that receives new funding.
In the next few years, the Administration will consider many steps
for how to create a more equitable and inclusive economy and society.
Digital equity and inclusion must be on that agenda.
Not every need will be funded. Not every positive action will be
taken. But we must aggressively and deliberately seek to use the tools
of the information age to close the many gaps discussed in this Plan.
Our country has gone through regular economic and societal
transformations in its short but illustrious history. So far, each one
has excluded substantial populations from the full benefits of those
transitions.
The accelerating pace of change means that avoiding those failings
this time requires what Dr. King referred to as the ``fierce urgency of
now.'' We need a surge of government action that produces sustainable
results. The actions recommended in this Plan represent a collective
understanding of the need to take concrete actions, and to take them
quickly and decisively. As Dr. King also said in 1967, as the United
States faced a similar crossroads, ``If we do not act, we shall surely
be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved
for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality,
and strength without sight.'' Let us use our power, our might, and our
strength to ensure our transition to an information economy is at last
the one that achieves the vision of the Declaration of Independence,
that all Americans are created equal.
Endnotes
\1\ See Section 3.8.5. It should be noted that the FCC's CAF II
auction and RDOF Phase I auction fail to meet these criteria.
\2\ For example, New York's ``Broadband for All'' program ``called
for applications for funding to provide access to broadband at speeds
of at least 100 [Mbps] (download) in most places, and 25 Mbps
(download) in the most remote, unserved parts of the State.''
[www.ny.gov/programs/broadband-all].
\3\ Paul de Sa, Improving the Nation's Digital Infrastructure,
Federal Communications Commission, available at https://
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0119/DOC
-343135A1.pdf
\4\ Cartesian, available at https://www.cartesian.com/fiber-
broadband-association-new-study-finds-all-fiber-deployments-to-90-of-
households-achievable-in-next-decade/
\5\ See Fiber Broadband Association, About Us, available at
www.fiberbroadband.org/about-us
\6\ Except where noted, the data below is from the 2019 ACS;
Figures in the appendix offer more granular detail on some of the
following datapoints, such as income.
\7\ https://liverpool5g.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/
Liverpool-5G-Testbed-Benefits-Out
comes-Impact.pdf
\8\ Laura LaBerge et al., How Covid-19 Has Pushed Companies Over
the Technology Tipping Point and Transformed Business Forever, McKinsey
(Oct. 5, 2020), https://www.mckinsey.com/ business-functions/strategy-
and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-covid-19-has-pushed-companies-
over-the-technology-tipping-point-and-transformed-business-forever.
\9\ Lance Whitney, Where the Jobs Are: Tech Hiring is On the Rise,
Tech Republic (Nov. 12, 2020), https://www.techrepublic.com/article/
where-the-jobs-are-tech-hiring-is-on-the-rise/.
\10\ Jhacova Williams, Laid Off More, Hired Less: Black Workers in
the COVID-19 Recession, The RAND Blog (Sept. 29, 2020), https://
www.rand.org/blog/2020/09/laid-off-more-hired-less-black-workers-in-
the-covid.html.
\11\ Blacks, Latinos And Native Americans Bear Heaviest Financial
Burden Of Pandemic: Shots--Health News: NPR
\12\ Valerie Wilson, 10 years after the start of the Great
Recession, black and Asian households have yet to recover lost income,
Economic Policy Institute (Sept. 12, 2018), https://www.epi.org/blog/
10-years-after-the-start-of-the-great-recession-black-and-asian-
households-have-yet-to-recover-lost-income/.
\13\ Mark Muro, Alan Berube & Jacob Whiton, Black and Hispanic
underrepresentation in tech: It's time to change the equation,
Brookings Instit. (Mar. 28, 2018), https://www.brookings.edu/research/
black-and-hispanic-underrepresentation-in-tech-its-time-to-change-the-
equation/.
\14\ Marc Morial, The Gumbo Coalition at pp. 173-180 (HarperCollins
Leadership, 2020).
\15\ Federal and state-certified Registered Apprenticeship programs
are made up of five components: (1) involvement from employers; (2)
structured on-the-job training; (3) related technical instruction
(RTI), comprised of technical education at community colleges,
technical schools, apprenticeship training schools, or provided online
or at the job site; (4) apprentice rewards, such as wage increases, for
skill gains; and (5) a resulting nationally-recognized credential that
lets employers know apprentices are fully qualified for jobs. See U.S.
Department of Labor ``A Quick-Start Toolkit: Building Registered
Apprenticeship Programs'' at 9, available at https://www.doleta.gov/oa/
employers/apprenticeship_toolkit.pdf (last visited November 16, 2022).
\16\ See Deloitte Insights and Manufacturing Institute, The Jobs
Are Here, But Where Are the People? at 2, available at https://
www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MI-DI-The-
jobs-are-here-where-are-the-people.pdf (last visited November 16,
2022).
\17\ See McKinsey & Company, ``COVID-19 Recovery in Hardest-Hit
Sectors Could Take More Than 5 Years'' (July 29, 2020), finding that in
a ``muted-recovery'' scenario, some industries, including arts,
entertainment and recreation; accommodation and food services;
transportation and warehousing; and manufacturing, could take more than
five years to return to 2019-level contributions to GDP, available at
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/coronavirus-leading-through-
the-crisis/charting-the-path-to-the-next-normal/COVID-19-recovery-in-
hardest-hit-sectors-could-take-more-than-5-years (last visited October
22, 2020).
\18\ See BestColleges ``2020 Online Education Trends Report,''
available at https://res.cloud
inary.com/highereducation/image/upload/v1584979511/BestColleges.com/
edutrends/2020-Online-Trends-in-Education-Report-BestColleges.pdf (last
visited November 6, 2020).
\19\ See LinkedIn Talent Solutions ``The Ultimate List of Hiring
Statistics for Hiring Mangers, HR Professionals, and Recruiters,''
available at https://business.linkedin.com/content/dam/business/talent-
solutions/global/en_us/c/pdfs/Ultimate-List-of-Hiring-Stats-v02.04.pdf
(last vi-
sited November 6, 2020).
\20\ See About Glassdoor, available at https://www.glassdoor.com/
about-us/ (last visited November 6, 2020).
\21\ See About Indeed, available at https://www.indeed.com/about
(last visited November 6, 2020).
\22\ See Mansoor Iqbal, Business of Apps, ``LinkedIn Usage and
Revenue Statistics (2020)'' (November 6, 2020), available at https://
www.businessofapps.com/data/linkedin-statistics/ (last visited November
6, 2020).
\23\ Id.
\24\ See J. Clement, Statista, ``Online and social media
recruiting--Statistics & facts'' (November 29, 2019), available at
https://www.statista.com/topics/2727/online-recruiting/ (last visited
November 6, 2020).
\25\ See Richard Fry, Pew Research Center, ``Millennials Are the
Largest Generation in the U.S. Labor Force'' (April 11, 2018), stating,
``The youngest Boomer was 53 years old in 2017, while the oldest
Boomers were older than 70. With more Boomers retiring every year and
not much immigration to affect their numbers, the size of the Boomer
workforce will continue to shrink. While the Millennial labor force is
still growing, partly due to immigration, it is unlikely that the
Millennial labor force will reach the peak size of the Boomer labor
force (66 million in 1997);'' available at https://www.pewresearch.org/
fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/
(last visited October 22, 2020).
\26\ See McKinsey & Company, supra note 3.
\27\ See Section 8.4.2.1, infra, detailing these programs and other
pre-and post-COVID-19 efforts.
\28\ See, for example, U.S. Department of Labor, ``Create a New
Program'' webpage, listing ``a few key steps involved in creating your
very own Registered Apprenticeship Program.'' The steps show that the
Department of Labor allows, but does not require, employers to add
virtual components to the classroom training components of their RAPs.
The page states, ``For the classroom educational component, you may
select a provider that is either internal to your organization or
external (e.g., Community college, vocational school, online provider)
which can be delivered in-person or virtually.'' For these programs,
virtual components to classroom training is allowed, but not required.
Available at https://www.apprenticeship.gov/employers/registered-
apprenticeship-program/build/create (last visited November 16, 2020).
\29\ See, for example, the Career One-Stop website, which includes
a search tool for the nearly 2,400 American Job Centers nationwide,
available at https://www.careeronestop.org/LocalHelp
/AmericanJobCenters/find-american-job-
centers.aspx?&location=20006&radius=25&ct=0&y=0&
w=0&e=0&sortcolumns=Distance&sortdirections=ASC&curPage=1&pagesize=25
(last visited November 16, 2020). The page currently has a COVID-19
update that says, ``Many AJCs are temporarily closed or have moved to
virtual services. You may see updates for individual centers below.
Please call or e-mail a center for the latest information on their
current services.'' A search of the American Job Center Finder for AJCs
within 25 miles of the Washington, DC, area, for example, yields 17
results. Ten locations are listed as ``closed to public; available by
phone and e-mail''; six are listed as ``closed to the public due to the
COVID-19 until further notice''; and one is listed as ``operating at
limited capacity to ensure social distancing due to COVID-19.''
\30\ See Elka Torpey and Ryan Farrell, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
``Apprenticeships: Outlook and Wages in Selected Occupations'' (updated
November 2019), available at https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2019/
article/apprenticeships-outlook-wages-update.htm (last visited October
23, 2020).
\31\ See U.S. Department of Labor, ``Discover Apprenticeship: A
Proven Solution for Your Workforce'' (updated September 2020),
available at https://www.apprenticeship.gov/sites/default/files/
Employer_Fact_Sheet.pdf (last visited October 23, 2020).
\32\ See Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, ``COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions,'' available at https://
www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/coronavirus (last visited October 23, 2020).
\33\ See David H. Bradley, Congressional Research Service, ``The
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the One-Stop Delivery
System'' (October 27, 2015), available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/
R44252.pdf (last visited November 4, 2020).
\34\ Id.
\35\ See WorkforceGPS, U.S. Department of Labor, ``One-Stop Center
Service Design (Transcript)'' (December 12, 2016), available at https:/
/www.workforcegps.org/resources/2016/03/30/09/20/One-
Stop_Center_Service_Design (last visited October 28, 2020).
\36\ See American Job Center Finder, available at https://
www.careeronestop.org/LocalHelp/AmericanJobCenters/find-american-job-
centers.aspx (last visited October 28, 2020).
\37\ See CareerOneStop, About Us, available at https://
www.careeronestop.org/Site/about-us.aspx (last visited October 28,
2020).
\38\ See National Association of State Workforce Agencies, ``About
NASWA,'' available at https://www.naswa.org/about (last visited October
26, 2020).
\39\ See National Association of State Workforce Agencies, ``2019
State of the Workforce Report'' (released March 27, 2020), available at
https://www.naswa.org/system/files/2020-03/naswa
stateofworkforce2020-03-27.pdf (last visited October 26, 2020).
\40\ Specifically, the WOTC categorizes these groups as ``IV-A
recipients''--individuals or members of a family receiving assistance
under a state plan approved under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act relating to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF). See Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, ``Work Opportunity Tax Credit Eligibility Desk Aid'' (August 9,
2018), available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/wotc/
pdfs/WOTC_EligibilityDeskAid.pdf (last visited November 16, 2020).
\41\ See Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, ``Work Opportunity Tax Credit Fact Sheet'' (February 2020),
available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/wotc/pdfs/
WOTC_Fact_Sheet.pdf (last visited October 26, 2020).
\42\ See Congressional Research Service, ``The Work Opportunity Tax
Credit'' (updated September 25, 2018), available at https://fas.org/
sgp/crs/misc/R43729.pdf (last visited October 26, 2020).
\43\ See Internal Revenue Service, ``Opportunity Zones Frequently
Asked Questions'' (September 19, 2020), available at https://
www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/opportunity-zones-frequently-asked-
questions (last visited November 5, 2020).
\44\ See Urban Institute, ``An Early Assessment of Opportunity
Zones for Equitable Development Projects'' (July 28, 2020), available
at https://www.urban.org/research/publication/early-assessment-
opportunity-zones-equitable-development-projects/view/full_report (last
visited November 5, 2020).
\45\ See Adam Looney, The Brookings Institution, ``Will Opportunity
Zones help distressed residents or be a tax cut for gentrification?''
(February 26, 2018), available at https://www
.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/02/26/will-opportunity-zones-help-
distressed-residents-or-be-a-tax-cut-for-gentrification/ (last visited
November 16, 2020).
\46\ See Samantha Jacoby, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
``Potential Flaws of Opportunity Zones Loom, as Do Risks of Large-Scale
Tax Avoidance'' (January 11, 2019), available at https://www.cbpp.org/
research/federal-tax/potential-flaws-of-opportunity-zones-loom-as-do-
risks-of-large-scale-tax (last visited November 16, 2020).
\47\ See Department of Finance and Administrative Services
Purchasing and Contracting, City of Seattle, ``2019 Priority Hire
Annual Report'' (June 15, 2020), available at https://www.seattle.gov/
Documents/Departments/FAS/PurchasingAndContracting/Labor/fas-2019-
priority-hire-annual-report.pdf (last visited October 28, 2020). Since
the program's beginning in 2013, workers living in economically
distressed communities have earned $25.7 million in wages, which the
City estimates is $12.4 million more than they would have earned
without Priority Hire. By working on the City's big construction
projects, Latino men earn an estimated 43 percent more per hour than
the average Latino man working in King County, and African Americans
saw a 100 percent increase in their share of 2019 hours over past
performance by Priority Hire.
\48\ See Office of Governor Janet Mills, ``Governor Mills Signs
Executive Order to Fast Track Free Online Job Training at Maine's
Community Colleges,'' (March 30, 2020), available at https://
www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-executive-order-
fast-track-free-online-job-training-maines-community (last visited
October 27, 2020).
\49\ See Office of Governor Ned Lamont, ``Governor Lamont Announces
Statewide Launch of Free Online Job Training Program for Unemployment
Claimants'' (May 4, 2020), available at https://portal.ct.gov/Office-
of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2020/05-2020/Governor-Lamont-
Announces-Statewide-Launch-of-Free-Online-Job-Training-Program (last
visited October 27, 2020).
\50\ See Department of Finance and Administrative Services
Purchasing and Contracting, City of Seattle, ``2019 Priority Hire
Annual Report'' (June 15, 2020), available at https://www.seattle.gov/
Documents/Departments/FAS/PurchasingAndContracting/Labor/fas-2019-
priority-hire-annual-report.pdf (last visited October 28, 2020). Since
the program's beginning in 2013, workers living in economically
distressed communities have earned $25.7 million in wages, which the
City estimates is $12.4 million more than they would have earned
without Priority Hire. By working on the City's big construction
projects, Latino men earn an estimated 43 percent more per hour than
the average Latino man working in King County, and African Americans
saw a 100 percent increase in their share of 2019 hours over past
performance by Priority Hire.
\51\ See Brad Smith, Microsoft, ``Microsoft launches initiative to
help 25 million people worldwide acquire the digital skills needed in a
COVID-19 economy'' (June 30, 2020), available at https://
blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/06/30/microsoft-launches-initiative-to-
help-25-million-people-worldwide-acquire-the-digital-skills-needed-in-
a-COVID-19-economy/ (last visited Octo-
ber 22, 2020).
\52\ See Comcast, ``Comcast Offers Thousands of Grants, Equipment,
Marketing and Tech Resources to Small Businesses Hardest Hit by COVID''
(October 13, 2020), available at https://corporate.comcast.com/press/
releases/comcast-grants-resources-small-diverse-businesses-COVID-19
(last visited November 5, 2020).
\53\ See Connect the Future website, available at https://
connectthefuture.com/ (last visited November 6, 2020).
\54\ See Section 8.4.2, supra.
\55\ Id.
\56\ See Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Labor Force Statistics from
the Current Population Survey'' (last modified October 5, 2020),
available at https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm (last visited
October 23, 2020).
\57\ See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ``Health
Equity Considerations and Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups'' (July 24,
2020), available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/
community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html (last visited October 22,
2020).
\58\ Id.
\59\ See Section 8.4.2, supra.
\60\ See Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies,
``Improving Training to Brighten the Future of Black Workers''
(September 14, 2019), available at https://jointcenter.org/wp-content/
uploads/ 2019/10/Skills-Report-6-Page-Fact-Sheet-Infographic-9-12-19-
1049am.pdf (last visited October 27, 2020).
\61\ See Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, ``Leveraging Science
and Technology to Confront Social Challenges: A Conversation with Tom
Kalil'' (July 3, 2019), available at https://spotlightonpoverty.org/
spotlight-exclusives/leveraging-science-and-technology-to-confront-
social-challenges-a-conversation-with-tom-kalil/ (last visited November
16, 2020).
\62\ See Section 8.4.2, supra.
\63\ The U.S. Department of Labor recognizes these burdens, and
includes in its RAP funds allocations for supportive services ``such as
transportation or child care [. . .] to ensure retention and full
participation in the related classroom instruction. [. . .] Supportive
services would most commonly be provided during pre-apprenticeship or
at the beginning of an apprenticeship program. Once the apprentice is
on the job, he or she will earn a wage and receive incremental wage
increases throughout the apprenticeship, reducing the need for
supportive services.'' See ApprenticeshipUSA, U.S. Department of Labor,
``Making ApprenticeshipUSA Work for the Public Workforce System: Using
Workforce Funds to Support Apprenticeship,'' available at https://
www.dol.gov/apprenticeship/toolkit/docs/desk-aid-use-of-funds.pdf (last
visited November 16, 2020).
\64\ See Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, ``Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and Wagner-
Peyser Act Statutory Formulas for State Allotments'' (2020), available
at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/budget/pdfs/Form
Desc20.pdf (last visited November 16, 2020).
\65\ See U.S. Department of Labor, ``FY 2019 Department of Labor
Budget in Brief,'' available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/
general/budget/2019/FY2019BIB.pdf (last visited November 6, 2020).
\66\ See Angela Hanks and David Madland, Center for American
Progress, ``Better Training and Better Jobs: A New Partnership for
Sectoral Training'' (February 22, 2018), available at https://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2018/02/22/447115/
better-training-better-jobs/ (last visited November 9, 2020).
\67\ See Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, ``COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions,'' available at https://
www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/coronavirus (last visited October 23, 2020).
\68\ See National Urban League, National Action Network, NAACP, and
National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, ``21st Century Agenda
for Jobs and Freedom'' (2013), describing economics and job creation as
guiding principles toward eliminating racial inequality in American
economic life, available at https://nul.org/sites/default/files/2020-
07/21st%20Century%20
Agenda%20for%20Jobs%20and%20Freedom.pdf (last visited November 9,
2020).
\69\ See The Century Foundation, the National Employment Law
Project, and Philadelphia Legal Assistance, ``Centering Workers--How to
Modernize Unemployment Insurance Technology'' (October 5, 2020),
available at https://tcf.org/content/report/centering-workers-how-to-
modernize-unemployment-insurance-technology/?agreed=1&session=1 (last
visited November 12, 2020).
\70\ See Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``6 of the 10 Fastest Growing
Occupations Are Related to Healthcare,'' available at https://
www.bls.gov/emp/images/growing_occupations.png (last visited October
28, 2020).
\71\ See for example, Allied Health Workforce Diversity Act, H.R.
3637, 116th Cong. (2019), available at https://www.alverno.edu/media/
alvernocollege/library/pdfs/apa7bill.pdf (last visited November 16,
2020).
\72\ Suzanne Bakken, Sue Marden, S. Sonia Arteaga, et al.,
Behavioral Interventions Using Consumer Information Technology as Tools
to Advance Health Equity, 109 Am. J. Public Health S79-S85 (2019),
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304646.
\73\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ``Health of Black
or African American non-Hispanic population,'' https://www.cdc.gov/
nchs/fastats/black-health.htm.
\74\ Gold M., Reducing Health Care Disparities: Where Are We Now?
Issue Brief, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Mar. 7, 2014. https://
www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2014/03/reducing-health-care-
disparities--where-are-we-now-.html.
\75\ Sarah D. Ronis, Kenneth M. McConnochie, Hongyue Wang, and
Nancy E. Wood at 105-112, Telemedicine and e-Health, Feb 2017, http://
doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2016.0098.
\76\ Yash S. Huilgol, Aditi Joshi Brendan, G. Carr & Judd E.
Hollander, ``Giving Urban Health Care Access Issues The Attention They
Deserve In Telemedicine Reimbursement Policies,'' Health Affairs Blog,
Oct. 12, 2017, https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog2017
1022.713615/full/.
\77\ Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, National Health
Expenditure Projections 2018-2027, https://www.cms.gov/Research-
Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/
NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/ForecastSummary.pdf.
\78\ Congressional Research Service, Medicare: Insolvency
Projections, May 29, 2020, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20946.pdf.
\79\ Current Telemedicine Technology Could Mean Big Savings,
Business Wire (Aug. 11, 2014),https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/
20140811005129/en/Current-Telemedicine-Technology-Big-Savings
\80\ Corey Stern, ``Goldman Sachs says a digital healthcare
revolution is coming--and it could save America $300 billion,''
Business Insider (Jun. 29, 2015), https://www.businessinsider.com/
goldman-digital-healthcare-is-coming-2015-6.
\81\ Alexander L. Fogel and Joseph C. Kvedar, ``Simple Digital
Technologies Can Reduce Health Care Costs,'' Harvard Business Review
(Nov. 1, 2016), https://hbr.org/2016/11/simple-digital-technologies-
can-reduce-health-care-costs
\82\ Robert J Nordyke, Kevin Appelbaum & Mark A Berman, Estimating
the Impact of Novel Digital Therapeutics in Type 2 Diabetes and
Hypertension: Health Economic Analysis, J Med Internet Res Vol. 21, No.
10:e15814. (Sept. 10, 2019), https://www.jmir.org/2019/10/e15814. DOI:
10.2196/15814. PMID: 31599740. PMCID: 6914106
\83\ Michael Adcock & Tearsanee Davis, Remote Patient Monitoring: A
Mississippi Success Story (Mar. 7, 2018), https://365.himss.org/sites/
himss365/files/365/handouts/550235296/handout-264.pdf.
\84\ Kaiser Permanente, Transforming Care Delivery with Telehealth
at Kaiser Permanente (April 3, 2018), https://www.kpihp.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/11/Telehealth_FactSheet_
040318_230pm-.pdf.
\85\ American Hospital Association, ``Telehealth: Helping hospitals
deliver cost-effective care,'' 2016, https://www.aha.org/system/files/
content/16/16telehealthissuebrief.pdf.
\86\ Stevland Sonnier, Sinead Maharrey, Kevin Van Dyke, Dr. Yael
Harris, Dr. Adaeze Enekwechi, ``The Expansion of Telehealth: Equity
Considerations for Policymakers, Providers & Payers.'' American
Institutes for Research (Aug. 2020, August), https://impaqint.com/
sites/default/files/issue-briefs/
The%20Expansion%20of%20Telehealth_Issue%20Brief_1.2.pdf.
\87\ Seema Verma, ``Early Impact Of CMS Expansion Of Medicare
Telehealth During COVID-19,'' Health Affairs Blog (July 15, 2020),
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog
20200715.454789/full/. DOI: 10.1377/hblog20200715.454789
\88\ Id.
\89\ Centers for Disease Control, COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalization,
and Death by Race/Ethnicity (Aug. 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/COVID-data/hospitalization-death-by-
race-ethnicity.pdf.
\90\ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/opinion/medical-care-
coronavirus.html?campaign_
id=39&emc=edit_ty_20210222&instance_id=27359&nl=opinion-
today®i_id=60713223&seg
ment_id=52100&te=1&user_id=2a7df86de5c569dd310adce7f92efcbf
\91\ Sarah Nouri, Elaine C. Khoong, Courtney R. Lyles & Leah
Karliner, Addressing Equity in Telemedicine for Chronic Disease
Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic, NEJM Catalyst (May 4, 2020),
https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.20.0123.
\92\ Ellerie Weber, Sarah J Miller, Varuna Astha, Teresa Janevic &
Emma Benn, Characteristics of Telehealth Users in NYC for COVID-related
Care during the Coronavirus Pandemic at 1949-54, 27 J. Am. Med. Info.
Assn. 12 (Aug. 2020), https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa216.
\93\ Lam K, Lu AD, Shi Y, Covinsky KE, Assessing Telemedicine
Unreadiness Among Older Adults in the United States During the COVID-19
Pandemic, JAMA Intern Med. (Aug. 03, 2020). doi:10.1001/
jamainternmed.2020.2671.
\94\ Kathy Harris, Gloria Jacobs & Julie Reeder, Health Systems and
Adult Basic Education: A Critical Partnership in Supporting Digital
Health Literacy, 3(3 Suppl), Health literacy research and practice S33-
S36 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20190325-02
\95\ Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information
Technology Office of the Secretary & United States Department of Health
and Human Services, 2020-2025 Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (Oct.
2020), https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/page/2020-10/
Federal%20
Health%20IT%20Strategic%20Plan_2020_2025.pdf.
\96\ Jorge A. Rodriguez, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Courtney R. Lyles &
Lipika Samal, Association between patient portal use and broadband
access: a national evaluation at 3719-3720, 35 J Gen Intern Med 2020,
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11606-020-05633-4.10.1007/s11606-020-
05633-4.31925739.
\97\ Natalie C. Benda, Tiffany C. Veinot, Cynthia J. Sieck, and
Jessica S. Ancker, Broadband Internet Access Is a Social Determinant of
Health!, 110 Am. J. Public Health 1123-1125 (July 8, 2020), https://
ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305784?journal
Code=ajph., https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305784
\98\ Kaiser Family Foundation, Distribution of Medicare
Beneficiaries by Race/Ethnicity (2019), https://www.kff.org/medicare/
state-indicator/medicare-beneficiaries-by-raceethnicity/?dataView
=0¤tTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22
:%22asc%
22%7D.
\99\ Center for Connected Health Policy, ``State Telehealth Laws &
Reimbursement Policies,'' (Spring 2020), https://www.cchpca.org/sites/
default/files/2020-10/CCHP%2050%20STATE
%20REPORT%20FALL%202020%20FINAL.pdf.
\100\ Daniel Castro, Ben Miller & Adams Nager, Unlocking the
Potential Physician-to-Patient Telehealth Services, ITIF (May 2014),
http://www2.itif.org/2014-unlocking-potential-physician-patient-
telehealth.pdf?_ga=2.265576335.1616642263.1600619636-
1646532822.1589066360.
\101\ Kim Parker, Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Anna Brown, Richard
Fry, D'vera Cohn & Ruth Igielnik, Demographic And Economic Trends In
Urban, Suburban And Rural Communities, Pew Research Ctr. (May 22,
2018), https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-
economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/.
\102\ Dept. Veterans Affairs, Authority of Health Care Providers To
Practice Telehealth, 83 Fed. Reg. 21897 (May 11, 2018), https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 2018/05/11/2018-10114/authority-of-
health-care-providers-to-practice-telehealth.
\103\ Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, Participating States,
https://www.imlcc.org/participating-states/ (last accessed Feb. 2,
2021).
\104\ Kathy Harris, Gloria Jacobs & Julie Reeder, Health Systems
and Adult Basic Education: A Critical Partnership in Supporting Digital
Health Literacy, 3(3 Suppl) Health literacy research and practice S33-
S36. (Oct. 4, 2019), https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20190325-02
\105\ Dennis A. Mitchell & Shana L. Lassiter, Addressing health
care disparities and increasing workforce diversity: the next step for
the dental, medical, and public health professions 96(12) Am. J. Public
Health, 2093-2097 (2006), https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.082818
\106\ Karen Scott Collins, Dora L. Hughes, Michelle M. Doty, Brett
L. Ives, Jennifer N. Edwards & Katie Tenney, Diverse communities,
common concerns: assessing healthcare quality for minority Americans:
findings from the commonwealth fund 2001 healthcare quality survey, Med
Benefit. 2002;19(7):5 (Mar. 2002).
\107\ Megan Johnson Shen, Emily B. Peterson, Rosario Costas-Muniz
et al.., The effects of race and racial concordance on patient-
physician communication: a systematic review of the literature, J.
Racial Ethn Health Disparities 5(1):117e140 (Feb. 2018), https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40615-017-0350-4.
\108\ Kirsten Wilbur, Cyndy Snyder, Alison Essary, et al.,
Developing Workforce Diversity in the Health Professions: A Social
Justice Perspective, 6 Health Professions Education 222-229 (2020).
\109\ Learning Policy Institute, ``The Federal Role in Advancing
Education Equity and Excellence ``(August 28, 2020) available at
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/advancing-education-2020-
brief
\110\ Jazmine Ulloa, The Boston Globe, ``Coronavirus exposed the
lack of Internet access. Now some in Congress want to close that
digital divide'' (April 9, 2020) available at https://
www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/09/nation/coronavirus-exposed-lack-
internet-access-now-some-congress-want-close-that-digital-divide/;
Kevin Mahnken, the 74 million, ``An Education System, Divided: How
Internet Inequity Persisted Through 4 Presidents and Left Schools
Unprepared for the Pandemic'' (May 5, 2020) available at https://
www.the74million.org/article/an-education-system-divided-how-internet-
inequity-persisted-through-4-presidents-and-left-schools-unprepared-
for-the-pandemic
\111\ Fishbowl Covid-19 Survey: Teachers Say Less than Half of
Students Attending their Remote Classes'' (April 13, 2020) available at
https://www.fishbowlapp.com/insights/2020/04/13/COVIDe-19-survey-
teachers-say-less-than-half-of-students-attending-their-remote-classes/
\112\ Catherine A. Paul, Social Welfare History Project,
``Elementary and Second Education Act of 1965'' available at https://
socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/education/elementary-and-
secondary-education-act-of-1965/
\113\ Julian E. Zelizer, The Atlantic ``How Education Policy Went
Astray.'' (April 10, 2015) available at https://www.theatlantic.com/
education/archive/2015/04/how-education-policy-went-as
tray/390210/
\114\ Edbuild ``Nonwhite School District get $23 Billion Less than
White Districts Despite Serving The Same Number of Students'' available
at https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion
\115\ arning Policy Institute, ``The Federal Role in Advancing
Education Equity and Excellence ''(August 28, 2020) available at
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/advancing-education-2020-
brief
\116\ U.S. Department of Education ``The Federal Role in
Education'' available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/
role.html
\117\ The EdTech Genome Project--Jefferson Education Exchange, The
EdTech Genome Project (Nov. 13, 2019), https://www.slideshare.net/
DanBrown143/the-edtech-genome-project-jefferson-education-exchange-
193212301.
\118\ 48 CFR Sec. 35.017--Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers. available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/35.017
FFRDCs ``meets some special long-term research or development need
which cannot be met as effectively by existing in-house or contractor
resources''
\119\ MITRE CMS Alliance to Modernize Healthcare, available at
https://www.mitre.org/centers/cms-alliance-to-modernize-healthcare/who-
we-are (non-defense oriented FFRDC)
\120\ Susan Pimentel, Education Week, ``Why Doesn't Every Teacher
Know the Research on Reading Instruction?'' (October 26, 2018)
available at Why Doesn't Every Teacher Know the Research on Reading
Instruction? (Opinion) (edweek.org)
\121\ McKiney & Company, ``COVID-19 and Student Learning in the
United States: The hurt could last a lifetime'' (June 1, 2020)
available at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-
sector/our-insights/covid-19-and-student-learning-in-the-united-states-
the-hurt-could-last-a-lifetime
\122\ TNTP ``The Opportunity Myth: What Students Can Show Us About
How School Is Letting Them Down--and How to Fix It.'' (2018) available
at https://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP_The-Opportunity-Myth_Web.pdf
\123\ Stephanie A. Fryberg, ``Using Culture and Growth Mindset to
Create Identity Safe Spaces for Diverse Students'' available at https:/
/www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_
543/File/District/Departments/School%20Board/16-17agendas/06_01_2017/
20160603_Retreat
_Fryberg_presentation.pdf
\124\ Chloe Stroman, Stroman and Dee (2019) https://
mindsetscholarsnetwork.org/how-do-learning-environments-shape-student-
mindsets/.(showing that using a culturally relevant curriculum with
black males resulted in an increase in persistence rate and
achievement)..).
\125\ Research on the effectiveness or impact of culturally
responsive teaching practices on student outcomes (July 2019), https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/midatlantic/askarel_106.asp.
\126\ Dr. David Steiner, Curriculum Research: What We Know and
Where We Need to Go (Mar. 2017), https://standardswork.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/03/sw-curriculum-research-report-fnl.pdf.
\127\ The Benefits of Teachers of Color In P-12 Classrooms (Jan.
29, 2020), https://www.wgu.edu/blog/the-benefits-teachers-color-p-12-
classrooms2001.html. Gershenson, S., Holt, S. B., & Nicholas
Papageorge, Who believes in me? The effect of student-teacher
demographic match on teacher expectations, 52 Econ. of Education Rev.
209-224 (2016).
\128\ Robert Pondiscio, Failing by design: How we make teaching too
hard for mere mortals, Thomas Fordham Instit. (May 10, 2016), https://
fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/failing-design-how-we-make-
teaching-too-hard-mere-mortals.
\129\ TNTP, The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth About Our Quest
for Teacher Development (Aug. 4, 2015), https://tntp.org/publications/
view/the-mirage-confronting-the-truth-about-our-quest-for-teacher-
development
\130\ Individualized Tutoring to Improve Learning, J-PAL, https://
www.povertyactionlab.org/case-study/individualized-tutoring-improve-
learning?utm_campaign=may20&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_source=newsletter
(last accessed Feb. 2, 2021).
\131\ National Academies of Science, Summary, Monitoring
Educational Equity (2019), https://www.nap.edu/read/25389/chapter/2
\132\ Government Accountability Office, ``Agencies Need to Develop
Modernization Plans for Critical Legacy Systems,'' June 2019, https://
www.gao.gov/assets/700/699616.pdf.
\133\ Government Accountability Office,'' Cloud Computing: Agencies
Have Increased Usage and Realized Benefits, but Cost and Savings Data
Need to Be Better Tracked,'' April 2019, https://www.gao.gov/assets/
700/698236.pdf.
\134\ ``Federal Agencies' Reliance on Outdated and Unsupported
Information Technology: A Ticking Time Bomb, Hearing before the
Committee on Oversight and Government Report, House of Representatives,
May 25, 2016, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg23644/
html/CHRG-114hhrg23644.htm.
\135\ Heather Kuldell, ``10 Government Legacy Systems Cost
Taxpayers $337 Million Every Year,'' NextGov, June 12, 2019, https://
www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2019/06/10-government-legacy-systems-
cost-taxpayers-337-million-every-year/157682/.
\136\ ``Federal Agencies' Reliance on Outdated and Unsupported
Information Technology: A Ticking Time Bomb, Hearing before the
Committee on Oversight and Government Report, House of Representatives
and ``Spending on legacy IT continues to grow, but there is light at
the end of the tunnel,'' Federal News Network, August 17, 2018, https:/
/federalnewsnetwork.com/ask-the-cio/2018/08/spending-on-legacy-it-
continues-to-grow-but-there-is-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel/.
\137\ Robert Atkinson, ``Turbo-Charging E-Government,'' Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation, June 1, 2006, https://itif.org/
publications/2006/06/01/turbo-charging-e-government.
\138\ Press Release, ``An Award Winning County,'' Montgomery County
Maryland, https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/ mcg/award.html (last
accessed Feb. 12, 2021).
\139\ ``21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act,''
Digital.gov, https://digital.gov/resources/21st-century-integrated-
digital-experience-act/ (last accessed Feb. 12, 2021); ``The Technology
Modernization Fund,'' TMF, https://tmf.cio.gov/ (last accessed Feb. 12,
2021).
\140\ ``Presidential Innovation Fellows,'' https://
presidentialinnovationfellows.gov/(last accessed Feb. 12, 2021).
\141\ Partnership for Public Service, ``What Drives Innovation in
the Federal Government'' (Partnership for Public Service, August 2011),
https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/down
load.php?id=87.
\142\ Tom Shoop, ``Most Feds Say Agencies Aren't Interested in
Their Ideas,'' Government Executive, June 5, 2017, http://
www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2017/06/most-feds-say-
agencies-arentinterested-their-ideas/ 138394/?oref=govexec_today_pm_nl.
\143\ Daniel Castro, Galia Nurko & Alan McQuinn, ``Benchmarking
U.S. Government Websites,'' Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation, Nov. 27, 2017, https://itif.org/publications/2017/11/27/
benchmarking-us-government-websites.
\144\ U.S. Digital Service, ``Digital Services Handbook,'' https://
playbook.cio.gov (last accessed Feb. 12, 2021).
\145\ Jeanne Liedtka, ``Why Design Thinking Works,'' Harvard
Business Review, September-October 2018, https://hbr.org/2018/09/why-
design-thinking-works.
\146\ ``Design for Delight,'' Intuit Labs, n.d. http://
www.intuitlabs.com/design-for-delight (last accessed Feb. 12, 2021).
\147\ Dan Williams & Maya Benari, ``Introducing USWDS 2.0,'' April
8, 2019, https://designsystem.digital.gov/whats-new/updates/2019/04/08/
introducing-uswds-2-0/.
\148\ Based on 90-day data up to September 21, 2020 via https://
analytics.usa.gov.
\149\ ``Mobile Fact Sheet,'' Pew Research Center, June 12, 2019,
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/.
\150\ Christy Bieber, ``Contactless Payments Are Set to Continue
Growing Post-COVID,'' The Ascent, June 18, 2020, https://www.fool.com/
the-ascent/research/contactless-payments.
\151\ Government Accountability Office, ``Federal Agencies Need to
Strengthen Online Identity Verification Processes,'' May 2019, https://
www.gao.gov/assets/700/699195.pdf.
\152\ ``Unemployment checks are being held up by a coding language
almost nobody knows,'' The Verge, April 14, 2020, https://
www.theverge.com/2020/4/14/21219561/coronavirus-pandemic-unemployment-
systems-cobol-legacy-software-infrastructure.
\153\ Daniel Castro, ``The Rise of Data Poverty in America,''
Center for Data Innovation, Sept. 10, 2014, http://
www2.datainnovation.org/2014-data-poverty.pdf.
\154\ Government Accountability Office, ``Urgent Actions Are Needed
to Address Cybersecurity Challenges Facing the Nation,'' July 25, 2018,
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-645T.
\155\ Katya Schwenk, ``FCC will make broadband maps 'more granular
and more accurate,' '' State Scoop (June 13, 2019), https://
statescoop.com/fcc-will-make-broadband-maps-more-granular-and-more-
accurate/.
\156\ Federal Communications Commission, Staff Report, Coverage
Maps Investigation, Mobility Fund Phase II, https://docs.fcc.gov/
public/attachments/DOC-361165A1.pdf; FCC Reveals Misleading Coverage
Claims, Coverage Critic (Sept. 6, 2019), https://coveragecritic.com/
2019/12/06/fcc-reveals-misleading-coverage-claims/; Carrie Mihalcik,
Microsoft: FCC's broadband coverage maps are way off, CNET (April 9,
2019), https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-fccs-broadband-coverage-
maps-are-way-off/.
______
Public Knowledge
Dec. 13, 2022
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan, Chair,
Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Thune, Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Lujan and Ranking Member Thune,
Public Knowledge is a consumer advocacy group that promotes freedom
of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable
communications tools and creative works. We appreciate the opportunity
to offer this letter for the record regarding the critically important
programs beyond deployment funding that must comprise our Nation's
efforts to further close the digital divide. While ensuring access to
broadband is obviously an important first step, we must also ensure
that once access is available it is affordable and that residents have
the digital skills and training to realize the full potential that
broadband can bring to their lives. We hope this hearing highlights
those challenges and the important work being done at the federal,
State and Tribal level to promote adoption. This Congress and the next
have much work left to do to close the digital divide and Public
Knowledge remains committed to working with members on a bipartisan
basis to give all Americans the opportunity to succeed in the digital
age. With that, we offer you our views on the following programs and
efforts that are underway.
Affordable Connectivity Program
The Affordable Connectivity Program is a groundbreaking program
that has helped more than 15 million U.S. households connect to the
internet, some for the first time.\1\ However, because of the success
of this program, the funding Congress allocated is unlikely to last as
long as anticipated. If this program ends, it could leave millions
unable to connect. Thus, it is imperative that Congress replenish the
fund, at least temporarily. Ultimately, we believe that the Universal
Service Fund is the best mechanism for funding a permanent broadband
subsidy, because it would offer predictable, sustainable support.
However, to fund a permanent broadband subsidy through USF would
require contributions reform--a policy debate that has been ongoing for
the past decade. Because we cannot wait years longer to replenish the
ACP, Congress should top-up the program as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Universal Service Administrative Company, ACP Enrollment and
Claims Tracker, available at 2022, https://www.usac.org/about/
affordable-connectivity-program/acp-enrollment-and-claims-tracker/
#total-enrolled, last accessed Dec 12, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the meantime, Congress and the Commission should do what it can
to improve enrollment. Although enrollment has exceeded Congressional
expectations, it still falls short of the 48 million households that
are eligible.\2\ In order to improve enrollment, Congress must step in
to ensure that the National Verifier functions properly. To work as
designed, the National Verifier needs data about eligible populations
from the relevant state, Federal and tribal agencies. Unfortunately,
many agencies do not share this information because of privacy laws, a
lack of resources, or simply a lack of desire. This forces consumers to
undergo a lengthy verification process that almost \2/3\ do not
complete.\3\ We urge Congress to require relevant agencies to share
data about qualifying consumers with the National Verifier for
verification purposes, and to clarify that this type of narrow data
sharing preempts relevant privacy laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The White House, Fact Sheet: Vice President Harris Marks
Important New Milestone in Administration's Efforts to Cut Costs for
American Families, (July 21, 2022), available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/21/fact-
sheet-vice-president-harris-highlights-milestone-of-1-million-new-
participants-on-reducing-high-speed-internet-cost-for-americans/.
\3\ Government Accountability Office, FCC Has Implemented the
Lifeline National Verifier but Should Improve Consumer Awareness and
Experience (Jan 2021), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-
235.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Discrimination
The Commission recently released it's notice of proposed rulemaking
regarding Congress' bi-partisan direction in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act to adopt rules to eliminate and prevent digital
discrimination.\4\ Ultimately, the rules around digital discrimination,
if implemented correctly, will be one of the most effective mechanisms
available to ensure that everyone regardless of their income, race,
ethnicity, color, religion or national origin has access to affordable,
reliable internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135
Stat. 429, Sec. 60506 (2021) (codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1754)
(Infrastructure Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three key elements of strong rules that prevent and
eliminate digital discrimination. The first is the standard that the
FCC utilizes to determine whether discrimination is present. We urge
the Commission to adopt a standard that holds Internet Service
Providers (ISP's) per se liable for intentional discrimination. In
addition, the Commission should hold ISPs liable for acts that lead to
a discriminatory impact within a given geographic area.
Moreover, the Commission should take a holistic view of comparable
service. Service isn't just price and speeds, but should also include,
at a minimum, latency, resiliency, customer service, promotional
offers, and reliability. These too are investments into the network and
service in an individual's neighborhood as much as investment in fiber
or upgraded equipment.
In addition, the Commission should compare what service consumers
get for the price they are being asked to pay. As the recent
investigative report by Markup found ``AT&T, Verizon, EarthLink, and
CenturyLink disproportionately offered lower-income and least-White
neighborhoods slow Internet service for the same price as speedy
connections they offered in other parts of town.'' \5\ This is
unconscionable. As this data demonstrates, it will be critical that
protected classes are not charged as much for lower quality service as
their peers are charged for significantly better service. Taking this
holistic view will ensure that providers don't discriminate against
protected classes in less obvious, but still harmful, ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Dollars to Megabits, You May Be Paying 400 Times As Much As
Your Neighbor for Internet Service (Oct. 19, 2022)/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Commission must interpret its mandate to ``take into
account issues of technological and economic feasibility'' as Congress
intended, narrowly. Congress did not intend for this language to serve
as a safe harbor for ISPs, but instead just one of many factors the
Commission considers when evaluating instances of proposed digital
discrimination. To actualize this, the Commission should adopt a
rebuttable presumption that service is technically and economically
feasible. To rebut the presumption of economic feasibility, an ISP
should have to show that the cost of deployment is so high that it
would be impossible to offer service, even based on a long-term
investment schedule. To rebut technical feasibility, the ISP should
demonstrate that the needed technology either does not exist, or that
deployment would be impossible based on physical obstructions or
technical issues that cannot be worked around.
Digital Equity Grants and Foundation
Even when people have access to broadband, they might not have the
skills or devices they need to get online. That's why Congress enacted
the Digital Equity Grant program--which offers states more than $3
billion to teach their residents digital skills and help them obtain a
computer or tablet. However, more than 10 percent of households across
the country do not have a device, and \1/3\ of U.S. workers don't have
adequate digital literacy skills.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Digitunity, The Issue, https://www.digitunity.org/the-
issue/ (last accessed Dec. 12, 2022); Cite to digitunity and Amanda
Bergson-Shilcock, The New Landscape of Digital Literacy (May 2020),
National Skills Coalition, https://nationalskillscoalition.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/05-20-2020-NSC-New-Landscape-of-Digital-
Literacy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixing these problems will cost significantly more than the $3.2
billion dollars initially allocated by Congress. Thus, we need to
consider the Digital Equity grant program an initial investment that
must be supplemented. Senator Lujan's Digital Equity Foundation bill is
a smart way to use spectrum auction proceeds to promote digital equity
initiatives for the long term.\7\ Unlike broadband access and
affordability programs, digital equity does not have a long-term
funding source and that must be remedied. We urge Congress to consider
taking up this legislation as part of any spectrum legislation that is
moving this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Digital Equity Foundation Act of 2022, S. 4865, 117th Cong. 2d
Sess. (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We appreciate you holding this important hearing on the range of
topics that in addition to deployment are critically important to
closing the digital divide for all Americans.
Sincerely,
Jenna Leventoff,
Senior Policy Counsel,
Public Knowledge.
______
CTIA
December 13, 2022
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Thune, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Re: Letter for the Record: Subcommittee on Communications, Media &
Broadband Hearing, ``Ensuring Solutions to Meet America's
Broadband Needs'' (Dec. 13, 2022)
Dear Chairman Lujan and Ranking Member Thune:
CTIA \1\ commends the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on
Communications, Media & Broadband for convening a hearing to examine
past and ongoing efforts to meet America's broadband needs and
respectfully requests this letter be included in the hearing record.
CTIA urges the Subcommittee, as it considers these issues, to recognize
the important role that America's wireless providers are playing in
closing the digital divide and advancing digital equity.\2\ In
particular, 5G Home broadband (or Fixed Wireless Access (FWA)) is the
fastest-growing category of residential and business broadband
offerings, providing an important new competitive option for consumers,
expanding robust broadband service in communities that have remained
unserved or lacked reliable access, and making broadband prices more
affordable. Wireless providers also have long been the backbone of
efforts to ensure affordable service to low-income consumers with both
prepaid and postpaid mobile wireless broadband offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CTIA--The Wireless Association (``CTIA'') (www.ctia.org)
represents the U.S. wireless communications industry and the companies
throughout the mobile ecosystem that enable Americans to lead a 21st
century connected life. The association's members include wireless
carriers, device manufacturers, suppliers as well as apps and content
companies. CTIA vigorously advocates at all levels of government for
policies that foster continued wireless innovation and investment. The
association also coordinates the industry's voluntary best practices,
hosts educational events that promote the wireless industry and co-
produces the industry's leading wireless tradeshow. CTIA was founded in
1984 and is based in Washington, D.C.
\2\ See MMTC (in partnership with CTIA), Wireless in Communities of
Color: Bridging the Digital Divide (July 2022), https://
www.mmtconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Wireless-in-Communities-
of-Color-July-2022.pdf (exploring how wireless is helping bridge the
digital divide, including for communities of color, low-income
households, and rural communities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5G Home Broadband offers affordable, scalable, easy-to-deploy high-
speed residential and business broadband services over fixed wireless.
These advantages position fixed wireless to play a meaningful role in
achieving the goal of connecting all Americans to broadband. Progress
towards this bipartisan goal can be greatly advanced through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act's (IIJA) Broadband Equity,
Access and Deployment (BEAD) program--if properly implemented in
accordance with congressional intent. Indeed, 5G Home Broadband offers
a cost-effective option for many communities seeking to gain
connectivity through the BEAD program, and can help states maximize the
use of this valuable funding.\3\ In fact, Accenture recently concluded
that ``rural and underserved communities stand to benefit significantly
from 5G FWA, with this wireless technology capable of bringing robust
broadband connectivity to nearly half of rural households in the U.S.''
\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. Law No. 117-
58, Sec. 60102(f), 135 Stat. 1195 (2021).
\4\ Accenture, 5G Fixed Wireless Broadband: Helping Close the
Digital Divide in Rural America, at 2 (2021), https://api.ctia.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/CTIA-Rural-HHs-mini-POV-V2-20211115.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5G Home Broadband is also delivering on the longstanding goal of
bringing more facilities-based competition to consumers. Wells Fargo
recently noted that ``fixed wireless is a viable competitive threat,
particularly in rural areas.'' \5\ As customers flock to this new
competitive offering, it's no surprise that America's two fastest-
growing home broadband providers are wireless operators. In the last
quarter alone, 5G Home Broadband brought in 24 net subscribers for each
new cable broadband subscriber.\6\ Wall Street has taken note
concluding that ``[f]ixed wireless access (FWA) has displaced cable as
the driver of broadband growth.'' \7\ Part of the reason is that
``wireless home Internet is cheaper'' than fixed-line providers'
offerings,\8\ with services starting as low as $25/month. Data show
that 5G Home Internet customers are receiving speeds at or above 100
Mbps and peak speeds up to 1 Gigabit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Hal Singer, Is Fixed Wireless Ready To Take On Cable? It's
Early, But the Initial Data Seem Promising, Forbes (July 25, 2022)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
\6\ LRG: FWA Continues to Displace All Others for Broadband Growth,
Telecompetitor (Nov. 17, 2022), https://www.telecompetitor.com/lrg-fwa-
continues-to-displace-all-others-for-broadband-growth/ (citing
Leichtman Research Group and stating ``[t]he market research firm found
that the top cable companies gained about 39,000 subscribers, wireline
phone companies lost more than 136,000 subscribers- while FWA gained
920,000 subscribers'').
\7\ Id.
\8\ Jared Newman, Comcast and Charter face a grim new reality:
actual competition, Fast Company (Aug. 30, 2022), https://
www.fastcompany.com/90782532/comcast-and-charter-face-a-grim
-new-reality-actual-competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, wireless providers have a strong history of expanding
affordable Internet access for low-income consumers. Wireless providers
led the way in bringing a variety of offerings to low-income households
and students through the FCC's Lifeline program, the Emergency
Broadband Benefit Program (EBB), and the Emergency Connectivity Fund
(ECF), and have made important contributions to increasing connectivity
in Tribal communities.\9\ In fact, more than 55 percent of households
eligible for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), funded by the
IIJA, apply their ACP benefit to a wireless offering.\10\ Support from
ACP and other similar programs allows providers to realize the
sustained customer base necessary to bring advanced 5G services to
large, sparse, and topographically hard-to-serve areas such as Tribal
Lands. Judd Hinkle, CEO of a wireless provider that serves significant
Tribal areas, Smith Bagley, observes that ``those additional funds
allow us to increase our capacity and to build out for the future.''
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ How Cellular One is Connecting Rural Communities and Tribal
Lands, CTIA Blog (Mar. 11, 2022) (``Cellular One'') https://
www.ctia.org/news/how-cellular-one-is-connecting-rural-communities-and-
tribal-lands.
\10\ USAC, Additional ACP Data (as of Nov. 1, 2022), https://
www.usac.org/about/affordable-connectivity-program/acp-enrollment-and-
claims-tracker/additional-acp-data/.
\11\ Cellular One, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure equitable inclusion in our increasingly connected
economy, companies throughout the wireless ecosystem offer programs and
engagement that support digital literacy and skills training, career
growth, education, and economic empowerment. For example, wireless
companies are working to provide digital skills and STEM education to
millions of youth, scholarships to underrepresented communities, and
job training and opportunities--including as 5G network technicians--to
prepare and engage workers for jobs of the future.
Wireless providers have played, and are playing, an important role
in ongoing and past efforts within the public and private sectors to
bring affordable, resilient, and secure broadband to all communities,
including rural, Tribal, and low-income urban areas that lack access to
affordable broadband service. It is critical that a technology-neutral
approach be taken to ensure wireless solutions can be unleashed to meet
the needs of all Americans across our Nation. We would be happy to
discuss these issues with you further.
Sincerely,
Meredith Attwell Baker,
President and CEO,
CTIA.
______
INCOMPAS
Washington, DC, January 5, 2023
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan, Chairman
Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Thune, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband,
Washington, DC.
Re: Ensuring Solutions to Meet America's Broadband Needs Hearing on
Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Dear Chairman Lujan and Ranking Member Thune:
INCOMPAS, the Internet and competitive networks association, is
submitting this letter in response to the Subcommittee on
Communications, Media, and Broadband's hearing on December 13, 2022,
entitled ``Ensuring Solutions to Meet America's Broadband Needs.''
INCOMPAS kindly requests that you include our letter response as part
of the hearing record.
INCOMPAS is the leading trade association advocating for
competition and innovation in the broadband marketplace, representing
new network builders, Internet innovators, and the world's leading
video streaming and cloud services. Our members help deliver better
service to consumers, businesses, government agencies, and local
communities seeking more choice, lower prices, and faster broadband
speeds that attracts jobs and private investment.
Our members have been at the forefront of investing in and
delivering high-speed, competitive broadband infrastructure throughout
the U.S. and across the globe. INCOMPAS is unique among trade
associations in that we represent the entire Internet value chain.\1\
Our members include competitive providers that are deploying, last
mile, middle mile, and global Internet infrastructure that deliver
modern Internet services to consumers and businesses of all sizes. We
have small, local competitive broadband Internet access service (BIAS)
providers (also known as Internet Service Providers or ISPs) that are
deploying fiber and fixed wireless infrastructure and competing against
incumbent cable/telcos in the residential and business marketplaces. We
also have fiber providers that are deploying middle mile, last mile,
small cells, mobile 5G connectivity, and delivering wholesale service
to other providers in the marketplace. We have business and enterprise
providers that sell nationwide voice and data services, and we also
have members providing streaming, gaming, social media and other online
content, and offering OTT voice/text, data center and cloud computing
services. Member companies are delivering multiple broadband
technologies in the marketplace, including fiber, fixed wireless,
mobile (5G), and satellite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Our membership is available on our website at https://
www.incompas.org/memberlist
.asp?contentid=2109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our members' success is undeniable. In addition to building fiber
to the some of the most rural corners of America, our members'
achievements include providing business service to 75 percent of
Fortune 500 companies, building the fastest speed network on record,
and being awarded the number one ranking for customer service in
America.
Network competition and streaming/online content competition go
hand-in-hand. The rise in quality, creative, and affordable online
content and cloud computing is the leading driver for broadband
deployment. INCOMPAS members have made massive investments in
streaming, cloud computing, video gaming, social media, and thousands
of online applications and services for consumers and businesses that
power the U.S. economy and help consumers.
To ensure everyone in the U.S. has modern network connectivity, a
bipartisan Congress is making a significant, once-in-a-generation
investment through the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) in
broadband network, adoption, training, and other digital equity
programs. INCOMPAS and its members support this investment, and we have
been actively representing our members' interests in its implementation
at NTIA and in the states. In 2021, INCOMPAS launched its BroadLand
``Internet for All'' campaign to support universal connectivity and the
objectives of the IIJA. Fortuitously, the Biden Administration has
adopted our tagline, ``Internet for All,'' for the broadband
investments made possible from the IIJA and earlier Congressional
investments made during the COVID-19 pandemic. These investments are
also in addition to the almost $9 billion annual Universal Service Fund
(USF) that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) manages, which
for several decades has helped communities and millions of low-income
families, schools, libraries, hospitals, and small businesses connect
to voice and broadband services across the Nation.
During the hearing and in the written testimony, some of the
witnesses described the massive effort and investment required to
deploy broadband infrastructure and reported on the broadband
investment made by industry. This investment--while significant--does
not include the investment being made by streaming, online content,
application and service providers. As such, INCOMPAS would like to
offer further information to Congress about the local and global
investments that are being made by the tech sector in infrastructure
that is necessary to deliver today's modern internet.
In October, INCOMPAS released a report prepared by Analysys Mason
that demonstrates the massive investment made by tech companies in
network infrastructure across the globe in delivering online content,
applications, and services.\2\ Their investments in network
infrastructure enable hosting, transport, and delivery of Internet
traffic. Streaming and tech innovators invested $883 billion in
Internet infrastructure from 2011 to 2021. Indeed, from 2018-2021, they
increased their digital infrastructure investment over 50 percent by
making an annual investment of more than $120 billion. These
investments are over and above their investments in content,
applications, services, and research and development. As a result of
these infrastructure investments, our tech members are bringing traffic
closer to BIAS providers and end users which improves the quality of
service for BIAS customers. Analysys Mason estimates that these
investments save BIAS providers around the globe $5.0-$6.4 billion each
year. It also found that while Internet traffic volumes have grown
significantly, costs for BIAS providers have remained stable over
time--demonstrating that the growth of Internet traffic has not led to
increased costs for BIAS providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Analysys Mason, The Impact of Tech Companies' Network
Investment on the Economics of Broadband ISPs (Oct. 2022), available at
https://www.incompas.org//Files/2022%20Tech%20
Investment/
FINAL%20Analysys%20Mason%20Report%20%20Impact%20of%20tech%20compa
nies'%20network%20investment%20on%20the%20economics%20of%20broadband%20I
SPs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be it for lower prices or better customer service, all consumers
want more competition. Competition is also the law. Unfortunately, the
witnesses representing incumbent BIAS providers continue to argue
against competition by asserting that Federal funding not be used to
compete directly against their older, slower networks. Incumbent
leaders continue to claim that the funding will lead to
``overbuilding.'' However, incumbent providers do not need to be
concerned about this issue when it comes to the IIJA as the legislation
sets forth clear parameters for IIJA funding: specifically, that the
investment must be made in new or upgraded broadband networks in
unserved and underserved areas. Moreover, incumbents have had decades
to build their networks--and many have done so with direct support from
the USF and other broadband programs--yet, even with all this time and
funding, the incumbents have still not been able to reach every
location with robust, scalable future-proof broadband capability, which
Congress has recognized is absolutely necessary for the U.S. to compete
globally.\3\ Indeed, incumbents remain eligible for IIJA funding, and
they have many advantages to obtain IIJA funding given their scale and
position in the marketplace.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This is not surprising. Last year, INCOMPAS provided Congress a
report on the efforts of other countries to invest in future proof
broadband networks. See INCOMPAS, The Race to Faster Broadband Speeds
(July 2021), available at https://www.incompas.org//Files/filings/2021/
FINAL%201%20Gigabit%20and%20Fiber%20Goals%20in%20Other%20Nations%204%20(
2).pdf.
\4\ The four largest BIAS providers represented by USTelecom and
NCTA have almost 80 percent of the fixed BIAS market. See Leichtman
Research Group, Inc. Press Release, About 1,065,000 Added Broadband in
1Q 2022; Fixed Wireless Services Accounted for Half of the Net Adds in
the Quarter (May 18, 2022), available at https://
www.leichtmanresearch.com/about-1065000-added-broadband-in-1q-2022/;
see also INCOMPAS Comments, Office of Economics and Analytics Seeks
Comment on the State of Competition in the Communications Marketplace,
GN Docket No. 22-203 (filed July 1, 2022), at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing to fund monopoly networks that do not ensure that every
customer has choice in the market is a failed policy that must be left
in the past. As such, INCOMPAS urges Congress to ensure that all
unserved and underserved locations in the U.S. be eligible for IIJA
funding as intended so that every location in the U.S. is finally
served by broadband, that open and competitive processes are used for
distribution of the funds, that competitive providers have an
opportunity to participate, and that those companies funded are
required to provide reasonable wholesale access so that customers have
choice for their broadband service which will drive more affordability,
innovation, and investment that benefit customers.
We echo the hearing witnesses who also discussed the uneven,
complex, time-consuming, unpredictable and expensive process that
broadband infrastructure builders encounter in accessing poles,
conduit, public, private, and railroad rights-of-way, Federal lands,
and multi-tenant environments (MTEs) to deploy their fiber, fixed
wireless, small cell, and other technologies needed to deliver
broadband capability to consumers, businesses, community anchor
institutions, and the government sector.
It is important for Congress to understand that there is no
national framework that affords broadband infrastructure builders a
uniform or standardized process. Rather, it is a mix-and-match of
federal, state, and local policies and regulations--requiring broadband
infrastructure providers to navigate a complex, often time-consuming
and costly process to deploy their networks. As such, INCOMPAS has been
actively working to address the numerous barriers to fast and
affordable deployment, and while some steps have been taken to address
concerns we have raised, additional work must be done. INCOMPAS
supports Congressional action to facilitate faster, more affordable
infrastructure deployment, and we believe that Congress should revise
Section 224 of the Communications Act to achieve these goals by
ensuring all pole and conduit access is governed by the minimum
standards the FCC has adopted. We also are advocating for the FCC to
take action on a pending pole proceeding that, if resolved, will speed
deployment in a more cost-effective manner for the poles the FCC
regulates.\5\ This follows the FCC's important Order implemented
earlier this year on improving competitive providers' access to MTEs,
for which INCOMPAS has long advocated.\6\ This process took about five
years, but our members are now able to obtain improved access in
residential and commercial MTEs, which is critical to bringing better
network connectivity and competitive choice to the 30 percent of
Americans who live in MTEs and to the millions of businesses located in
shopping centers and malls across the Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See INCOMPAS Comments and Reply Comments in WC Docket No. 17-
84.
\6\ See INCOMPAS Press Release, INCOMPAS: Competition Comes to the
Condo! FCC's MTE Action a Win for Families and Broadband Deployment
(Feb. 15, 2022), available at https://www.incompas.org/
content.asp?admin=Y&contentid=692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, INCOMPAS has encouraged state broadband offices to
emphasize the importance for every city, town, and community to
streamline their processes for faster broadband infrastructure
deployment and to enable competitive builds by allowing for non-
discriminatory, fast access at reasonable, cost-based rates, where
charges apply. This is especially important for Federal funding from
IIJA, but the same holds true for private sector investment, which also
will be used for these Internet for All investments.
INCOMPAS' member companies work directly with local communities to
ensure that the infrastructure being deployed will meet their needs,
but regularly face unreasonable, costly demands, and/or significant
delays. As such, we are working to educate policymakers at every level
of government on the importance of broadband infrastructure, and
specifically how competitive deployment and availability best meet
consumer and business demands by driving better, faster networks and
more affordable and innovative service. It also benefits local, state,
and Federal government agencies who want competitive options for their
communications services.
Finally, the hearing featured testimony calling for passage of the
FAIR Contributions Act, which would require the FCC to study USF
contribution reform for BIAS and edge providers. INCOMPAS believes that
the FCC must move forward with USF contribution reform, and the
association is concerned that suggestions that the FCC continue to
study this issue will further delay much-needed reform that is required
to preserve and sustain the USF. The potential for further delay of
critical reform is exactly what Senators Klobuchar and Thune's
legislation, the Reforming Broadband Connectivity Act, is intended to
address. It would require the FCC to complete its long-delayed reform
effort within a year. A number of Senators support this legislation,
which further shows that there is significant concern that the FCC has
failed to act on a long-standing reform proceeding for more than ten
years. INCOMPAS believes that the FCC has the authority and
responsibility under the current statute to complete its reform to
ensure that the USF can continue to meet its mission.
The USF is critical for supporting broadband availability and
connectivity; however, the FCC must act soon on reform, especially now
that the quarterly factor has reached over 30 percent and has become an
even more significant burden on customers. USF is funded based on
telecom revenues, which have been declining as mobile and fixed
broadband revenues have increased.
While the FCC has modernized every USF program to support
broadband-capable networks and BIAS availability, it has not modernized
the contribution factor to include BIAS revenues. There is significant
support for the FCC to reform the USF and add BIAS revenues to the
contribution base now led by the USForward Coalition. Indeed, the
USForward Coalition includes support from over 340 entities, and even
USTelecom--which asserted in its written testimony that the FCC's
authority should be vastly expanded to include edge providers--agrees
that the FCC should, at a minimum, expand the base to include BIAS
revenues.\7\ Historically services that are supported by USF subsidies
are required to contribute to USF; thus, it is sound policy to expand
the base to include BIAS revenues. Moreover, the factor would be less
than 4 percent and would provide relief from the unreasonably high and
burdensome contribution rate. Finally, financial support for USF would
be more evenly distributed to all who benefit from the connectivity USF
supports. No matter how BIAS customers use their broadband, they would
be contributing to the USF that provides for its universal
availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ USTelecom Comments, Report on the Future of the Universal
Service Fund, WC Docket No. 21-476 (filed Feb. 2022), at 5, (``the
Commission should move quickly to launch a proceeding to explore the
bounds of its permissive authority to assess services that include
telecommunications--including broadband Internet access service (BIAS)
. . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We thank you for the opportunity to offer our feedback on some of
the issues that were raised in the hearing. We have received Senator
Thune's letter of December 6 concerning broadband funding and
regulatory structure and will be responding separately to that letter.
Sincerely,
Angie Kronenberg,
President.
cc: Members of Subcommittee
______
The Markup
Dollars to Megabits, You May Be Paying 400 Times As Much As Your
Neighbor for Internet Service
By Leon Yin and Aaron Sankin
October 19, 2022 06:51 ET
Viewable online at
https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-megabits-you-
may-be-paying-400-times-as-much-as-your-neighbor-for-internet-service
Credit: Joel Eastwood and Gabe Hongsdusit. Sources: The Markup
analysis of AT&T, CenturyLink, Verizon; U.S. Census Bureau
This article is copublished with AP
A couple of years into the pandemic, Shirley Neville had finally
had enough of her crappy Internet service.
``It was just a headache,'' said Neville, who lives in a middle-
class neighborhood in New Orleans whose residents are almost all Black
or Latino. ``When I was getting ready to use my tablet for a meeting,
it was cutting off and not coming on.''
Neville said she was willing to pay more to be able to Zoom without
interruption, so she called AT&T to upgrade her connection. She said
she was told there was nothing the company could do.
In her area, AT&T only offers download speeds of 1 megabit per
second or less, trapping her in a digital Stone Age. Her Internet is so
slow that it doesn't meet Zoom's recommended minimum for group video
calls, doesn't come close to the FCC's definition of broadband,
currently 25 Mbps, and is worlds below median home Internet speeds in
the U.S., which average 167 Mbps.
``In my neighborhood, it's terrible,'' Neville said.
But that's not the case in other parts of New Orleans. AT&T offers
residents of the mostly White, upper-income neighborhood of Lakeview
Internet speeds almost 400 times faster than Neville's--for the same
price: $55 a month.
The vast gulf between the quality of service AT&T offered these
neighborhoods for the same cost is not a fluke.
The Markup gathered and analyzed more than 800,000 Internet service
offers from AT&T, Verizon, Earthlink, and CenturyLink in 38 cities
across America and found that all four routinely offered fast base
speeds at or above 200 Mbps in some neighborhoods for the same price as
connections below 25 Mbps in others.
The neighborhoods offered the worst deals had lower median incomes
in nine out of 10 cities in the analysis. In two-thirds of the cities
where The Markup had enough data to compare, the providers gave the
worst offers to the least-White neighborhoods.
These providers also disproportionately gave the worst offers to
formerly redlined areas in every one of the 22 cities examined where
digitized historical maps were available. These are areas a since-
disbanded agency created by the Federal government in the 1930s had
deemed ``hazardous'' for financial institutions to invest in, often
because the residents were Black or poor. Redlining was outlawed in
1968.
By failing to price according to service speed, these companies are
demanding some customers pay dramatically higher unit prices for
advertised download speed than others. CenturyLink, which showed the
most extreme disparities, offered some customers service of 200 Mbps,
amounting to as little as $0.25 per Mbps, but offered others living in
the same city only 0.5 Mbps for 400 times as much--$100 per Mbps.
Residents of neighborhoods offered the worst deals aren't just
being ripped off; they're denied the ability to participate in remote
learning, well-paying remote jobs, and even family connection and
recreation--ubiquitous elements of modern life.
``It isn't just about the provision of a better service. It's about
access to the tools people need to fully participate in our democratic
system,'' said Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. ``That
is a far bigger deal and that's what really worries me about what
you're finding.''
Christopher Lewis, president and CEO of the nonprofit Public
Knowledge, which works to expand Internet access, said The Markup's
analysis shows how far behind the Federal government is when it comes
to holding Internet providers to account. ``Nowhere have we seen either
the FCC nor the Congress, who ultimately has authority as well, study
competition in the marketplace and pricing to see if consumers are
being price gouged or if those service offerings make sense.''
None of the providers denied charging the same fee for vastly
different Internet speeds to different neighborhoods in the same
cities. But they said their intentions were not to discriminate against
communities of color and that there were other factors to consider.
The industry group USTelecom, speaking on behalf of Verizon, said
the cost of maintaining the antiquated equipment used for slow speed
service plays a role in its price.
``Fiber can be hundreds of times faster than legacy broadband--but
that doesn't mean that legacy networks cost hundreds of times less,''
USTelecom senior vice president Marie Johnson said in an e-mail.
``Operating and maintaining legacy technologies can be more expensive,
especially as legacy network components are discontinued by equipment
manufacturers.''
AT&T spokesperson Jim Greer said in an e-mailed statement that The
Markup's analysis is ``fundamentally flawed'' because it ``clearly
ignored our participation in the Federal Affordable Connectivity
Program and our low-cost Access by AT&T service offerings.'' The
Affordable Connectivity Program was launched in 2021 and pays up to $30
a month for Internet for low-income residents, or $75 on tribal lands.
``Any suggestion that we discriminate in providing Internet access
is blatantly wrong,'' he said, adding that AT&T plans on spending $48
billion on service upgrades over the next two years.
Recent research looking at 30 major cities found only about a third
of eligible households had signed up for the Federal subsidy, however,
and the majority use it to help cover cellphone bills, which also
qualify, rather than home Internet costs. Connectivity advocates told
The Markup that it's hard to get people to jump through the
bureaucratic hoops needed to sign up for the program when service is
slow.
Greer declined to say how many or what percentage of AT&T's
Internet customers are signed up for either the ACP or the company's
own low-cost program for low-income residents.
In a letter to the FCC, AT&T insisted its high-speed Internet
deployments are driven by ``household density, not median incomes.''
But when The Markup ran a statistical test controlling for density, it
still found AT&T disproportionately offered slower speeds to lower-
income areas in three out of four of the 20 cities where we
investigated their service.
``We do not engage in discriminatory practices like redlining and
find the accusation offensive,'' Mark Molzen, a spokesperson for
CenturyLink's parent company, Lumen, wrote in an e-mail. He said that
The Markup's analysis is ``deeply flawed'' without specifying how. He
did not respond to requests for clarification.
EarthLink, which doesn't own Internet infrastructure in the
examined cities but rather rents capacity from other providers, did not
provide an official comment despite repeated requests.
Internet prices are not regulated by the Federal government because
unlike telephone service, Internet service is not considered a utility.
As a result, providers can make their own decisions about where they
provide service and how much to charge. The FCC declined a request to
comment on the findings.
The investigation is based on service offers collected from the
companies' own websites, which contain service lookup tools that list
all available plans for specific addresses, using a method pioneered by
researchers at Princeton. The Markup analyzed price and speed for
nearly 850,000 offers for addresses in the largest city in 38 states
where these providers operate.
Las Vegas is one city where large swaths of CenturyLink's offers
were for slow service. Almost half didn't meet the current Federal
definition of broadband. These fell disproportionately on Las Vegas's
lower-income and least-White areas.
Las Vegas councilwoman Olivia Diaz said that in the summer of 2020,
she approached families where children had stopped showing up to
virtual lessons the previous school year to find out what went wrong.
City schools were preparing to begin their second school year
marked by COVID-19 lockdowns.
``We kept hearing there were multiple children trying to connect in
the household, but they weren't able to,'' said Diaz, who represents a
district that's predominantly Latino and on the lower end of the city's
income spectrum.
More than 80 percent of CenturyLink's Internet offers in her
district were for service slower than 25 Mbps. Education advocacy group
Common Sense Media recommends at least 200 Mbps download speeds for a
household to reliably conduct multiple, simultaneous video conferencing
sessions.
``I think it's unfair knowing that it is slow service that we're
paying for that is not commensurate with the faster speeds that they
have in the other parts of the city that are paying the same price,''
Diaz said. ``It just breaks my heart to know we're not getting the best
bang for our buck.''
Diaz said city officials have asked CenturyLink to expand high-
speed service in her district, but the company declined, citing the
prohibitive cost of deploying new infrastructure in the area.
CenturyLink did not respond to e-mails asking about this request.
Some officials told The Markup they've been yelling for years about
bad service for high prices.
``If I was paying $6 a month,'' Joshua Edmonds, Detroit's director
of digital inclusion, ``well you get what you're paying for.'' But he
objects to people being asked to pay premium rates for bad service.
``What I pay versus what I get doesn't really make sense.''
In a 2018 report, Bill Callahan, who runs the online accessibility
organization Connect Your Community, coined the term ``tier
flattening'' to describe charging Internet customers the same rate for
differing levels of service. He said The Markup's findings show how
much of America's Internet market is based on the ``basic unfairness''
of Internet service providers deciding to deprioritize investing in
new, high-speed infrastructure in marginalized areas.
``They've made a decision that those neighborhoods are going to be
treated differently,'' said Callahan. ``The core reason for that is
they think they don't have enough money in those neighborhoods to
sustain the kind of market they want.''
The FCC is currently drafting rules under a provision of the 2021
infrastructure bill aimed at ``preventing digital discrimination of
access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or
national origin.''
A coalition of 39 groups led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
and Center for Accessible Technology urged the FCC to take aggressive
action rectifying broadband inequality by examining the socioeconomics
of the neighborhoods getting the slowest speeds and the prices they
pay--regardless of whether the companies intended to discriminate.
AT&T insisted in filings with the agency that the standard for
discrimination should be explicit, deliberate efforts to avoid building
infrastructure in areas that are populated by people of color or lower-
income residents.
It also asked for subsidies to build high-speed Internet in lower-
income neighborhoods because, as AT&T asserted in its letter to the
FCC, ``most or all deficiencies in broadband access appear to result
not from invidious discrimination, but from ordinary business-case
challenges in the absence of subsidy programs.''
Advocates say that's just not true. ``There are very few places in
the country where it is not economically feasible to deploy
broadband,'' said Brian Thorn, who served as a senior researcher for
the Communication Workers of America, a union representing telecom
employees, which has been vocal on the issue and filed its own comment
to the FCC. (Full disclosure: The CWA is the parent union of The
NewsGuild-CWA, which represents The Markup's employees.) He said
members are tired of seeing their employers make inequitable
infrastructure deployment decisions.
``We would hear from members all the time that they're out laying
lines on one side of the neighborhood and not on the other,'' he said.
In a letter to the FCC, the coalition asserted that ``broadband
users are experiencing discriminatory impacts of deployment that are no
different than the impacts of past redlining policies in housing,
banking, and other venues of economic activity.''
The term ``redlining'' derives from efforts by the Federal
government to stem the tide of foreclosures during the Great Depression
by drawing up maps, with the help of real estate agents, to identify
areas that were safe for mortgage lending. Predominantly White
neighborhoods were consistently rated better than less-White
neighborhoods, which were shaded in red. Echoes of these maps still
reverberate today in things like ratetes of home ownership and prenatal
mortality.
Notes on the historical map explaining why one part of Kansas City,
Mo., was redlined cited ``Negro encroachment from the north.'' In that
same area, AT&T offered only slow service to every single address The
Markup examined.
Across Kansas City, AT&T offered the worst deals to 68 percent of
addresses in redlined areas, compared to just 12 percent of addresses
in areas that had been rated ``best'' or ``desirable.''
Map: Joel Eastwood Source: The Markup analysis of AT&T;
Mapping Inequality
Redlining maps frequently tracked neatly with the disparities The
Markup found.
Addresses in redlined areas of 15 cities from Portland to Atlanta
were offered the worst deals at least twice as often as areas rated
``best'' or ``desirable.'' Minneapolis, which is served by CenturyLink,
displayed one of the most striking disparities: Formerly redlined
addresses were offered the worst deals almost eight times as often as
formerly better-rated areas.
Pamela Jackson-Walters, a 68-year-old longtime resident of
Detroit's Hope Village, said she needs the Internet to work on her
dissertation in organizational leadership at University of Phoenix
online and to virtually attend church services. The slow speeds AT&T
offered were a constant annoyance.
``They still haven't installed the high-speed Internet over here,''
she said. ``How do we get it? Are we too poor of a neighborhood to have
the better service?''
Pamela Jackson-Walters, whose Detroit neighborhood is almost
entirely Black, has endured slow Internet speeds and weeks-long
outages.
Paul Sancya/AP Photo
Hope Village has a per capita income of just over $11,000 and is
almost entirely Black. To add insult to injury, last fall, AT&T
Internet service across Hope Village went down for 45 days before being
restored. This summer, Jackson-Walters's Internet went down again, this
time for four weeks, she said.
Jeff Jones, another longtime Hope Village resident, noted a bitter
irony amid all the service problems. ``To add to the insult, I can look
out my bedroom window literally, maybe 150 yards, is the AT&T service
facility,'' he said with a weary laugh. ``I'm like, please help me!
You're right there! How can you ignore this problem that is just right
in front of your face?''
Until The Markup told Hope Village residents its findings about
AT&T's pricing practices in Detroit, they didn't know that lower-income
areas were more often asked to pay the same price for slower internet.
``That's the big piece,'' said Angela Siefer, the executive
director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, which advocates
for broadband access. ``Folks don't know that they're being screwed.''
______
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I. Introduction: Why CR Launched the Fight for Fair Internet Campaign
II. How CR Conducted the Study
III. What the Pricing Data Tell Us
IV. Competition
V. Reliability and Satisfaction
VI. Policy Implications
Acknowledgements
Appendix A: Detailed Methodology
Appendix B: List of Partner Organizations
Appendix C: Comparing Rural vs. Urban Satisfaction and Reliability
Ratings
Appendix D: Comparing Satellite Internet Service Providers
______
Executive Summary
High-speed Internet service, commonly referred to as broadband, has
become a requirement of 21st-century American life--a virtual necessity
for many people attending school, getting and performing many jobs,
receiving medical care and government services, or trying to purchase
goods and services that are unavailable locally.
Yet broadband service is too expensive for many Americans to
afford.
Consumer Reports (CR) launched the Fight for Fair Internet campaign
to encourage policymakers and service providers to make broadband more
accessible and affordable. This study was designed to shine a light on
an important component of that goal: determining what consumers pay for
Internet service, and exactly what they get for their money.
To do so, we collected and analyzed more than 22,000 consumer
broadband bills. Many of the consumers who shared their bills also took
Internet speed tests and completed a survey on their satisfaction with
and the reliability of their Internet service. While this is not a
nationally representative study and is not predictive of the broadband
market, it is one of the most ambitious efforts of its kind to
understand how much consumers are paying at a moment in time.
We believe our findings have important public policy implications.
Key Findings:
Median cost of service
Among the 18,359 consumer bills on which an Internet price could be
identified, the median cost of high-speed Internet service was $74.99
per month. Approximately half of the households were paying between $60
and $90 per month.
Confusing bills
Bills that are hard to understand make it difficult for consumers
to budget and compare prices with alternative service options. The
following factors contribute to this billing confusion:
Bundles. Numerous Internet service providers (ISPs), including
Comcast (Xfinity), the Nation's largest provider, do not always
itemize the internet price within their ``bundled'' TV, phone,
and Internet packages. This was true of 2,827 of the 22,088
bills we analyzed, and 1,810 were issued by Comcast. This
practice makes it impossible for both consumers and CR's
researchers to determine the cost of the service and compare it
with other providers.
Discounts. Many ISPs offer discounts on broadband service,
including introductory promotional discounts and conditional
discounts such as auto-pay discounts. The discounts identified
typically ranged from $10 to $50. Discounts generally benefit
consumers, but also make it challenging for consumers and
researchers to determine the true cost of service and to
compare it with other providers' prices. For example, it is not
always clear from bills when discounts will expire and what the
price will be afterward. Notably, more than half of the AT&T
and Verizon bills we analyzed contained discounts, while none
of the Google Fiber bills in our sample included discounts.
Fees. ISPs charge a wide range of fees that, together, can add
up to a significant portion of the overall cost of service and
contribute to the confusion around Internet pricing. Individual
fees tied directly to Internet service in our sample typically
ranged from $2.49 to $9.95 per month. It is often difficult to
determine whether these fees are associated with broadband or
other elements of a service bundle. Some of these fees, such as
the cost of renting a modem or wireless router from the
provider, are avoidable, but most are not.
The unavoidable fees are especially problematic because
consumers may believe they are government-imposed when, in
fact, many are company-imposed and distinguished from the core
service price at the provider's discretion. More than a dozen
ISPs were found to charge company-imposed fees--also known as
junk fees--under names such as ``network enhancement fee,''
``internet infrastructure fee,'' ``deregulated administration
fee,'' and ``technology service fee.'' They can surprise
consumers when they appear on monthly bills, and can enable
providers to raise prices without seeming to violate marketing
or contractual price commitments.
Data cap charges. Several providers, including fixed broadband
providers Comcast (Xfinity), Cox, Suddenlink, AT&T, and Wave
Broadband, impose data caps in at least some areas and charge
overage fees for exceeding those caps, or fees for unlimited
data. Unlimited data can add as much as $49.99 per month to the
base cost of service.
Speed limitations
The results of online speed tests can depend on time of day, the
quality and speed of a home WiFi network, and other factors unrelated
to ISP performance.
That said, some study participants clearly experience severe
broadband speed limitations. Download speeds routinely fail to match
the advertised ``up to'' speeds of several ISPs. This was especially
true of consumers paying for ``premium'' plans purporting to offer
download speeds of between 940 and 1,200 Mbps, who in fact experienced
median speeds of between 360 and 373 Mbps.
In addition, we found that a large number of consumers who
participated in our study pay as much or more for a sub-broadband plan
(which is generally defined as a download speed of less than 25 Mbps)
as other consumers pay for advertised speeds of 300 Mbps or higher.
Lack of competition
CR counted how many ISPs were reflected in bills for each ZIP code
where we had participants. We did not independently determine how many
ISPs operate in each community, but our findings do point to a lack of
choice for many consumers.
CR collected 9,116 bills from ZIP codes where we detected just one
ISP. In ZIP codes where bills from two ISPs were present in our sample,
that number dipped to 7,273. Three or more competitors were spotted in
ZIP codes accounting for only 1,802 bills.
Though not conclusive evidence of a lack of competition, we found
it telling that the overwhelming majority of bills came from ZIP codes
where all study participants subscribed to the same ISP, or one of just
two ISPs.
The data from bills analyzed by CR suggests that competition
results in lower broadband prices. Americans in markets where we
received bills from at least three broadband competitors reported
paying, on average, about $5 per month less for service than those in
areas where we received bills from one or two providers, and reported
prices were lower still as the number of local competitors increased.
This mirrors the findings of previous studies.
Policy Implications:
Make broadband label easier to find
The Federal Communications Commission's proposed broadband
``nutrition'' label, designed to bring greater price transparency and
uniformity to the broadband market, should be a) required to appear on
all monthly broadband bills and b) machine-readable.
Encourage broadband competition
Two policy changes could spur competition in the broadband
industry: permission and support for the creation of municipal
broadband networks, and greater regulatory scrutiny of the legal
challenges and other efforts by incumbent ISPs to thwart new
competition in underserved areas.
Strengthen FCC oversight
The FCC should reassert its regulatory authority over the broadband
Internet service industry, which would allow the Commission to ensure
consumers have non-discriminatory access to broadband, monitor price-
gouging, bar anti-consumer business practices, and better address price
and fee transparency.
I. Introduction: Why CR Launched the Fight for Fair Internet Campaign
Consumer Reports (CR) launched the Fight for Fair Internet campaign
in July 2021 with the goal of making broadband Internet service
accessible to and affordable for all Americans. An important element of
that endeavor is simply establishing how much U.S. consumers pay for
broadband, and precisely what they get for their money.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For further information describing CR's Fight for Fair Internet
campaign (formerly known as Let's Broadband Together), see https://
www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2021/07/consumer-
reports-launches-broadband-togethera-nationwide-sea/. Broadband
Internet access service, or BIAS, is defined by the Federal
Communications Commission as an Internet connection capable of at least
25 Mbps downstream speed and 3 Mbps upstream speed, and was last
updated in 2015. The current Chair of the FCC, Jessica Rosenworcel,
announced plans earlier this year to update that definition to 100 Mbps
downstream and 20 Mbps upstream. See Chris Velazco, ``FCC calls 25 Mbps
`broadband' speed. The push is on to up it to 100,'' Washington Post,
July 19, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous research has looked at broadband pricing by drawing on
data from publicly available sources such as Internet service provider
(ISP) websites, and represents solid and valuable work.\2\ However, we
hypothesized that previous research may not have fully captured some of
the variables that affect the actual prices that consumers pay for
broadband service, and could be usefully complemented by new research.
CR therefore determined to collect data directly from monthly ISP bills
sent to and paid by real consumers. And, indeed, after more than 10
months spent analyzing and extracting data from more than 20,000
consumer broadband bills, a more robust picture of the prices paid by
the participants has emerged. We not only achieved the goal of finding
out how much consumers are paying for their Internet service but also
uncovered many additional costs of broadband service, including package
speed costs, equipment costs, data and usage costs, various fees, and
more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Becky Chao, Claire Park, Joshua Stager, ``The Cost of
Connectivity 2020,'' New America's Open Technology Institute, July 15,
2020, https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/cost-con
nectivity-2020, and S. Derek Turner, ``Price Too High and Rising: The
Facts About America's Broadband Affordability Gap,'' Free Press, May
20, 2021, https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/2021-05/
prices_too_high_and_rising_free_press_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadband access is an increasingly important policy and pocketbook
issue because fast, reliable Internet service is an increasingly
essential commodity. This was true before the COVID-19 pandemic, but it
became urgently clear in March 2020 when, virtually overnight, millions
of consumers began working from home, children were suddenly expected
to attend school via the internet, and many healthcare visits were
replaced with telehealth appointments to limit exposure to the
coronavirus.\3\ At the same time, with traditional forms of social
interaction, entertainment, and travel curtailed, already popular
streaming video services quickly became a primary source of
entertainment, and many Americans began routinely using the web to
connect with friends and loved ones via video calls.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Colleen McClain et al., ``The Internet and the Pandemic,'' Pew
Research Center, September 1, 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/
internet/2021/09/01/the-internet-and-the-pandemic.
\4\ Id.; See also: Brad Adgate, ``The Impact COVID-19 Had On The
Entertainment Industry In 2020,'' Forbes, April 2021, https://
www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2021/04/13/the-impact-covid-19-had-on-
the-entertainment-industry-in-2020/?sh=613d3670250f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dramatic upticks in online Internet speed testing--Ookla
(speedtest.net) recorded a more than 50 percent increase in the 12-week
average of speed tests taken in the U.S. the week of March 16-22,
2020--demonstrate the extent to which consumers suddenly became
``internet aware,'' having recognized the need for both fast and
reliable Internet service.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Screenshot taken from ``Tracking COVID-19's Impact on Global
Internet Performance,'' Ookla Insights Articles, (March 13, 2020;
updated July 20, 2020). Previously available at: https://www.ookla.com/
articles/tracking-covid-19-impact-global-internet-performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1
CR survey data confirms the point: Nationally representative
surveys show that, between July 2017 and May 2022, the percentage of
Americans who agreed that Internet service is ``as important as water
or electricity'' increased from 61 percent to 71 percent, and hit a
high of 80 percent in April 2020.\6\ And more recently, 84 percent of
respondents to Consumer Reports' 2022 Telecommunication Survey of
33,204 CR members, reporting on their experiences with their current
home Internet service provider as of March 2022, said the same (though
this was not a nationally representative survey).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The first survey result can be found in a 2017 Consumer Reports
nationally representative survey appended to CR's Reply Comments
submitted to the FCC's ``Restoring Internet Freedom'' proceeding, (WC
Docket No. 17-108) on August 30, 2017. Available at: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10831277255624/1. The second survey results
are available as part of CR's May 2022 ``American Experiences Survey
(AES): A Nationally Representative Multi-Mode Survey.'' Available at:
https://article.images.consumerreports.org/prod/content/dam/surveys/
Consumer
_Reports_AES_May_2022.pdf. The April 2020 survey results are part of
CR's April 2020 ``American Experiences Survey (AES): A Nationally
Representative Multi-Mode Survey.'' Available at: https://
article.images.consumerreports.org/image/upload/v1666112268/prod/
content/dam/surveys/Consumer_Reports_AES_Internet_Only_April_2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, broadband pricing also took on heightened
significance, as it became clear that Internet ``access'' was not
merely a matter of having the technical means to connect but also the
economic means. Indeed, in a nationally representative survey of 2,565
adult U.S. residents conducted by CR in 2021, nearly a third of U.S.
consumers who did not have broadband said the reason is because ``it
costs too much.'' \7\ Broadband service, it appears, is simply too
expensive--and therefore inaccessible--for many of the most financially
vulnerable Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Survey Report, ``BROADBAND: A Nationally Representative Multi-
Mode Survey,'' Consumer Reports, (July 2021): 3, https://
article.images.consumerreports.org/prod/content/dam/surveys/
Consumer_Reports_Broadband_June_2021, (CR 2021 Broadband Survey).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The words of Virginia ``Ginny'' Madsen, a retiree living in San
Leandro, California, who was interviewed by Consumer Reports in 2021,
captures the vital importance of broadband in everyday life:
``I spent my stimulus check to be able to keep my Internet
access because I realized it was too important to lose. This is
an infrastructure. This is just like water service, sewer
service. This is like electricity! People can't live without
this anymore. If businesses and government entities are going
to require that you have Internet access, then they need to
make sure that you can get it without being poverty-stricken
over it.''
Accordingly, broadband affordability became an important component
of the Federal government's response to the pandemic. The first COVID
relief packages included funds in support of existing broadband
programs.\8\ But the December 2020 creation of the Emergency Broadband
Benefit program (EBB) did far more, providing qualified low-income
households with a $50 monthly subsidy applied to Internet service ($75
on Tribal lands). The EBB program in turn laid the groundwork for
further government support for affordable broadband, and lives on
today--albeit as a lower $30 per month benefit, though the $75 amount
was unchanged for Tribal lands--as the Affordable Connectivity Program
(ACP), a component of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of
2021 (IIJA).\9\ That law also included a requirement that any ISP
receiving Federal money ($42B+) to deploy new Internet infrastructure
must offer a low-cost option to help more consumers afford broadband
service.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Kathryn de Wit and Anna Read, ``States Tap Federal CARES Act to
Expand Broadband,'' The Pew Charitable Trusts, November 2020, https://
www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2020/11/states-
tap-federal-cares-act-to-expand-broadband.
\9\ ``The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,'' Pub. L. No.
117-58, 135 Stat. 429, 1238 Sec. 60502(a) (2021). Available at: https:/
/www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ
58.pdf.
\10\ Id. at 1199, Sec. 60102(h)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2021 infrastructure law also included two more important
components aimed at broadband affordability, both of which CR actively
supported: one, a directive to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to collect annual pricing data in conjunction with the second
directive, the development of a standardized consumer broadband label
(or broadband ``nutrition'' label) that will require ISPs to disclose
pricing information, performance data, fees, and other information
relevant to consumers' purchasing decisions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 1243, Sec. 60502(c)(1) and 1244, Sec. 60504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These measures were necessary because the broadband market has been
largely unregulated since the so-called Restoring Internet Freedom
Order (RIFO) was adopted by the FCC in late 2017.\12\ At that time,
RIFO unraveled the Commission's net neutrality rules, stripped
broadband internet's status as a telecommunications service, and passed
most of the Commission's regulatory authority over broadband from the
FCC to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This happened even though
many ISPs also provide telephone and television services--typically
using the same delivery technology and infrastructure--that continue to
be regulated by the FCC, and even though the FCC maintains far more
institutional knowledge about broadband technology than the FTC does.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Restoring Internet Freedom Order,'' WC Docket No. 17-108,
Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 311, (adopted December
14, 2017; issued January 4, 2018) (RIFO). Available at: https://
www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-restoring-internet-freedom-order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One result of this regulatory confusion is a broadband marketplace
largely devoid of requirements for or guidance on how ISPs should
present pricing information to consumers. As a result, monthly bills
vary from provider to provider, and some ISPs use more than one format.
And while some bills are relatively easy to decipher, with prices
clearly identified, others obscure the price of Internet service in a
variety of ways.
This doesn't just frustrate consumers. It also prevents them from
comparing prices, thereby disrupting the proper functioning of the
marketplace. And it potentially hampers policy decisions at a time when
governments are spending billions of taxpayer dollars to expand
broadband service to as many consumers as possible.
A better understanding of what consumers actually pay for broadband
service, based on the crowd-sourced data in this report, can and should
inform ongoing policy discussions regarding ways to increase broadband
affordability, access, speed, and reliability. It also suggests ways
that ISP bills can and should be made clearer and more useful for
consumers. And our findings can and should help guide the FCC as it
finalizes requirements for the standardized consumer broadband label
it's been charged with creating.
NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, a trade group for the
broadband industry, has long maintained that ISPs provide consumers
transparent billing and pricing information on their websites and in
their promotional materials, and that a large majority of Americans
have multiple broadband providers to choose from. A spokesperson for
the NCTA reiterated those points in November 2022 when a Consumer
Reports reporter contacted the group about this report's findings.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For more details about NCTA's response, see ``You May Be
Paying Too Much for Your Internet'' at https://www.consumerreports.org/
electronics-computers/telecom-services/you-may-be-pay
ing-too-much-for-your-internet-a7157329937/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. How CR Conducted the Study
CR launched the Fight for Fair Internet campaign on July 13, 2021,
working with dozens of partner organizations to reach a large and
diverse group of potential participants.\14\ This outreach directed
interested consumers to a microsite that:\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For a full list of partner organizations, see Appendix B.
\15\ The site can be visited at https://www.consumerreports.org/
upload/broadband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
explained the purpose of the project;
asked participants to share a copy of their monthly ISP
bill;
encouraged them to run an internet speed test using an
online tool maintained by Measurement Lab, or M-Lab, the
results of which were recorded by CR; and
prompted them to take an optional survey designed to
capture participants' demographic data and to gauge their
satisfaction with and the reliability of their Internet
service. We did not extract personally identifiable information
from the bills; only ZIP codes were retained for geographical
location purposes.
By the end of 2021, more than 57,000 Internet users had visited the
microsite. For a variety of reasons, we analyzed only a subset of the
submitted bills. Some bills were issued by foreign ISPs and because we
sought to study prices paid by consumers in the U.S., they were
discarded. We also removed all business internet, wireless internet,
and seasonal Internet bills. More significantly, others were discarded
because they lacked an itemized list of charges, making it impossible
to distinguish Internet service costs from taxes, fees, and other
charges unrelated to Internet service, which would distort our
findings. Notable characteristics of the 22,088 bills ultimately
analyzed include the following:
Bills came from all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Bills originated in 8,901 of the 41,683 ZIP codes in the
U.S., with 85.8 percent coming from urban areas, 6.7 percent
from suburban areas, and 3.6 percent from rural areas.
Bills were analyzed from 526 unique, domestic ISPs where a
line item for Internet price was identified, though the
overwhelming majority (92.4 percent) were issued by 25 ISPs,
which included the Nation's largest ISPs.
Bills represented a variety of provider types, including
those that deliver Internet service via coaxial cable, fiber-
optic cable, satellite, fixed wireless, and DL delivered over
legacy phone networks.
Figure 2.1
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Data Challenges
For ``internet-only'' bills, where broadband was the only service
provided and paid for, extracting price data from the bills was
relatively straightforward. The task was more difficult when Internet
service had been ``bundled'' or packaged along with television and/or
phone service for a single price. Numerous ISPs, including Comcast
(Xfinity) and others often do not itemize the Internet price within
their bundled bills. In cases where a bundled services bill did not
include a line item specific to Internet service, data from that bill
was not incorporated into our Internet pricing analysis and was simply
recorded as a bundled bill.
Discounts presented another challenge. Discounts are generally
beneficial to consumers, of course. But they can make it confoundingly
difficult for consumers, as well as researchers, to determine the
``true'' price of Internet service. Ideally, a bill would be clear
about the reason for the discount, how long it lasts, and whether it is
dependent on certain actions, such as enrolling in paperless billing,
auto-payment, or a bundled service package. In fact, that was rarely
the case in the bills we examined.
An AT&T bill sent to CR by one participant is illustrative. It
gives a line item price of $70 for Internet service with a plan name of
Internet 1000. Beneath that, in italics, it says that a discount of $10
was included in that price as a discount for bundling service,
presumably for as long as the consumer keeps that bundle. Beneath that,
a $10 ``Loyalty Credit'' is deducted from the Internet price but
doesn't specify how the customer earned or can maintain that discount.
In short, a bill such as this informs customers how much service costs
in the current cycle but offers far less clarity on what it will cost
in the future.
Figure 2.2
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To address the issue of discounts, we extracted both pre-and post-
discount prices as well as the amount of the discounts. To further
examine the effect of discounting on Internet pricing, we determined
the percentage of all bills, and the percentage of each ISP's bills,
that included discounts.
So what can we accurately say is the price this consumer is paying
AT&T for broadband in our sample bill above? The full, undiscounted
price of $80? Or the discounted price of $60, or should that be treated
as a temporary sale price? For the purposes of this study, CR attempted
to untangle discounts in this bill by citing $80 as a pre-discount
price, two discounts of $10 each resulting in a post-discount price of
$60. We repeated this analysis for discounted bills issued by major
ISPs to better understand how discounts can both blur and lower the
prices paid for broadband.
Another challenge was the need to ensure that discounts and fees
would be counted when associated with Internet service and would not be
counted when associated with television or phone service. To ensure
this, we extracted every line item from every legitimate ISP bill and
classified each based on the type of service provided (internet,
television, or phone). This enabled us to identify which, if any,
discounts, and fees were associated with Internet service. To avoid
artificially inflating or deflating the Internet price and related
Internet charges (e.g., modem rental fee), if it could not be
determined whether a fee or discount was associated with Internet
service--and not with phone or television service--it was not counted
toward the Internet service price or as a related Internet charge. For
a more detailed discussion of the methodology used to analyze our data
sample, please refer to Appendix A.
III. What the Pricing Data Tell Us
An important element of Consumer Reports' Fight for Fair Internet
campaign is improving our understanding of how much consumers must pay
for broadband service, including the various components of broadband
prices.
Bundles
Service packages that bundle together broadband with television
and/or phone services can save consumers money but also have the effect
of distorting the true price of Internet service, preventing shoppers
from comparing prices, and otherwise making rational spending and
budgeting decisions.
This is especially true when the pricing components of a bundled
package are not broken down on bills, as we found to be the case with
2,827 bills in our sample. When we could not extract an Internet price
from a bundled bill, we recorded the data as a ``bundle with no
Internet price'' and did not count it in our pricing analysis. An
Internet price could be clearly identified on 18,359 of the 22,088
bills.
Figure 3.1
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Comcast (Xfinity), the country's largest ISP, rarely lists the
Internet component of its bundled package prices. In fact, though we
received 5,713 bills from Comcast consumers, 1,810 (32 percent) were
bundled bills on which we could not identify an Internet price, which
reduced the number of Comcast bills in our data sample.
Figure 3.2
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Other companies routinely list the price for each service within
their bundled package bills, and those values were captured in our
pricing analysis. Our sample included 7,206 bundled bills in which an
Internet price was listed.
Speed Boost Charges
Some ISPs charge an additional fee for increased speed performance,
such as an additional $20 for a ``speed boost'' to 300 Mbps download
speed. We treated these costs as part of the base Internet price to
accurately reflect what the consumer is paying for the service
received.
Broadband Prices
The following table shows the mean and median prices for the 20
ISPs with the largest number of bills sent by participants.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Since the launch of CR's Fight for Fair Internet campaign, the
following ISPs have rebranded their service: Suddenlink has been
renamed and is now sold under the Optimum brand; both are owned by
Altice USA. RCN, Wave Broadband, and Grande Communications are now all
branded as Astound Broadband. Atlantic Broadband has changed its name
to Breezeline. Additionally, some Windstream bills in our sample are
branded and sold under the Kinetic name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3.3
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tier Flattening
Researchers and consumer advocates have long noted a broadband-
industry phenomenon known as ``tier flattening,'' in which consumers
who have access only to the oldest and slowest Internet infrastructure
are forced to pay as much or nearly as much for inferior service as
those served by newer, faster infrastructure. (The ``flattening,'' in
other words, reflects the narrow range of prices corresponding to a
wide range of service speeds.) Tier flattening most commonly affects
low-income consumers, who are most likely to live in rural and urban
areas where premium broadband service is not available.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Bill Callahan and Angela Siefer, ``TIER FLATTENING: AT&T and
Verizon Home Customers Pay a High Price for Slow Internet,'' National
Digital Inclusion Alliance, July 31, 2018, https://
www.digitalinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NDIA-Tier-
Flattening-July-2018.pdf. See also Leon Yin and Aaron Sankin, ``Dollars
to Megabits, You May Be Paying 400 Times As Much As Your Neighbor for
Internet Service,'' The Markup, October 19, 2022, https://
themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-megabits-you-may-be-
paying-400-times-as-much-as-your-neighbor-for-internet-service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We sought to determine whether tier flattening was characteristic
of the pricing data we collected. From our sample, 1,133 AT&T bills
provided a convenient case study because the names of the company's
service plans correspond to the ``up to'' download speed (in Mbps)
offered.\18\ And, indeed, as the table below shows, AT&T customers with
the five slowest service plans pay between $55 and $70 a month, while
those with the five fastest plans generally pay only marginally more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See https://www.att.com/support/article/u-verse-high-speed-
internet/KM1010095/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3.4
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Discounts
Broadband providers offer consumers a range of discounts, including
limited-time promotional discounts for new customers, discounts earned
by bundling Internet service with television and/or phone service, and
discounts for enrolling in automated payment plans. We manually
reviewed bills to identify pre-discount prices, discounts, and post-
discount prices. If it was clear that a discount was deducted from the
Internet price--including on bundled bills--we accounted for it in our
calculations. If we could not determine which service a discount
applied to within a bundled bill, we did not include it in our pricing
analysis.
Figure 3.5
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As the table above shows, many ISPs discount the price of broadband
based on the bills we studied, some more than others. Notably, more
than half of the AT&T and Verizon bills we analyzed contained
discounts, while none of the Google Fiber bills in our sample included
discounts. Because the bills we collected represent a snapshot of time,
we cannot definitively say whether these percentages are indicative of
how many customers of a particular ISP are receiving discounts, and it
is likely these percentages fluctuate.
Discounts generally benefit consumers, of course. But they can also
make it difficult for consumers (and researchers) to determine the true
cost of service and to compare it with other provider prices. Among
other issues, it is not always clear from bills when discounts will
expire and what the price will be afterward.
Equipment Charges
Many ISPs offer consumers the option of renting a modem (which
connects a home computer or network to the ISP) or modem-router
combination (which additionally allows other home devices to connect to
that Internet connection, usually via a WiFi signal). Because consumers
can generally avoid these extra charges by purchasing their own
equipment, we treated them as optional equipment fees. That was also
how we treated ``WiFi fees'' and similarly named fees, which--though
not technically an equipment rental fee--essentially unlock the WiFi
functionality of ISP-provided modem-router devices.
Until recently, some ISPs routinely charged consumers for modems
they supplied even if the consumers decided to use their own devices
instead.\19\ Congress outlawed that practice in 2019, with CR's vocal
support.\20\ Nevertheless, some consumers continue to rent such devices
from their ISP, so we cataloged these costs to determine how much these
rental fees are adding to their monthly Internet bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Jon Brodkin, ``Frontier Customer Bought His Own Router--But
Has to Pay $10 Rental Fee Anyway,'' Ars Technica, July 2, 2019, https:/
/arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/frontier-customer-
bought-his-own-router-but-has-to-pay-10-rental-fee-anyway.
\20\ ``Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019,'' Pub. L. No. 116-
94, 133 Stat. 3198, Sec. 642(c) (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3.6
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Company-Imposed Fees, aka Junk Fees
Some ISPs charge mandatory fees with names such as ``network
enhancement fee'' (Optimum) and ``deregulated administration fee''
(Windstream/Kinetic). Here, for example, is how Wave Broadband
describes its ``internet infrastructure fee'':
``Internet Infrastructure Fee helps defray costs associated
with building and maintaining Wave's fiber rich broadband
network, as well as the costs of expanding network capacity to
support the continued increase in customers' average broadband
consumption. This fee is neither government-mandated nor a tax,
fee or surcharge imposed by the government; it is a fee that
Wave assesses and retains.''
That description at least makes clear to consumers who are
motivated to dig around in the fine print that it is not a government
fee or tax. But the way these fees are presented on bills frequently
creates the false impression that they are imposed by government
regulation or taxation, when instead they are often routine input costs
and distinguished from the core service price only at the provider's
discretion.
As CR noted in a 2019 study, ``How Cable Companies Use Hidden Fees
to Raise Prices and Disguise the True Cost of Service,'' analogous fees
are commonplace in the cable television market.\21\ They appear to be
less common in the broadband market. But where they do exist, they have
the same effects and can add up to a significant portion of the total
cost of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Jonathan Schwantes, ``How Cable Companies Use Hidden Fees to
Raise Prices and Disguise the True Cost of Service,'' Consumer Reports,
October 3, 2019, https://advocacy.consumerreports
.org/research/2019-cable-fee-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such fees do a disservice to consumers by muddying the true price
of broadband, making it difficult for consumers to compare prices,
creating a pretext for providers to advertise low base rates while
actually charging higher prices, and enabling providers to raise prices
while superficially appearing to honor lower introductory or
contractually promised base rates.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In a Consumer Reports ``Share Your Story'' campaign conducted
last year, CR members shared stories of confusing advertising practices
and promotional rates, and some members reported how fees make it
difficult for them to understand the costs associated with their
Internet service. See https://digital-lab.consumerreports.org/2021/11/
15/an-analysis-of-broadband-isp-practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3.7
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In this report, we are calling these ``company-imposed fees'' to
distinguish them from government-imposed fees and taxes, but many
industry critics and consumer advocates refer to them--not
inappropriately--as ``junk fees.'' In short, we see no reason that such
fees should be presented to consumers as line items separate from the
price of basic Internet service.
Data Caps and Related Fees
Our sample includes bills on which an ISP imposes a ``cap'' or
limit on the amount of data the customer can use per month, and then
charges an ``overage fee'' if the customer exceeds that limit. Most
ISPs will lift the data cap or offer unlimited data use for an
additional fee.
Companies that use data caps include large ISPs such as Comcast
(Xfinity), Cox Communications, and AT&T, and smaller ones such as
Suddenlink and Wave Broadband. In our sample, ISPs typically set their
data cap above 1TB per month. ISPs commonly claim that most customers
do not exceed their cap, but our sample included bills on which
terabyte caps were exceeded. We also found that some ISPs do not impose
data caps uniformly across their coverage territory, which will be
discussed in Section 4, on competition.
Figure 3.8 shows examples of submitted bills that contain charges
for unlimited data allowance (Cox Communications and Comcast/Xfinity,
respectively) and a data overage fee (Comcast/Xfinity).
Figure 3.8
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We found that satellite Internet providers, which are often the
only Internet choice in rural areas, tend to set relatively low data
caps--as low as 50MB, in some cases--and sell additional blocks of data
for a substantial fee. This can sometimes result in staggeringly large
Internet bills: One HughesNet monthly bill in our sample totalled more
than $465 because of a 25GB data token purchased for $300 by the
consumer who exceeded the plan's 50MB data cap.
Historically, these caps were attributed to the technical
limitations of satellite-provided Internet service and the need to
restrict bandwidth to better manage network congestion.\23\ At least
one satellite provider in our data sample, however, Starlink, does not
currently impose data caps on its customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Open Internet Advisory Committee Federal Communications
Commission Report, ``Policy Issues in Data Caps and Usage-Based
Pricing,'' Federal Communications Commission, August 20, 2013, https://
transition.fcc.gov/cgb/oiac/Economic-Impacts.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a time when consumers are increasingly reliant on broadband,
data caps lacking a clear justification unnecessarily discourage
Internet use and increase prices. Earlier this year, CR publicly
supported the introduction of the Uncap America Act, introduced by
Sens. Ben Lujan, (D-N.M.), and Cory Booker, (D-N.J.)\24\ The
legislation would, among other things, forbid ISPs from imposing data
caps unless they could supply a technical justification to the FCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Jonathan Schwantes, ``Consumer Reports supports the Uncap
America Act to limit unnecessary Internet data caps,'' press release,
Consumer Reports Advocacy, July 21, 2022, https://
advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/consumer-reports-supports-
the-uncap-america-act-to-limit-unnecessary-internet-data-caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed Test Results
One aim of this study is to better understand the relationship
between real-world Internet performance and the speeds offered when
customers sign up. To gather data, we asked all participants to take an
Internet speed test using an online tool hosted by Measurement Lab (M-
Lab), and to report their upload and download speeds. M-Lab's speed
test does not purport to measure the advertised speeds offered by ISPs.
Participants conducted a total of 21,481 usable speed tests.
Because ISPs do not consistently print the download or upload
speeds for a service package on their bills, our analysis was
restricted to the subset of bills on which we could identify an
advertised download speed. As the graphic below suggests, in some
cases, the measured speed matched the ``up to'' advertised plan speed;
in other cases, the measured speed was much lower than the advertised
speed.
Figure 3.9
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
It is important to understand that Internet speed tests have
limitations. A single speed test doesn't necessarily reflect typical
conditions, let alone optimal ones. A test performed during peak usage
times, for example, when network congestion is heaviest, is likely to
be slower than one performed during a low-usage time. Additionally,
speed test results can be heavily dependent on the quality and speed of
one's home WiFi network and whether one is connecting via a virtual
private network (VPN). This study did not control for such variations.
It is also worth emphasizing that ISPs typically market their
broadband service as delivering ``up to'' certain upload and download
speeds. This practice, though arguably confusing, is not a guarantee of
certain speeds.
All that said, we found many instances where measured download
speeds did not match the advertised ``up to'' speeds of several ISPs.
This was especially true for users paying for premium plans purporting
to offer download speeds of ``up to'' between 940 and 1,200 Mbps, who
in fact reported median measured speeds between 360 and 373 Mbps, as
can be seen in Figures 3.9 above and 3.10 below. Since M-Lab does not
attempt to measure advertised speeds, these discrepancies should not be
interpreted as a reflection of whether or not users are receiving the
service they are paying for.
Nevertheless, they do provide valuable insight into how consumer's
experience their connectivity.
Figure 3.10
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
IV. Competition
Compounding many of the problems caused by a lack of regulation in
the broadband market is the industry's lack of competition: Some
consumers simply have little or no choice of broadband providers.\25\
One additional goal of the current study was to explore the extent to
which local competition among broadband providers benefits consumers by
lowering prices and improving the quality of service, as standard
economic theory would predict and as other recent research has shown to
be the case.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``FCC Releases 2020 Communications Marketplace Report,'' GN
Docket No. 20-60, Federal Communications Commission, (December 31,
2020): 86-87 at para.126. Available at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/
fcc-releases-2020-communications-marketplace-report. The report shows
that more than 14.5 million (4.4 percent) U.S. residents have zero
choices for fixed broadband at the 25/3 Mbps speed tier, and 27.5
million (8.3 percent) and 42.7 million (12.9 percent) residents lack
even one provider for the 100/10 Mbps and 250/25 Mbps speed tiers,
respectively. The equivalent numbers for residents who have only one
choice of provider for the same tiers are 72.6 million (21.9 percent),
118.7 million (35.8 percent), and 172.5 million (52 percent).
\26\ Tyler Cooper, ``Competition and Pricing: How Starlink Could
Change the Internet Industry,'' BroadbandNow, September 2020, https://
broadbandnow.com/report/starlink-competition-and-pricing; see also Dan
Mahoney and Greg Rafert, ``Broadband Competition Helps to Drive Lower
Prices and Faster Download Speeds for U.S. Residential Consumers,''
Analysis Group, November 2016, https://www.analysisgroup.com/
globalassets/content/insights/publishing/broadband_
competition_report_november_2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CR's own research shows that consumers are acutely aware of the
market's lack of competition. According to CR's 2021 broadband survey,
26 percent of U.S. consumers who have broadband in their household say
only one company was available when they were choosing their
household's Internet service.\27\ Additionally, a survey of 33,000 CR
members (in this case not a nationally representative sample) found
that more than one in five (22 percent) said they were not aware of any
ISP options other than their current provider. Another 30 percent said
they had just one other provider to choose from other than their
current provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ CR 2021 Broadband Survey at p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both anecdotal evidence and academic research indicate that robust,
head-to-head competition leads to lower consumer broadband prices and
better service. For example, it was reported that when AT&T entered the
Kansas City market in 2015, it pledged to match the price and speed of
Google Fiber's existing Gigabit offering, at the time priced at $70 per
month.\28\ Similarly, in 2017, Comcast reportedly offered prices $40 to
$50 lower for its Gigabit service in Longmont, Colorado, where it faced
competition from a municipal fiber-optic network, LPC NextLight, than
in nearby communities where it did not.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Ben Popper, ``AT&T Announces It Will Match Google Fiber's
Price and Speed in Kansas City,'' The Verge, February 2015, https://
www.theverge.com/2015/2/17/8050935/att-google-fiber-kansas-city-
gigapower-internet-price-match.
\29\ Karen Antonacci, ``Comcast rep caught spreading misinformation
about Longmont's NextLight to Fort Collins,'' Times-Call, June 2017,
https://www.timescall.com/2017/06/22/comcast-rep-caught-spreading-
misinformation-about-longmonts-nextlight-to-fort-collins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not surprisingly, however, incumbent ISPs have generally been
resistant to the entry of new competition into their markets. Some have
mounted legal challenges intended to stop funding of potential
competitors in underserved markets.\30\ And some of these anti-
competitive efforts have reportedly been fed by misinformation about
the price and services offered by competitors.\31\ To make matters
worse, 17 states have laws that restrict or make it difficult for
localities to build their own broadband networks, adding another
barrier to competition, according to MuniNetworks.org, an organization
that supports the development of local broadband networks.\32\
Meanwhile, according to CR's 2021 broadband survey, three out of four
Americans feel that municipal or community broadband should be allowed
to compete with conventional ISPs.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Issie Lapowsky, ``A poor Louisiana community won $4 million
for broadband. An ISP giant is standing in its way,'' Protocol,
September 12, 2022, https://www.protocol.com/policy/spark
light-east-carroll-broadband; see also Ben Brody, ``Bad broadband maps
are keeping people offline, and everyone knows it,'' Protocol, January
4, 2022, https://www.protocol.com/policy/deer-isle-broadband-maps; see
also Karl Bode, ``Monopoly Internet Service Providers Mire Grant
Process With Costly, Empty Challenges,'' Institute for Local Self-
Reliance, December 22, 2021, https://ilsr.org/monopoly-internet-
service-providers-mire-grant-process-with-costly-empty-challenges.
\31\ Karen Antonacci, ``Comcast rep caught spreading misinformation
about Longmont's NextLight to Fort Collins,'' Times-Call, June 2017,
https://www.timescall.com/2017/06/22/comcast-rep-caught-spreading-
misinformation-about-longmonts-nextlight-to-fort-collins; see also
Maren Machles, ``A Tale of Two Cities in Maine: Municipal Broadband and
Misinformation,'' Institute for Local Self-Reliance, December 7, 2021,
https://ilsr.org/ a-tale-of-two-cities-in-maine-municipal-broadband-
and-misinformation.
\32\ For an updated list of states that have laws that restrict
municipal broadband networks, see https://muninetworks.org/content/
preemption-detente-municipal-broadband-networks-face-barriers-19-
states.
\33\ CR 2021 Broadband Survey at p.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 4.1
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Findings Regarding the Effect of Competition
It was in this context that CR sought further data on the question
of whether more broadband competition would benefit consumers,
beginning with CR's 2021 broadband survey. That survey indeed suggests
that the presence of multiple ISPs in a market leads to lower prices,
specifically finding that Americans in markets with two broadband
competitors reported paying about $5 per month less for service than
those with only one provider, and reported prices were lower still as
the number of local competitors increased.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ CR 2021 Broadband Survey at p. 2-3. See also: graphic on p.13
at https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/
CR_Broadband-Survey_8_2021_VF.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current study produced similar results, as the table and graph
below indicate. In Figure 4.2, the x-axis shows the number of providers
represented among the respondents in each ZIP code; the y-axis, the
average monthly price paid by respondents in those ZIP codes.
Figure 4.2
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.3
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We should be clear about the limitations of our data in this
context. We cannot, based on the current study, know for certain how
many ISPs operate in these ZIP codes, only how many ISPs were
represented among the people who volunteered for our study. Nor do we
know that all the consumers in ZIP codes with multiple ISPs actually
have a choice between that number of ISPs because access to a given
ISP's service can vary from street to street or even building to
building.
Nonetheless, it's notable that these findings closely mirror CR's
earlier survey results. And the large number of bills from ZIP codes
with one, two, and three providers puts the general trend line on firm
statistical ground.
One additional finding of this study is worth emphasizing in the
context of broadband competition: Numerous ISPs do not impose data caps
uniformly across their coverage territory. This is notable in part
because of a 2020 episode in which Comcast, a longtime user of data
caps in its Midwestern and Western markets, announced it would begin
using them in its Northeastern markets for the first time.\35\ However,
after public outcry including vocal opposition by Pennsylvania attorney
general Josh Shapiro, the company postponed implementing the plan and,
to date, has yet to expand data limits into the Northeast.\36\ As noted
by MarketWatch, ``Comcast operates in 39 states and had begun enforcing
the caps in 27 of them,'' but the 12 states and the District of
Columbia in its Northeast region remain data cap-free as explained
above.\37\ Noteworthy is that Comcast faces head-to-head competition
for its broadband service from cap-free Verizon Fios in most of those
states, but not in those where it imposes a cap.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The introduction of data caps in Comcast's Northeastern
service territory was first reported by the online publication Stop the
Cap! on November 23, 2020, citing new language on Comcast's customer
service FAQ page: ``Customers in select markets can take the months of
January and February to understand how the new 1.2TB Internet Data Plan
affects them without additional charges,'' Comcast wrote on its new
customer FAQ page. ``We'll credit your bill for any additional data
usage charges over 1.2TB during those months if you're not on an
unlimited data plan. It does not apply to Xfinity Internet customers on
our Gigabit Pro tier of service, Business Internet customers, customers
with Prepaid Internet, or customers on Bulk Internet agreements.''
Available at https://stopthecap.com/2020/11/23/breaking-news-comcast-
introducing-1-2-tb-data-cap-in-northeast-mid-atlantic-regions/. See
also Kim Lyons, ``Comcast to impose home Internet data cap of 1.2TB in
more than a dozen U.S. states next year,'' The Verge, November 23,
2020, https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/23/21591420/comcast-cap-data-1-
2tb-home-users-internet-xfinity.
\36\ ``At AG Shapiro's Urging, Comcast Delays New Data
Thresholds,'' press release, Office of Attorney General Josh Shapiro,
February 3, 2021, https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/at-ag-
shapiros-urging-comcast-delays-new-data-thresholds; see also Sean
Hollister, ``Comcast delays new data caps for at least another year,
which is weird because it should be forever,'' The Verge, December 16,
2021, https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/16/22840165/comcast-data-cap-
delay-isp-dec-2021; see also Jeff Baumgartner, ``Comcast will keep data
caps out of the Northeast in 2022,'' Light Reading, December 15, 2021,
https://www.lightreading
.com/cable-tech/comcast-will-keep-data-caps-out-of-the-northeast-in-
2022/d/d-id/774117.
\37\ Jacob Passy, ``Comcast won't charge if you go over your
Internet data limit--but only if you live in this part of the
country,'' MarketWatch, February 4, 2021, https://www.marketwatch
.com/story/comcast-will-delay-caps-on-home-internet-use-but-only-if-
you-live-in-this-part-of-the-country-11612378152.
\38\ Ry Crist, ``Xfinity vs. Verizon Fios: Comparing Home Internet
Services for Your Household,'' CNET, June 2, 2022, https://
www.cnet.com/home/internet/comcast-xfinity-vs-verizon-fios/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Reliability and Satisfaction
The optional survey we asked participants to complete included
questions about the reliability of, and their overall satisfaction
with, their Internet service.
Respondents were asked to rate the reliability on a scale of
excellent, very good, good, fair, poor, or very poor. They were asked
to rate their overall satisfaction with their Internet service, when
considering all factors including price, customer service, and
connection speed, on a scale of completely satisfied, very satisfied,
somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied, or
completely dissatisfied.
The results of this survey are shown in Figure 5.1, below.
Figure 5.1
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
These numbers give a generally positive impression of the industry,
with a large majority (82 percent) of consumers rating the reliability
of their Internet connection good or better and 66 percent saying they
are ``somewhat'' or more satisfied.
Some interesting nuances emerged when we plotted the relationship
between the two questions, with the satisfaction values on the y-axis
and the reliability values on the x-axis, as shown in Figure 5.2 below.
Figure 5.2
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This allows one to see, for example, that 204 respondents
characterized the reliability of the service as ``very poor'' and their
satisfaction level as ``completely dissatisfied''--a correspondence
that makes intuitive sense. The lower right and upper right quadrants
similarly make intuitive sense: It's easy to understand why no deeply
satisfied respondents reported poor or very poor reliability, and why
many customers with excellent reliability would report being completely
or very satisfied.
The upper left quadrant, however, where low satisfaction scores
overlap with high reliability ratings, is harder to understand. One
would think reliable service would correspond with relatively high
satisfaction levels, but in fact more than 3,000 respondents rated the
reliability of their Internet connection as ``good'' or better but
overall were ``somewhat dissatisfied'' or worse. Why would that be?
Price seems to have been an important factor. When we broke the
price ranges into quintiles and color-coded the same grid by the
average price paid by the respondents in each box (see Figure 5.3), it
became clear that most of the high reliability/low satisfaction
quadrant paid among the highest prices for their broadband service. To
be more precise, eight out of the nine boxes in the quadrant were
paying an average of $75 or more a month for Internet service.
Figure 5.3
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Consumer choice--or lack thereof--also seems to be a factor, which
isn't surprising given what we previously noted about the relationship
between competition and price. When we color code the grid using the
average number of ISPs competing for the respondents in that square
(see Figure 5.4), the high reliability/low satisfaction quadrant (upper
left) is populated by consumers with relatively few choices--while the
high satisfaction/high reliability quadrant (the upper right) shows
consumers who, on average, have more choice of ISPs.
It is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of the bills we
analyzed were from ZIP codes with only one or two ISPs (16,389 out of
18,191 bills with identifiable ZIP codes, see Figure 4.3), so although
these averages may seem close in value, the differences are
statistically meaningful.
Figure 5.4
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To summarize, these findings suggest that:
many consumers who rate their service as relatively
reliable are, at the same time, relatively dissatisfied overall
with their Internet service, and this pattern correlates with
relatively high service prices and a relative lack of local
broadband competition; and
consumers who rated their broadband service as highly
reliable and were ``very satisfied'' or ``completely
satisfied'' overall with their service generally live in areas
with relatively robust broadband competition and generally pay
lower prices for their broadband service.
Combined with the evidence that broadband competition leads to
lower prices, we assert that competition can lead to happier consumers
as well.
VI. Policy Implications
The COVID-19 pandemic not only increased the importance of
broadband access and affordability but also spurred the Federal
government to make historic investments to expand Internet service in
unserved and underserved areas, and launch efforts to help all
consumers afford broadband. Care should be taken to ensure the money is
spent wisely and addresses the problems--high prices, confusing bills,
scarce competition, lack of regulatory oversight--present in the
broadband marketplace.
CR recommends the following as potential solutions:
Make the broadband ``nutrition'' label easier to find
Last year, Congress mandated that the FCC develop and implement a
standardized consumer broadband label with the goal of bringing greater
price transparency and uniformity to the broadband market. The label is
to be based on an earlier version proposed by the Commission in 2016,
which in turn had been modeled on the standardized nutrition label
created by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The law will require
ISPs to display the label ``to disclose information'' to consumers
regarding their broadband plans. CR has long supported the effort.
Will the FCC's consumer broadband ``nutrition'' label help clear up
some of the billing confusion identified in this report? Because the
label will require clear disclosures of pricing information, discounts,
fees, and Internet performance, it may.
The single best way the Commission could ensure that the maximum
number of consumers will see and benefit from the label would be to
require it to appear on every monthly broadband bill. If the label is
displayed only on ISP websites and marketing materials--and not on
monthly bills--CR and other consumer advocates fear that many existing
customers will never see or derive any benefit from the label. The same
could be true if the label is buried in fine print or merely linked to
by hyperlink. For that reason--and especially in light of this report's
findings about confusing billing practices and the lack of information
on ISP bills--the FCC should adopt our recommendation to require the
label on monthly ISP bills. The agency clearly has the authority to do
so.
CR also argues that the labels should be machine-readable. A
machine-readable label would better enable regulators, researchers,
consumer advocates, and others to track and compare pricing across
hundreds of ISPs, and potentially make it easier for consumers to
compare the prices and service offerings of competitors in their
communities.
For more on CR's broadband nutrition label recommendations, see our
comments in the FCC docket.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Comments of Consumer Reports (with Public Knowledge and Common
Sense Media), CG Docket No. 22-2 (March 9, 2022). Available at: https:/
/www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10309
68554762/1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Require data cap justification
Data caps that lack a clear justification unnecessarily discourage
Internet use and increase prices, both by overage fees when caps are
exceeded or by unlimited data allowance charges (sometimes as high as
$50) that consumers choose to pay to avoid worrying that their data use
could trigger overage fees. To tackle the harms posed by data caps in
the fixed broadband market, CR publicly supported the introduction of
the Uncap America Act, introduced by Sens. Ben Lujan and Cory Booker
earlier this year.\40\ The legislation would, among other things,
forbid ISPs from imposing data caps unless they could supply a
technical justification to the FCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Jonathan Schwantes, ``Consumer Reports supports the Uncap
America Act to limit unnecessary Internet data caps,'' press release,
Consumer Reports Advocacy, July 21, 2022, https://
advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/consumer-reports-supports-
the-uncap-america-act-to-limit-unnecessary-internet-data-caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encourage broadband competition
There is no easy way to increase competition in areas where
consumers are saddled with a monopoly provider and high prices. But two
widely discussed policy changes could begin to address the problem:
One, policymakers could permit and support the creation of municipal
broadband networks; and two, they can more thoroughly scrutinize--and,
where appropriate, put a stop to--legal challenges and other efforts by
incumbent ISPs to thwart new competition in underserved areas.
Strengthen FCC oversight
Finally, the FCC should reassert its regulatory authority over the
broadband Internet service industry. The Commission could do this on
its own, or Congress could intervene. Many of the ills identified in
our study could be better addressed if the FCC asserted jurisdiction
over broadband as a telecommunications service, which would give the
Commission broader powers to ensure non-discriminatory access to
broadband, monitor price-gouging, bar anti-consumer business practices,
and better address price and fee transparency.
Acknowledgements
Jonathan Schwantes, Senior Policy Counsel and Manager of Special
Projects, was the primary author of this report. Dina Haner,
Statistical-Analytics Leader, and Debasmita Das, Statistician,
performed the difficult data analysis and statistical work vital to
this project. Leah Fischman, a Director in CR's Innovation Lab, helped
lead this cross-functional effort from the very start. Jen Shecter,
Senior Director and Acting Head of Content, also played a vital
leadership role in making this work possible. Suman Veeramalla, Senior
Director and Chief Data Officer, led the data engineering work. Amira
Dhalla, Director of Impact Partnership, and Alan Smith, Manager of
Community Leadership, helped build and organize the coalition of
partner organizations who supported and participated in the Fight for
Fair Internet campaign. David Butler, Senior Director, and Cyrus
Rassool, Associate Director, coordinated and led the strategic
communications work. Andy Bergmann, Director of Design and Data, and
Chris Griggs, Associate Director, were responsible for all the data
visualization and graphics included in this report.
Many other dedicated CR professionals contributed to the success of
this project, including: Tracy Anderman, Senior Editorial Research
Specialist; Noreen Browne, Copy Editor; Tess Yanisch, Senior Research
Associate; Debbie Kalensky, Associate Director of Survey Research;
Kristen Dorrell, Senior Statistician; Jody Porrazzo, Director of
Statistics; Ciara Virgo, Data Scientist; Keith Newsom-Stewart,
Statistical-Analytics Program Leader; Laurel Lehman, Policy Analyst;
Anil Bhandari, Advocacy Intern; Jim Willcox, Multimedia Content
Specialist; Jerry Beilinson, Electronics Content Development Team
Leader; Joel Keehn, Special Projects Director; John DePaolo, Director
of Project Management; Marissa Mann, Project Manager and Scrum Master;
Susan Herold, Associate Director of Digital Campaigns; Meg Bohne,
Associate Director of Campaigns; and Ben Moskowitz, Vice President of
CR's Innovation Lab.
Special thanks to Scott Medintz, Editorial Manager of Strategic
Content Partnerships, for serving as content editor of this report.
This work was made possible in part through a generous donation
made to Consumer Reports by Cherri Pancake.
We thank everyone for their support of this work. Most importantly,
we thank the tens of thousands of consumers who participated in the
Fight for Fair Internet campaign, and shared their bills with us.
Without them, none of this would have been possible.
Appendix A: Detailed Methodology
Consumer Reports' Fight for Fair Internet campaign collected a
sample of more than 22,000 Internet service provider (ISP) bills with
corresponding Internet speed tests and surveys from volunteers across
the country. Bills were collected between July 2021 through December
2021. Although the sample is impressive and groundbreaking--it includes
bills from every state and territory in the United States and covers
nearly 700 Internet service providers--it is a convenience sample, and
as such, no statistical inference can be drawn, only observations.
We extracted the data from the collected bills using an OCR
machine. This first capture of the data provided sufficient
descriptions of bill line itemizations and corresponding charges to
enable robust feature engineering. Thus, we employed this data to
investigate vendors, the features of their advertised packages, and the
corresponding charges on consumers' bills. Wherever possible, we
verified and augmented our data with publicly available information
provided by our partners at broadbandnow.com.
From this work, we identified hundreds of ISPs and captured as much
corresponding information for each as possible.
Upon completion of this intense investigation into providers, we
built a hierarchical classification structure for the bill line
itemizations in the sample with the goal of finding and extracting all
charges relating to wired internet. To this end, our internal subject
matter expert and data science team collaborated closely to ensure all
charges relating to TV, video, wireless internet, fixed wireless
internet, landline phones, and special Internet services (e.g.,
business and seasonal internet) were classified accordingly for easy
removal from the sample data prior to analysis. Although we encountered
many taxes and government-imposed fees, both general and relating to
specific services, we classified them accordingly and removed them from
the sample data prior to analysis, because they are often not itemized
or allocated to a specific service.
Through this classification work, we discovered hundreds of
Internet packages offered to consumers, ranging from 0.8 Mbps download
speed DSL packages to 2GB per second download speed fiber packages. In
total, we found more than 10 Internet connection types, e.g., fiber,
fiber-coax, satellite, DSL, etc., corresponding to more than 50
Internet download speeds in the sample, which highlighted the presence
of more than 160 combinations of connection types and download speeds
for Internet packages.
Figure 1 below displays a word-cloud of the combinations of
connection types and speeds found in the sample. We isolated all
Internet package prices whenever an itemization of the service charges
were provided on the bill--we considered the package charge plus any
additional charge for increased speeds as the Internet package price--
and classified them accordingly. Note that we classified and removed
bundle charges and do not have corresponding Internet prices for bills
for a bundled service where an itemization of the service charges was
not provided on the bill.
Figure 1
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In addition to identification and subsequent second-level
classification of Internet prices, we created second-level
classifications of equipment fees and company-imposed fees. The
Internet equipment fees were further split into satellite equipment
fees and modem, router, and related WiFi fees. The company-imposed fees
subset consists of data and usage fees; DNS and IP fees; miscellaneous
fees like activation fees, late fees, and shipping and handling fees;
and Internet and network fees. Each charge classified as an Internet
and network fee was thoroughly investigated by our internal subject
matter expert and data science team prior to being classified as such.
We chose to exclude Internet support fees, Internet protection fees,
wire maintenance fees, and wire protection plan fees from company-
imposed fees because we believe most are optional services.
See Figure 2 below for the full classification structure we built
to capture such fees; Internet equipment is its own classification. In
particular, see Table 1 below to see which vendors are charging
Internet and network fees (which are explained in the report).
Figure 2
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table 1
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
While building the hierarchical classification structure outlined
above, we manually extracted data from all bills in the sample to
ensure robustness and accuracy of the data. We used the classified
machine-extracted data to build ensemble classification models to
quickly and efficiently classify the manually extracted data.
For model-building, model-classification, and all subsequent
analyses and reports, we used the programming language R and its
corresponding IDE RStudio. In particular, we employed the tidymodels
package to build an ensemble of local binary classifiers for speed and
accuracy. We included Logistic, KNN, Random Forest, and XGBoost
classifiers in the ensemble. Each was individually tuned to the first-
level classification of Internet and then put into the ensemble, which
was again tuned and then applied to each of the nine first-level binary
classifications. See the resultant confusion matrices in Figures 3 and
4 below that show the performance of the models on the manually
extracted data for two of the first-level classifications.
Figure 3
[GRAPHICNOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Given the results of the first-level classifiers and that the
classification structure was engineered to have the same few second-
level classifications for each provided service, we chose to build only
an XGBoost model for the second-level classifier. Although via
subsequent validation, we extracted, further classified, and analyzed
only Internet data, we tuned this second-level classifier using all of
the machine-extracted data and applied it to all of the manually
extracted data.
Due to sample size constraints given the complexity of the
remaining structure, our data science team completed the bottom-level
classifications manually. This process included 100 percent manual
validation of the model classifications for the first two
classification levels, followed by manual classification of the next
two classification levels. Note all classification work on the manually
extracted data was done by the same team that built the initial
structure from the machine-extracted data to ensure consistency and
accuracy of data classification and subsequent representation.
All analyses for resultant reports are completed with the validated
ML-classified manually extracted data.
Appendix B: List of Partner Organizations
The following organizations help launch the Fight for Fair Internet
campaign in 2021.
American Economic Liberties Project
American Library Association
Amerind
Benton Institute
BroadbandNow
Color of Change
Connect Humanity
Consortium for School Networking (CoSN)
Detroit Community Technology Project
Fair Count
Impremedia
Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR)
Library Futures
MediaJustice
M-Lab
Mozilla Foundation
National Consumers League
National Digital Inclusion Alliance
Open Technology Institute at New America
Next Century Cities
NTEN: The Nonprofit Technology Enterprise Network
Oishei Foundation
Public Knowledge
Public Utility Law Project of New York (PULP)
Rural Assembly (Center for Rural Strategies)
Southern California Tribal Chairman's Association
State EdTech Directors Association (SETDA)
United Church of Christ (Media Justice Ministry)
X-Lab
Appendix C: Comparing Rural vs. Urban Satisfaction and
Reliability Ratings
Appendix D: Comparing Satellite Internet Service Providers
Note: At the time of this publication, Starlink was charging a one-
time $599 equipment charge in lieu of a monthly rental fee. See https:/
/www.starlink.com/ for more information.
______
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table of Contents
Abstract 1
Introduction
Section 1: How Institutions Use Connectivity
Section 2: The Infrastructure Required to Innovate Essential Services
Section 3: How Federal Funds Can Close the Digital Divide and Ensure
Equitable Access to Essential Services
Conclusion
Appendix A: Support Analysis
Appendix B: Case Studies
Appendix C: Interviewees
______
Abstract
Institutions, including schools, hospitals, and governments, have a
duty to make their services universally accessible. This duty means
that these institutions are unable to fully integrate internet-based
technologies into their services because doing so would effectively
deny service to people who cannot access the internet.
However, if states can ensure that all people have access to the
internet, then institutions will be able to integrate internet-based
technologies into their services, improving them for the benefit of
all. In this way, closing the digital divide benefits everyone, even
households that already have connectivity. Moreover, by shifting the
majority of their users online, institutions will be able to specialize
their remaining offline services to the unique needs of their most
vulnerable and disconnected users.
Closing the digital divide benefits everyone, even households
that already have connectivity.
This report explores how this dynamic affects four institutional
services: education, health care, government services, and employment.
Specifically, the report examines how these services are improved
through the integration of internet-based technologies; which types of
Internet infrastructure result in the greatest improvements to
institutional services; and how universal access to high-quality
internet--the pre-condition to allow integration of internet-based
technologies--can be achieved using recent Federal funding
opportunities.
The passage of the American Rescue Plan Act and Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act has given state governments the opportunity to
close their digital divides once and for all. If states are successful,
they will not only bring connectivity to the disconnected, they will
allow institutions to improve the services that are central to much of
our lives. This report is designed to give state governments the
information they need to make this a reality.
Introduction
The Internet is valuable because of what it enables
Imagine you're the administrator of a school district. Your goal is
to help students recover from pandemic-era learning loss and prepare
them for success in the modern, digital world. You've identified a
promising new curriculum that uses online modules to tailor lessons to
individual student needs. This curriculum has proven very successful in
other districts--students find it engaging and educational,
administrators find it easy to use and customize, and teachers find
that it lessens their workloads, allowing them to spend more time with
students who need individual attention. However, research has shown
that at least 16 million students are caught in the persistent digital
divide,\1\ including nearly a quarter of the students in your district.
These students don't have access to home internet service, which is
needed to use this curriculum's online assignments, modules, and other
internet-based features. What do you do?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Common Sense Media and Boston Consulting Group. (2020). Closing
the K-12 digital divide in the age of distance learning. https://
www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured
-content/files/common_sense_media_report_final_7_1_3pm_web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you use the curriculum, the majority of students will benefit.
Average scores will improve, family satisfaction will increase, and the
need for tutoring and summer programs will decline. However, the
benefits will not be equitably distributed, and students without home
Internet will struggle. These students will have to use their parents'
or caregivers' phones as an Internet hotspot, which can be
prohibitively expensive; find free public Wi-Fi, which can mean hours
spent in libraries or parking lots; or simply resign themselves to
missing parts of the curriculum. These students will fall behind while
their more connected peers make rapid progress.
On the other hand, if you don't use the curriculum, then all
students will suffer from the missed opportunity. Your district may
fall behind others that adopt the curriculum, your teachers will
struggle to meet the disparate impact of learning loss, and your
students will spend their time learning to use textbooks rather than
computers. In short, all students will be denied the best education
available at a time when it is needed most.
Both options have downsides, and yet these are the choices many
school administrators face because the best educational tools require
the internet.
Luckily, there is now a third option: give every student home
Internet access. Challenging as it may sound, this option is now
possible because of a series of Federal laws passed in 2021. These laws
have the potential to ensure that every single student has access to
high-quality Internet at home. If this is achieved, school
administrators can implement the best and most cutting-edge curricula
available without leaving any students behind.
This report explores how to make this third option a reality. The
central point of the report is that, by ensuring every household is
connected to high-quality internet, public institutions--like schools,
but also health care providers, governments, and employers--can make
full use of internet-based technologies, improving both online and
offline services for the benefit of everyone.
The report is separated into three sections:
Section 1: How Institutions Use Connectivity
In the first section, we highlight how the digital divide affects
four essential services--education, health care, government services,
and employment--and the institutions that provide them. We find that,
despite the potential for service improvements and cost savings,
institutions do not make full use of internet-based technologies
because institutions cannot expect the populations they serve to have
universal access to high-quality internet. Conversely, when
institutions are confident that their populations have Internet access,
they improve their services using internet-based technologies. In this
way, closing the digital divide benefits everyone, not just the
disconnected.
Institutions do not make full use of internet-based
technologies because institutions cannot expect the populations
they serve to have universal access to high-quality internet.
Section 2: The Infrastructure Required to Innovate Essential Services
In the second section, we analyze how government decisions about
the infrastructure of the Internet affect the services offered by
institutions. When the physical infrastructure of the internet--wires,
switches, and towers--are of low quality, then the services carried by
this infrastructure suffer. We find that fiber infrastructure delivers
the highest-quality services at a level of scale, consistency, and
affordability that ensures institutional services remain universally
accessible. Fiber should be the first choice for deployment where it is
not cost prohibitive. If fiber cannot be deployed, cable should be
used. Only when neither is viable should fixed wireless be considered.
In general, wired technologies, such as fiber and cable, have better
reliability, lower ongoing operating costs, and faster latency than
fixed wireless technologies.
Fiber should be the first choice for deployment where it is not
cost prohibitive.
Section 3: How Federal Funds Can Close the Digital Divide and Ensure
Equitable Access to Essential Services
In the third section, we explain how recent Federal laws make it
possible for states to give all households access to high-quality
Internet services. We focus on the two most prominent laws: the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA). We find states can best implement these acts' more
than $80 billion in broadband funding by taking five key actions.
States should 1) build state administrative capacity in preparation for
the programs; 2) collect data on the size, locations, causes, and
consequences of the state's digital divide; 3) incorporate community
stakeholders and institutions into the broadband planning process; 4)
promote benefit programs that enable lower-income and digitally divided
households to get online; and 5) ensure the state's legal and
regulatory systems are conducive for sustainable broadband adoption.
Recent Federal laws make it possible for states to give all
households access to high-quality Internet services.
Section 1: How Institutions Use Connectivity
The Internet at its best
From the perspective of governments, there are strong equity and
economic reasons to close the digital divide, and the long-term
financial returns of connectivity far exceed the cost to provide it. At
the national level, addressing the digital divide would increase labor
productivity by 1.1 percent--a $160 billion boost to annual GDP.\2\
Locally, broadband deployment can generate three- to four-fold economic
returns over the initial cost of investment.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Bureau of Economic Research. (2021). Internet access
and its implications for productivity, inequality, and resilience.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w29102.
\3\ Grant, A., Tyner, W. & DeBoer, L. (2018). Estimation of the net
benefits of Indiana statewide adoption of rural broadband. Purdue
University and Center for Regional Development. https://
pcrd.purdue.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/006-RPINsights-Indiana-
Broadband-Study.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the institutional level, universal access to affordable, high-
speed Internet can allow governments and institutions to modernize
essential public services while also ensuring equitable access
throughout a community, city, or state. The central benefit is that
internet-based services facilitate human-to-human interactions. Whether
through video calls, collaborative software, VR, or other applications,
high-quality Internet makes it easier for people to connect with those
who can provide essential services. As highlighted in Figure 1, this
section explores how connectivity affects four such services:
1. Education
2. Health Care
3. Government Services
4. Employment
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Education. Students have better access to teachers, tutors,
information sources, platforms for content creation and sharing, and
collaborative workspaces. Teachers can employ edtech tools and advanced
technology (AR/VR), individualized curricula, and comprehensive grading
and feedback systems, and they can better collaborate with parents and
caregivers. Schools can better accommodate computers and modern student
data systems, student mobility, disability access, and disruptions
during emergencies.
``Achieving universal broadband coverage will make communities
more competitive economically, make them healthier, and improve
educational access. If we are serious about competing in
today's global economy and recruiting the best talent to come
to our state and keeping our children where they grew up, then
we must do everything in our power to end the digital
divide.''--Governor Laura Kelly of Kansas
Health Care. Patients have better access to services, telemedicine,
medication maintenance, and appointment scheduling, and these
conveniences increase health care usage. Doctors, particularly mental
health specialists, are able to see more patients, serve more remote
areas, and interact with patients on a more regular basis. Clinics and
hospitals can integrate remote health monitoring technologies, reduce
costs, increase likelihood of early diagnosis, and decrease wait times.
Government Services. Households can more easily use benefit
programs, submit service requests, and participate in government
proceedings. Governments can improve the speed and efficiency of their
services, improve mass communication and program awareness, and reduce
reliance on costly in-person infrastructure. These improvements
increase trust in government.
``In today's world, reliable broadband is as essential as water
and electricity. This expansion will be transformative for
Tennessee families and businesses by removing barriers to
commerce, health care, and educational opportunities, as well
as other necessities of modern life.''--State Representative
Patsy Hazlewood
Employment. Remote workers are more satisfied and productive, and
easier to retain. Job seekers have more opportunities, and employers
can find better candidates. Connectivity has been shown to increase
employment rates, earnings, job skills, and corporate diversity.
``This round of improvements will help people who need high-
speed Internet to work remotely, allow students to do their
homework, give our seniors access to the telehealth options
they need, and businesses the ability to compete on the world
stage. The possibilities go on and on, and West Virginians
everywhere deserve the best access possible.''--Governor Jim
Justice of West Virginia
The Role of Offline Solutions
The transition to universal Internet service will take time, and
during this period, institutions must continue to offer robust offline
services to ensure equitable access. But even if every home eventually
gets access to high-quality internet, persistent income inequality and
barriers to acquiring digital skills will mean that there will always
be some portion of the population that needs offline services (see
Figure 2).
However, if institutions can shift the majority of their users to
online services, then they can specialize their offline services to the
unique needs of this persistently offline population, which often has
additional challenges beyond a lack of connectivity. In this way,
universal connectivity allows institutions to improve both their online
and offline services by more efficiently allocating resources.
In this way, universal connectivity allows institutions to
improve both their online and offline services by more
efficiently allocating resources.
Additionally, institutions may encounter disruptions in internet
service that require them to use offline services. For example,
Internet service may be disrupted due to natural disasters, requiring
students to quickly shift to offline learning. In such cases, the
offline options should have a similar user experience to the online
option to ensure that students can easily continue their studies
without requiring training in a new system.
Similarly, an inability to afford service can disrupt a home's
connectivity. Educators know that the rising cost of Internet service
and fluctuations in a home's income can mean that some families will
not be able to consistently afford a level of service that supports
online education. New Federal programs will reduce this possibility,
but until these programs are fully implemented, any online curricula
should be supplemented with offline or low-bandwidth material. This
alternative should be downloadable while on a school or library network
or by distributing laptops with preloaded content.
It is important to stress that institutions have a strong
preference for online solutions, as they are more flexible, effective,
and enable multidirectional communication between the institutions and
their audience. However, even in a fully connected world, offline
solutions will have a role to play, but they will evolve from their
current role as a generalized stopgap for anyone in the digital divide
and instead become specialized services for those with low digital
literacy and as emergency alternatives when Internet disruptions occur.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Education
Long before the pandemic, classrooms had increasingly embraced the
role of technology. By 2019, investments in global edtech were nearly
$19 billion, and they are projected to reach $350 billion by 2025.\4\
Pre-COVID-19, one-fifth of U.S. public schools already offered courses
entirely online.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Li, C. & Lalani, F. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed
education forever. This is how. World Economic Forum. https://
www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-
online-digital-learning/.
\5\ National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Fast facts:
Distance learning. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The growth of online education in K-12 is expected to continue and
become a permanent fixture in many schools. Between 20-30 percent of
parents have expressed interest in continuing remote learning for their
children post-COVID,\6\ and 30 percent of school districts and charter
management organizations are considering or in the process of
implementing an online or hybrid approach post-pandemic.\7\ Even for
students who are returning to traditional in-person classrooms, the use
of online curricula and edtech tools will necessitate high-quality
connectivity at home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Torchia, R. (2021). Is virtual learning here to stay for K-12?
EdTech Magazine. https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2021/04/
virtual-learning-here-stay-k-12-perfcon.
\7\ Congressional Research Service. (2021). Remote learning for K-
12 schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/
R46883.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This increased interest in online curricula is warranted, given the
potential to positively impact student outcomes, particularly in core
reading and numeracy skills.\8\ Online curricula are effective because
they adapt lessons to individual student needs, integrate one-on-one
tutoring, and improve student engagement through interactivity and
gamification.\9\ Moreover, the tools of online curricula are computers
and the internet, not paper and textbooks, and so students develop
skills with technology and digital citizenship that will benefit them
for the rest of their lives.\10\ Online curricula also expand access to
teachers and can address teacher shortages. For example, Tucson,
Arizona, may hire remote math instructors to teach students in online
classrooms for part of the day.\11\ While not an optimal solution, this
would allow the city to continue education until in-person teachers
become available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ganimian, A., Vegas, E. & Hess, F. (2020). Realizing the
promise: How can education technology improve learning for all? Center
for Universal Education at Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/essay/
realizing-the-promise-how-can-education-technology-improve-learning-
for-all/.
\9\ Vegas, E. (2022). Education technology post-COVID-19: A missed
opportunity? Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-
development/2022/03/11/education-technology-post-covid-19-a-missed-
opportunity/.
\10\ PowerSchool. (2021). The classroom guide to digital literacy
in K-12 education. https://www.powerschool.com/blog/the-classroom-
guide-to-digital-literacy-in-k-12-education.
\11\ Natanson, H. (2022). `Never seen it this bad': America faces
catastrophic teacher shortage. Washington Post. https://
www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/08/03/school-teacher-short
age/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online curricula also allow schools to respond to emergencies. This
was exemplified prominently during the pandemic, but it can happen for
numerous reasons. In New Jersey, schools went online in response to
long-term storm damage to the school buildings;\12\ in Philadelphia,
they went online due to heat; and, in Jackson, Mississippi, they went
online during a water crisis. When schools know their students have
home Internet access, they can be more adaptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Grom, C. (2021). 1 of N.J.'s largest school districts to delay
start after Ida flooding. NJ.com. https://www.nj.com/news/2021/09/1-of-
njs-largest-school-districts-to-delay-start-after-ida-flooding.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an administrative perspective, universal connectivity allows
schools to achieve a number of benefits. By purchasing at scale,
districts can benefit from the cost efficiencies of bulk procurement
and invest in enhanced procurement systems.\13\ For example, when the
Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI) conducted a procurement to
connect all students, they established service-level agreements that
included maintenance and repairs, ensuring greater sustainability of
results and a provider focus on performance. Connecting all students
through the same hardware and software enables better systems
integration, better data-tracking of student usage and technology
needs, and better student mobility between schools in the system.
Technology integration even extends to student transportation--Wi-Fi-
enabled school buses contribute to fewer behavioral incidents, safer
bus rides, and lower driver turnover for student transportation.\14\
However, without universal connectivity, schools cannot reap these
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Bazzaz, D. (2020). Washington is buying $24M worth of computer
technology for students. Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/
seattle-news/education/washington-is-purchasing-24-million-worth-of-
computer-technology-for-students/.
\14\ School Transportation News. (2022). Recorded webinar: Decrease
behavior incidents & improve driver retention with school bus Wi-Fi.
https://stnonline.com/multimedia/free-webinar-decrease-behavior-
incidents-improve-driver-retention-with-school-bus-wifi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This loss is particularly acute in the present climate, where many
schools are implementing rigorous programs for learning recovery and
remediation. Students in some districts may have lost the equivalent of
22 weeks of instruction,\15\ and this is expected to decrease their
lifetime earnings by 2.5 percent per year. Given the number of affected
students, this equates to nearly 13 percent of annual GDP.\16\
Therefore, helping students catch up on instruction and critical
academic skills is essential, and Internet connectivity can help
students access online learning and tutoring tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Kane, T. (2022). Kids are far, far behind in school. The
Atlantic. https://www.the
atlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/schools-learning-loss-remote-covid-
education/629938/.
\16\ Psacharopoulos, G., Patrinos, H., Collis, V. & Vegas, E.
(2020). The COVID-19 cost of school closures. Brookings. https://
www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-development/2020/04/29/the-covid-
19-cost-of-school-closures/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lack of universal connectivity also inhibits schools from exploring
cutting-edge educational technologies, such as those that tailor
instruction and assessment through AI and use virtual simulations.
Schools and universities have used VR in role-playing education
exercises involving negotiation, as well as virtual labs to engage
students in hands-on learning environments, and virtual campus spaces
for students around the world to interact. There are also ways to
leverage these technologies to help teach students with functional
needs; some districts, for example, are beginning to use VR to help
students with functional needs transition to new school environments
more easily by allowing them to tour these spaces online ahead of
time.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Lynch, M. (2021). Virtual reality matures in the K-12
classroom. The Tech Advocate. https://www.thetechedvocate.org/virtual-
reality-matures-in-the-k-12-classroom/.
Over 40 percent of Title I teachers do not assign work that
requires Internet access because they fear that doing so would
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
exacerbate inequalities.
Far from cutting-edge technologies, schools will struggle even to
implement simple online applications when they aren't confident that
all of their students have home Internet service. Over 40 percent of
Title I teachers do not assign work that requires Internet access
because they fear that doing so would exacerbate inequalities, and
nearly 60 percent report that a lack of home Internet and computers
limits student learning.\18\ This hesitancy, though necessary to ensure
fairness among students, prevents all students from using one of the
best educational resources ever created: the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Fazlullah, A. & Ong, S. (2019). The homework gap: Teacher
perspectives on closing the digital divide. Common Sense Media. https:/
/www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/
homework-gap-report-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spotlight: Washoe County School District
This Nevada district provides another example of the benefits of
widespread connectivity in education settings. The district conducted a
technology readiness survey and purchased 17,000 laptops and 6,000
hotspots for the disconnected families the survey identified. This
widespread technology distribution unlocked substantial collaboration
across the district; as classes shifted back to hybrid and in-person
formats in 2021, students and teachers continued using the devices to
access communication portals and digital learning materials. In
addition, the district implemented a long-term Laptop Refresh Program,
which aims to standardize district-wide technology and enable bulk
device purchasing, creating pricing efficiencies. For students,
standardization also means that families need to be familiarized with
fewer devices and applications, which is proving especially helpful in
non-English-speaking homes.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Health Care
Like education, health care is similarly undermined by a lack of
universal, high-quality connectivity. Before the pandemic, less than 1
percent of outpatient appointments were held remotely. More recently,
that number has climbed to 8 percent.\19\ The share of Medicare visits
conducted through telehealth increased from less than one million in
2019 to over 50 million in 2020.\20\ This trend continued with patients
with disabilities and dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid as more
likely to use telehealth in 2021.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Rae, M., Amin, K., Cox, C., Panchal, N. & Miller, B. (2022).
Telehealth has played an outsized role meeting mental health needs
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://
www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/telehealth-has-played-an-
outsized-role-meeting-mental-health-needs-during-the-covid-19-
pandemic/.
\20\ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2021). New HHS
study shows 63-fold increase in Medicare telehealth utilization during
the pandemic. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/12/03/new-hhs-study-
shows-63-fold-increase-in-medicare-telehealth-utilization-during-
pandemic.html.
\21\ Citation: Bipartisan Policy Center. (2022). The Future of
Telehealth After COVID-19. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/
?file=/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/BPC-The-Future-of-Telehealth-After-
COVID-19-October-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this surge is due largely to the pandemic, telehealth
participation remains high, in 2021 rates of telehealth utilization
remained 40 percent higher than pre-pandemic levels.\21\ In a recent
survey, 68 percent of physicians said they would like to further
increase the use of telehealth in their practice.\22\ Among patients
who recently used telehealth, 73 percent reported they would continue
to use telehealth services in the future, and 41 percent reported they
would have chosen telehealth over an in-person appointment, even if
both required a co-pay.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Charleson, K. (2022). Telehealth statistics and telemedicine
trends 2022. SingleCare. https://www.singlecare.com/blog/news/
telehealth-statistics/.
\23\ Henry, T.A. (2021). Patients, doctors like telehealth. Here's
what should come next. AMA. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-
management/digital/patients-doctors-telehealth-here-s-what
-should-come-next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telehealth is especially prominent for particular disciplines, such
as mental health. In 2020, telehealth visits comprised a third of total
visits to mental health specialists, compared to 8 percent of visits to
primary care providers and 3 percent of visits to other
specialists.\24\ In 2021, according to a report from the Bipartisan
Policy Center, 44 percent of all telehealth visits were for behavioral
health services.\21\ According to the surgeon general, COVID-19 has
exposed a youth mental health crisis,\25\ and telehealth can help
families access providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2021). New HHS
study shows 63-fold increase in Medicare telehealth utilization during
the pandemic. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/12/03/new-hhs-study-
shows-63-fold-increase-in-medicare-telehealth-utilization-during-
pandemic.html.
\25\ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2022). Fact
sheet: Surgeon general to speak at Youth Mental Wellness Now! Summit
and applaud commitments in response to his call to action on youth
mental health crisis. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/06/17/fact-
sheet-surgeon-general-to-speak-at-youth-mental-wellness-now.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telehealth also enables remote patient monitoring for patients with
chronic health conditions or those using con-trolled substances, which
improves disease management and decreases misuse of medication and
unnecessary emergency room visits.\26\ Telehealth can also improve
ongoing care by reducing the chance of missed visits.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Gajarawala, S. & Pelkowski, J. (2020). Telehealth benefits and
barriers. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners. https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7577680/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research also shows that telehealth may expedite speed of care.
Telehealth appointments via phone and video have shorter wait times
than in-person options (from scheduling to appointment).\27\ The
reduced wait time not only means that more people are likely to visit
physicians, it also allows for earlier diagnoses and treatment, which
improves patient outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Diaz, N. (2022). Telemedicine grants quicker access to primary
care: study. Becker's Hospital Review. https://
www.beckershospitalreview.com/telehealth/telemedicine-grants-quicker-
access-to-primary-care-study.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telehealth could impact costs. Cigna data shows that the average
cost of a nonurgent virtual care visit is $93 less than the average
cost of an in-person visit (see Figure 4). The cost to see a specialist
was $120 less for a virtual visit than an in-person visit, and a
virtual urgent-care visit was $141 less than an urgent-care clinic.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Cigna. (n.d.). Convenient, cost-effective, and high-quality
virtual care is here to stay. https://newsroom.cigna.com/convenient-
cost-effective-and-high-quality-virtual-care-is-here-to-stay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telehealth also expands the reach of medical professionals. One-
quarter of Americans live in rural areas, but less than 10 percent of
physicians practice in rural communities.\29\ Telemedicine offers a way
to bridge this distribution. A recent large-scale survey found that 45
percent of adults believe that inadequate access to technology,
including broadband and computers, is a barrier to telehealth, and this
was especially prominent among rural residents and adults over the age
of 65.\30\ This underscores the need not only for connectivity and
device access, but also for digital literacy programs that can maximize
the effectiveness of digital health care for certain populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Landi, H. (2019). Poor broadband access in rural areas limits
telemedicine use: study. Fierce Healthcare. https://
www.fiercehealthcare.com/tech/poor-broadband-access-rural-areas-limits-
telemedicine-use-study.
\30\ Bailey, V. (2021). Limited broadband poses a significant
barrier to telehealth access. MHealthIntelligence. https://
mhealthintelligence.com/news/limited-broadband-poses-a-significant-
barrier-to-telehealth-access.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Spotlight: Together Growing Strong
Due to the enormous benefits for patients and health care
providers, some institutions have even begun investing in digital
inclusion and digital skills training to help their patients take
better advantage of telehealth. Together Growing Strong (TGS), an NYU
Langone initiative in Sunset Park, New York, conducted surveys to
understand the broadband needs of their community, developed technology
literacy workshops, and established a digital equity working group.
They also added in-person digital skill training as part of their pilot
program for postpartum depression prevention, providing the
participating women with the skills needed to access and use platforms
for telehealth delivery. Given the maternal health crisis in the U.S.,
such applications of telehealth to maternal care can have a profound
impact on maternal health outcomes.\31\ These investments, innovative
for a health care institution, are a testament to how essential broad
adoption of telehealth is for the future of the health care system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Gregory, B. (2022). Changing our (virtual) reality: Telehealth
the United States maternal health crisis. https://
nextcenturycities.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Changing-Our-Virtual-
Reality-Telehealth-the-US-Maternal-Health-Crisis-by-Brittany-Rae-
Gregory-.pdf.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Government Services
Online services enable individuals to access the government at all
hours of the day and with fewer barriers (e.g., taking time off,
finding transportation, obtaining child care). This, in turn, makes
government services more useful and accessible to underserved
communities. Not only do a majority of Americans expect services to be
offered online, nearly nine in ten say that a great online experience
can increase their trust in government overall.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Boston Consulting Group. (2020). 2020 digital government
benchmark survey. https://www.bcg.com/ en-us/industries/public-sector/
digital-government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online services are also more cost effective and allow governments
to more efficiently allocate existing labor and resources. The U.K.
government, for example, estimated that by shifting 80 percent of
public services online, $2.2 billion per year could be saved, with the
cost of digital transactions 20 times lower than by phone and 50 times
lower than face to face.\33\ Other projects, including an online birth-
certificate initiative in Mexico and a public data exchange system in
South Korea, have resulted in increased service adoption, higher
customer satisfaction, savings in cost and staff time, and economic
benefit to industry.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Government of the United Kingdom. (2012). Digital efficiency
report. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-efficiency-
report/digital-efficiency-report.
\34\ Red GEALC. (2018). The value of digital government. https://
www.redgealc.org/site/assets/files/7743/digital_government_english.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online government services can also spur job creation and economic
growth. For example, when new businesses have a simple path for filing
documents and obtaining licenses, barriers to entry are lowered and
growth increases.\35\ The same can be true for individuals navigating
major life events, such as the birth of a child or retirement, which
often require services across multiple agencies in an arduous process
that takes up both time and energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Awad, N., Brice, J., Ferrer, S., Kim, H. & Stuart, T. (2022).
Delivering government services like a digital native. Boston Consulting
Group. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/delivering-customer-
centric-digital-government-services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma, for example, has prioritized taking a customer-centric
approach to government services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the
state revamped its unemployment system and set up a digital portal for
residents to apply and track their unemployment benefits. This
initiative resulted in the state being able to process 30,000 claims
per week and deliver more than $2 billion in unemployment checks.
Individuals were able to receive benefits quicker and the state was
able to save money by not needing to hire additional customer service
representatives.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Goldstein, P. (2020). Governments embrace digital services
amid the pandemic. StateTech. https://statetechmagazine.com/article/
2020/09/governments-embrace-digital-services-amid-pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many local government proceedings (e.g., council and neighborhood
meetings) have gone online, which has the potential to increase
resident participation and engagement. Several states and cities are
considering measures to require remote options for government hearings,
even after the pandemic, citing the benefits for older Americans,
people with disabilities, those who lack transportation, and those with
family obligations that prevent them from attending in person.\37\ In
this way, virtual proceedings have the potential to diversify and
democratize local government.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Altimari, D. (2022). States and cities are moving to make
virtual hearings permanent. Route Fifty. https://www.route-fifty.com/
management/2022/04/pandemic-changed-way-americans-interact-government-
now-some-states-want-make-those-changes-permanent/366276/.
\38\ CivicPlus. (n.d.). Virtual meetings and the online imperative
of local government. https://www.civicplus.com/blog/am/virtual-
meetings-and-the-online-imperative-of-local-government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online solutions have become so ubiquitous that there is
significant risk if governments fail to shift services online. When the
COVID-19 pandemic began, governments with strong digital
infrastructures were able to rapidly adapt. The state government of
California, for example, was able to leverage its early efforts to
pursue cloud solutions to enable 90 percent of its state employees to
seamlessly switch to telework.\39\ Without digitization, governments
will struggle to remain effective and flexible when faced with future
crises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Canning, M., Eggers, W., Mader, D. & Sullivan, M. (2021).
Propelled by the pandemic, digital government logs on. Deloitte.
https://wsj.com/articles/propelled-by-the-pandemic-digital-government-
logs-on-01625079725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spotlight: Oregon Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) Program
WIC is a prevention-focused public health nutrition program serving
lower-income pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding individuals, as
well as infants and children under the age of 5.
In response to COVID-19, Oregon's WIC program transitioned from in-
person appointments to telephone-based appointments for its 80,000
participants. Alongside this transition, Oregon WIC also used surveys
to understand readiness for video-based tele-WIC appointments. These
surveys, conducted in collaboration with the Language, Literacy, and
Technology Research Group at Portland State University, evaluated three
populations: WIC participants, WIC staff, and information technology
(IT) support staff.
WIC participants were sent a text message inviting them to complete
a survey, which was available online and over the phone, and in
English, Spanish, and Russian. Respondents were asked about access to
broadband internet; device ownership; current interaction with
technology for work, family, and personal tasks; experience with and
feelings about telehealth; and comfort with video-based WIC
appointments. More than 9,500 WIC participants responded, with key
results highlighted in the first column of Figure 6. Notably, 300
mostly Spanish speakers completed the survey by phone, with most
indicating a lack of Internet access or digital skills needed to
complete the online survey.
WIC staff were asked about their own telehealth experiences;
perceived readiness for adoption of video-based telehealth in their WIC
clinic; and advantages and disadvantages for WIC participants. IT
support staff were asked about their current scope of responsibility;
number of programs and staff supported; and barriers and supports in
adopting video-based visits. Findings are featured in the second column
of Figure 6.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The results indicate that there is a significant variability in the
readiness and capacity among WIC participants, WIC staff, and IT
support to implement tele-WIC visits. To ensure equitable
implementation of tele-WIC, investments must be made to expand
reliable, affordable broadband access; connect people to devices that
match their technology needs; and provide education to improve digital
literacy, privacy, and security. In addition, dedicated funding is
needed to increase staffing, capacity, and acquisition of technology at
the local health departments and community nonprofits that deliver the
WIC program.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Employment
COVID-19 sparked a fundamental change in the nature of work. Before
the pandemic, fewer than 5 percent of workers worked remotely. During
the pandemic, that number grew to over 60 percent. Now, it is
stabilizing around 30 percent.\40\ That is a sixfold increase from pre-
pandemic levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N. & Davis, S. (2022). SWAA August 2022
updates. WFH Research. https://wfhresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/
08/WFHResearch_updates_August2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an employee's perspective, remote workers are happier and have
a better work-life balance despite working more hours.\41\ Forty-one
percent feel more productive when working from home, compared to 14
percent who feel less productive.\42\ In fact, four in ten remote
workers would look for another job if their employer required a full
return to the office.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Apollo Technical. (2022). Statistics on remote workers that
will surprise you (2022). https://www.apollotechnical.com/statistics-
on-remote-workers/.
\42\ Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N. & Davis, S. (2021). Internet access
and its implications for productivity, inequality, and resilience.
National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/
files/working_papers/w29102/w29102.pdf.
\43\ Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N. & Davis, S. (2021). Let me work from
home, or I will find another job. Becker Friedman Institute. https://
bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/BFI_
WP_2021-87.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an employer perspective, remote work gives access to a broader
talent pool, which can result in more qualified hires and support a
company's diversity and inclusion goals. Job listings that allow remote
work draw seven times more applicants,\44\ and remote work flexibility
reduced employee attrition by more than one-third.\45\ In one study, 78
percent of respondents said that a remote work option was the most
effective nonmonetary way to retain employees.\46\ These advantages,
coupled with lower real estate and operating costs, suggest that the
shift to remote work may improve company profits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Smith, M. (2022). Remote and hybrid jobs are attracting 7
times more applicants than in-person roles. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/
2022/03/04/flexible-jobs-are-attracting-7-times-more-applicants-than-
in-person-jobs.html.
\45\ Bloom, N., Han, R. & Liang, J. (2022). How hybrid working from
home works out. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://
www.nber.org/papers/w30292.
\46\ Crain's Content Studio. (2019). Work-life integration: the
customized approach. https://www.crainsnewyork.com/sponsored-future-
work/work-life-integration-customized-approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond remote work, connectivity also improves an individual's
ability to find a job. For lower-income individuals, the introduction
of home Internet service increases their likelihood of employment by 14
percent. Among these newly connected households, 62 percent cited the
Internet as having helped them or a family member successfully find
employment.\47\ Similarly, a research synthesis by the World Bank finds
that the relationship between Internet and employment is positive--for
every 1 percent increase in Internet penetration, employment increases
between 0.2 percent and 5.3 percent, with variation by study and by
industry.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Zuo, G. (2021). Wired and hired: Employment effects of
subsidized broadband Internet for low-income Americans. American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy. https://www.aeaweb.org/
articles?id=10.1257/pol.20190648
\48\ World Bank Group. (2012). Broadband strategies toolkit.
https://ddtoolkits.worldbankgroup
.org/broadband-strategies/driving-demand/broadband-firms-and-
employment#::text=According
%20to%20this%20research%2C%20the,increase%20inpercent201%25%20of%20penet
ration.
``It's nearly impossible to both recruit new businesses and in
many cases keep existing businesses in areas that do not have
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
stable high-speed internet.''--Governor Laura Kelly of Kansas
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Section 2: The Infrastructure Required to Innovate Essential Services
Decisions made today will affect the Internet for generations
There are many different types of infrastructure that can be used
to build Internet networks, and the type of infrastructure used will
affect the type of online services that institutions can offer. For
institutions to offer the best online services, internet infrastructure
must support Internet service that is fast, stable, scalable,
affordable, and universally available. When this is achieved,
institutions can confidently invest in their online services, knowing
they will be of high quality and available to all.
As states receive unprecedented broadband funding, under-standing
the advantages and use cases for each type of infrastructure is
imperative. In this section, we provide an overview and analysis of
three types of broadband infrastructure, summarized in Figure 9. First,
we discuss two wireline solutions, fiber-optic infrastructure and
hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) infrastructure (commonly called ``cable
internet''), both of which use physical wires to connect premises to
the internet. Second, we discuss fixed wireless access (FWA)
infrastructure, which is a wireless, cellular-based technology that
transmits Internet through radio waves from an off-site access tower to
individual receivers installed on-premises.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Pros and Cons of Broadband Infrastructure Technologies
Wired Technologies
Generally, infrastructure built with wired technology is faster and
more reliable, has lower latency and operating costs, and can
accommodate more users. However, wired infrastructure can also cost
more to build per mile.
Wired Technologies: Fiber-Optic Infrastructure
Fiber-optic technology uses physical cables that contain up to a
few hundred bundled strands of glass to carry data to a premises in the
form of light pulses. Fiber is recognized as a future-proof,
technologically superior infrastructure compared to alternatives,
driven by its fast speed, low latency, unconstrained capacity, and
limited susceptibility to signal noise. Fiber is the fastest broadband
infrastructure available, with typical symmetrical speeds of
approximately 250-2,000 Mbps. While this represents an average speed,
world-record fiber transmissions have reached 319 Tbps.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Sakharkar, A. (2021). World record: Internet speed of 319 Tb/s
over 3,001 km. Tech Explorist. https://www.techexplorist.com/world-
record-internet-speed-319-tb-s-over-3001-km/402
57/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Electronic Frontier Foundation estimates that typical fiber-
optic cable has approximately 10,000 times more usable bandwidth than a
standard coaxial cable.\50\ While cable captures the majority market
share, fiber (20 percent market share) continues to eat into this
figure.\51\ As advanced technologies are developed and Internet usage
grows, fiber will be positioned to support vastly higher speeds per
premise with upgrades to existing infrastructure. Fiber also has the
lowest latency (10-15 ms compared to alternative types of
infrastructure), making it best positioned to support technologies like
AR/VR.\52\ Unlike HFC networks, where speeds are determined by local
network congestion, fiber networks are scalable and have nearly
unconstrained capacity, with speeds independent of consumption across
other premises. Fiber has the strongest technological capability
relative to all other broadband technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Cyphers, B. (2019). The case for fiber to the home, today: Why
fiber is a superior medium for 21st century broadband. Electronic
Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/wp/case-fiber-home-today-why-
fiber-superior-medium-21st-century-broadband.
\51\ Goovaerts, D. (2022). FBA report: 43 percent of U.S.
households now have access to fiber. Fierce Telecom. https://
www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/fba-report-43-us-households-now-have-
access-fiber.
\52\ Federal Communications Commissions. (2020). A report on
consumer fixed broadband performance in the United States. https://
www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broad
band-america/measuring-fixed-broadband-ninth-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiber's structural advantage has spurred an explosion of
infrastructure deployment across the U.S. over the past few years.
Despite accelerated adoption, cable captures the lion's share of
existing infrastructure in the U.S., making fiber most economically
suitable for greenfield network buildouts. Fiber networks also have the
longest time to market and highest up-front capital costs per mile,
though elevated up-front costs are offset by fiber's scalability and
lower ongoing operating costs compared to alternative types of
infrastructure. These cost reductions are driven largely by fiber's
superior performance compared to other networks, as this yields higher
customer satisfaction and lower ongoing maintenance expense relative to
other technologies. Given this, fiber is best suited for denser urban
and suburban environments, where up-front capital costs are mitigated
by higher population density.
It is important to note that fiber's main downside--its high up-
front cost--can be offset or even eliminated entirely by recent Federal
funding programs. This is discussed further in Section 3.
``Fiber is what you want, no matter what. If we have that, we
have unlimited capacity to increase speeds. If we are building
something over wireless, or copper or even cable, none of those
can be future-proofed the way fiber can.''--Deb Socia,
President and CEO, The Enterprise Center
Wired Technologies: Cable Hybrid (Fiber-Coaxial) Infrastructure
Cable uses a hybrid of fiber-optic and coaxial cables (HFC) to
connect premises to broadband. This technology gained rapid adoption in
the early 1990s and has since become the most extensively deployed
broadband infrastructure. Cable accounted for 50 percent of broadband
market share in 2021. Given the high volume of legacy HFC
infrastructure, cable is best suited for brownfield edge-outs, where
upgrading existing cable avoids the high up-front capital costs
associated with new network builds.
From a technological perspective, HFC first delivers signals
through fiber cables, which are connected to a node. Traditional
coaxial cables then connect to the node and provide the final
transmission to about 50 to 200 homes on average. Today, HFC offers
typical speeds of 10-1,500/10-100 Mbps. While this speed is generally
sufficient to meet typical household usage today, it is dependent on
local network specific congestion, and lacks the symmetry of fiber.
Symmetry becomes increasingly important as interactive services become
more prevalent. Such services, which include health care, education,
and work, rely on video streaming and data uploads, which require fast,
symmetrical download and upload speeds. To illustrate the importance of
symmetry, consider how during a telehealth appointment it is just as
important for the doctor to have a clear view of the patient as it is
for the patient to have a clear view of the doctor.
To illustrate the importance of symmetry, consider how during a
telehealth appointment it is just as important for the doctor
to have a clear view of the patient as it is for the patient to
have a clear view of the doctor.
Cable is also more susceptible to signal noise than fiber, meaning
it is more likely to experience unintended signal modifications.
Overall, fiber's technological superiority makes it a more future-proof
option compared to HFC as Internet usage continues to accelerate.
However, HFC is anticipated to migrate to an upgraded operating
standard beginning in 2022. This specification is expected to have
measurably faster latency and speeds, but will likely take a few years
to be fully tested and scaled.
While cable also has generally lower average annual operating costs
per home than FWA, these average costs of $105 are approximately double
that of fiber.\53\ Operating costs are higher for two primary reasons.
First, cable networks have a larger volume of network-issue calls to
operators than fiber-optic networks, which adds incremental expense per
user. Secondly, cable users have historically been less satisfied with
the technology's performance compared to fiber, which drives a higher
churn rate for cable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Fiber Broadband Association. (2020). Access Network OpEx
Analysis white paper. https://www.fiberbroadband.org/page/fiber-
research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, cable could be well suited for brownfield edge-outs of
existing network infrastructure in denser urban and suburban
environments, where up-front capital costs are mitigated by higher
population density.
Wireless Technologies: Fixed Wireless Access Infrastructure
Fixed wireless access (FWA) is a cellular-based connection that
transmits Internet to premises through radio waves, making the
technology independent of cable. A lack of cable means that FWA can be
deployed across rougher terrain and at vastly accelerated speeds
relative to fixed wired technologies, particularly in suburban and
rural areas where existing fixed wired infrastructure is either limited
or nonexistent. Rather than digging into the ground and laying cable,
FWA relies on the implementation of a base tower to transmit radio
signals. This drives lower up-front capital costs of approximately
$525-1,125 per household compared to competing technologies.\54\ This
cost accounts for an average macro cell deployment and includes base
tower infrastructure and customer premises equipment (CPE) expenses.
Today, the majority of up-front capital is typically composed of CPE
costs, which are anticipated to decline in the coming years as FWA
undergoes further technological innovation. Costs per house-hold also
vary based on a range of factors, such as the size of the base tower,
spectrum availability and interference, average usage per household,
and population density within the coverage area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Analysis assumes deployment of a $250,000 macrocell, serving
on average 2,000 households. This is subject to change based on base
tower technology, household density, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While FWA has notable advantages in time to market and cost of
initial deployment compared to fixed wired technologies, the
infrastructure has higher ongoing operating costs and is typically
relatively limited in terms of network capacity, signal reliability,
speed, and latency. Higher costs for network upgrades, maintenance, and
electrical usage yield increased ongoing operating costs for FWA
compared to competing technologies. These ongoing costs can range from
$95-450 per household.\55\ Meanwhile, signal reliability and
consistency continue to be a hurdle for FWA technology compared to
fixed wired solutions. Line-of-sight connection between the base tower
and an on-premises antenna is necessary to ensure a strong signal.
Foliage, inclement weather, and less porous building materials at the
end premise can all interfere with signal transmission. Signal quality
is a function of a premise's distance to the base tower, and weaker
signals can be expected at more distant premises or those lacking line
of sight to the base tower. Capacity is also dependent on available
spectrum, network density, and others' consumption within the network
area. If household density within the coverage area is high and a large
volume of consumers use the network at the same time, network capacity
may be impeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Estimate from current industry experts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of typical speed, FWA is the lowest at 30-300/5-20 Mbps,
making it a less suitable option for high-usage households and more
poorly positioned to accommodate increased usage per household over
time, barring further innovation. Latency is also the longest for this
technology, at 30-40 ms. This makes FWA the least suitable option for
applications like VR/AR and gaming that rely on low latency for
operation. When service is unstable and prone to disruption, education
lessons can be derailed and learning is lost; health care delivery can
be interrupted; or government services may not be used. A stable,
uninterrupted online experience is critical to incentivizing investment
in and adoption of essential services.
Ultimately, FWA is best positioned for use cases in rural and
suburban geographies where low infrastructure requirements position the
technology as an economical and quickly scalable solution, or in urban
areas where it can be used for supplementary coverage in addition to
existing fixed wired infrastructure. Additionally, it should be noted
that the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program (BEAD), which
is the largest of the upcoming Federal funding opportunities, considers
most forms of FWA technologies to be unreliable and therefore
ineligible for BEAD outside of extreme circumstances.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program. (2022).
Notice of funding opportunity. https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/
default/files/2022-05/BEAD%20NOFO.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
Fiber's superior capacity, speed, scalability, and reliability
relative to alternative types of infrastructure position it as the most
future-proof technology. For this reason, fiber should be the first
choice for deployment where it is not cost prohibitive. It should also
be noted that the BEAD Notice of Funding Opportunity is written such
that states must consider fiber projects as ``priority projects.''
As a category, fixed wired broadband is recognized for increased
signal reliability, lower ongoing operating costs, and faster latency
than FWA. If fiber cannot be deployed because the economic or
logistical case is restrictive, cable could be used. Where these
options are not viable, FWA can then be considered. FWA's lower up-
front capital requirements and faster time to market have driven
increasing adoption in rural and suburban areas where wired
infrastructure either does not exist or cannot sufficiently support
local communities. While FWA's less capital intensive and easily
deployable base station infrastructure makes it well suited for these
use cases, lack of signal reliability, reduced speed, and slower
latency compared to fixed wired options make it a technologically
inferior option, particularly for higher-density use cases.
Section 3: How Federal Funds Can Close the Digital Divide and Ensure
Equitable Access to Essential Services
The once-in-a-generation opportunity
In 2021, Congress committed more than $80 billion for broad-band
through two major Federal laws: the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The programs these
laws created are unique for five main reasons:
Large size--they are the largest single investment in
broadband in America's history;
Strong infrastructure requirements--recipients must
prioritize high-quality, fiber networks;
Focus on affordability--subsidizes Internet service for low-
income households and requires networks to offer affordable
Internet service;
Support for inclusion--the funds prioritize digital equity
initiatives and stakeholder engagement;
Administrative processes--individual states, rather than
Federal agencies, are in charge of implementation.
See Figure 10 for a comprehensive look at funding amounts, uses,
and timelines.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program
The bulk of the IIJA's broadband funding comes through the
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program (BEAD), which is
designed to deploy (i.e., build) broadband infrastructure in areas that
lack it. Critically, networks built with BEAD money must prioritize
fiber infrastructure, offer speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps, meet
affordability standards, and provide service to all households in a
funded area. If BEAD's requirements are met, the resulting networks
will likely be sufficient for institutions to confidently invest in
internet-based technologies.
BEAD funds will be allocated to each state based on the size of
their digital divide, as measured according to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)'s broadband availability map. BEAD
requires states to sequence projects in a series of tiers, and a state
must complete (or have a plan to complete) each tier before progressing
to the next. Tier 1 consists of deployment in ``unserved'' areas where
residents lack service of at least 25/3 Mbps. Tier 2 consists of
deployment in ``underserved'' areas where residents lack service of at
least 100/20 Mbps. And Tier 3 includes both deployment to community
anchor institutions with service below 1/1 Gbps and/or other
connectivity projects, like device programs. For most states, the
majority of BEAD funds are expected to be absorbed by Tiers 1 and 2.
The Digital Equity Act Programs
The IIJA created a suite of first-of-their-kind programs to fund
digital literacy and inclusion initiatives. These programs--the State
Digital Equity Planning and Capacity Grant Program and the Digital
Equity Competitive Grant Program--fund non-infrastructure initiatives
like digital navigators and digital skill training. The State Digital
Equity Planning and Capacity Grant Program, like BEAD, allocates money
to states based on the size of their digital divide, and states then
use this money to create and implement Digital Equity Plans.
Conversely, the Competitive Grant Program awards funds directly to
nonstate entities, like nonprofits and local institutions, through a
competitive grant process.
From an institutional perspective, these programs are important
because many disconnected individuals are unfamiliar with technology,
and this can prevent them from using an institution's online services.
Access to the Internet and devices, by itself, is not sufficient;
people must also be trained in the use of these technologies. Helping
vulnerable populations develop these skills is the purpose of Digital
Equity Act programs.
The Affordable Connectivity Program
The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is a consumer subsidy to
help individual households afford Internet service and devices. It is a
continuation and modification of the Emergency Broadband Benefit, which
was created during the pandemic. The ACP gives eligible households $30
per month for Internet service ($75 for households on tribal lands) and
a one-time $100 discount for a device. Critically, the monthly discount
can result in free Internet service when combined with ISPs' low-cost
(i.e., $30 or less) plans. Approximately 48 million households (40
percent of U.S. households) qualify. Qualification requires a household
income below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line and/or
participation in certain government assistance programs, such as SNAP,
Medicaid, and Free and Reduced-Price School Lunch.
Research has shown that, among un- and under-connected households,
cost is cited as one of, if not the main barriers to Internet
adoption.\57\,\58\ The ACP can help these households
overcome this barrier. Institutions can leverage the ACP by raising
awareness and helping households enroll. Notably, the ACP does not
currently have a permanent source of funding, and, unless additional
funding is secured, the ACP will exist only until its original
appropriation is depleted, which may be as early as 2024 or 2025.\59\
Given the importance of affordable connectivity, institutions should
consider advocating for additional ACP funding or an equivalent state
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ California Emerging Technology Fund and University of Southern
California. (2021). Statewide Survey on Broadband Adoption 2021.
https://www.cetfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/
Annual_Survey_2021_CETF_ USC_Final_Summary_Report_CETF_A.pdf#page=20.
\58\ Pew Research Center. (2021).--Mobile Technology and Home
Broadband 2021.--https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/
uploads/sites/9/2021/06/PI_2021.06.03_Mobile-Broadband_FINAL.pdf.
\59\ Institute for Local Self-Reliance. (2022). Affordable
connectivity program dashboard. https://apps.communitynets.org/
acpdashboard/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Rescue Plan Act
The Capital Projects Fund
The Capital Projects Fund (CPF) is the most flexible of all the
available broadband programs. Like BEAD, it is allocated to states
according to a formula,\60\ and states are in charge of implementation.
Unlike BEAD, it does not prioritize deployment in unserved areas.
Rather, it can be used in a wider range of locations and on a variety
of initiatives, such as devices programs, affordability programs, and
community centers. Moreover, where it is used for deployment, the
resulting networks should offer 100/100 Mbps where feasible, which is a
higher standard than BEAD. As of early September 2022, the U.S.
Department of Treasury had announced approval of grants for 13 states
and over 50 tribal plans.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2021). Coronavirus capital
projects fund allocations for states, District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Allocations-
States.pdf.
\61\ U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2022). Capital projects
fund. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-
for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/capital-projects-fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States should consider how they coordinate CPF with BEAD and other
funds. Due to its flexibility, CPF is a good program for connecting
areas that do not meet the technical definition of ``unserved'' (which
is BEAD's focus). Similarly, CPF is a solution for non-deployment
issues, such as a lack of devices. Certainly, access to Internet
infrastructure is critical, but individuals must also be able to afford
Internet service, have a device capable of running key applications,
and have the skills to use these technologies. CPF is capable of
addressing all of these needs.
Finally, as the deadline for CPF grant plans was September 24,
2022, state policymakers should consider replicating the structure and
the rules of the CPF at the state level. Once funding through BEAD is
allocated to projects, states will have a clearer picture of which
communities require additional support. The CPF program, with its
strong requirements and flexibility, offers a good template for how to
design a post-BEAD state grant program because it can address the
majority of expected broadband costs, like expanding or upgrading
infrastructure networks, making home connectivity and devices more
affordable, and sustaining digital inclusion programming.
The Emergency Connectivity Fund
The Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) was created to ensure
continuing access to education despite pandemic induced disruptions to
learning. It did this by giving schools and libraries funds to purchase
Internet service and devices for students and teachers to use at home--
a use not covered by existing Federal programs.
The ECF has proven incredibly effective. As of September 2022, it
has enabled schools and libraries in every U.S. state and territory to
purchase a combined 11.5 million devices and 7.5 million Internet
service connections. Moreover, it has done this in a way that ensures
quality and cost efficiency. It allows institutions to:
Engage in bulk purchasing, lowering the average price per
device;
Choose which technologies are procured (for both devices and
Internet service), ensuring the technologies can support the
curriculum, are suitable for student connectivity needs, and
integrate with existing technology and tech support;
Ensure that all students and teachers have connectivity and
devices, enabling institutions to incorporate internet-based
technologies into their standard educational services without
leaving anyone behind.
However, the ECF's funding will soon be depleted, and when it is,
the 13 million students it is connecting will be at risk of falling
back into the digital divide. States and their institutional partners
can prevent this by using state resources, such as the CPF or other
funding sources, to implement state versions of the ECF. This would
allow the state to maintain connectivity afforded by ECF and
potentially improve the program to incorporate teacher training, IT
resources, and digital inclusion programming.
What families can accomplish with 100/20 Mbps broadband speeds
As detailed above, Federal programs are designed to deploy
broadband infrastructure that meets or exceeds speeds of 100/20 Mbps.
100/20 Mbps is sufficient for many current uses, but it may struggle to
support future applications and/or multiple simultaneous users. States
should therefore build infrastructure with the understanding that 100/
20 Mbps is the minimum speed that households need for current uses, but
future uses may require higher speeds. As explained in Section 2, fiber
infrastructure has the advantage of being able to easily meet higher
speed requirements.
States should therefore build infrastructure with the
understanding that 100/20 Mbps is the minimum speed that
households need for current uses, but future uses may require
higher speeds.
In 2015, the FCC set 25/3 Mbps as the minimum speed required to be
considered ``served'' by broadband.\62\ However, usage has since
increased, especially as a result of the pandemic. And this usage is
not expected to wane; online activities have become a routine part of
everyday life, and adoption of AR/VR and data streaming technologies
will demand increased speeds. See Figure 11 for examples of the
bandwidth requirements and applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Fung, B. (2015). The FCC has set a new, faster definition for
broadband. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2015/01/29/the-fcc-has-set-a-new-faster-definition-for-
broadband/.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 12 shows typical broadband usage of a four-person family
both now and in the future. Households require access to at least 100/
20 Mbps to seamlessly complete everyday tasks. While this is the
minimum speed required today, the use of AR/VR and similar applications
will quickly push speed demands beyond a 100/20 Mbps standard. As
public entities think about future broadband infrastructure, this
growth needs to be considered. This finding underscores the conclusion
of Section 2: Fiber's superior capacity, speed, and reliability
position it as the most future-proof technology. Fiber should thus be
the first choice for deployment where it is not cost prohibitive.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
How States Should Use Federal Funds
To reach universal connectivity and ensure that all households have
access to the Internet with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps, states
should take action to effectively deploy the funds. Doing so ensures
the highest return on investment and sets states up for continued
investment and adoption of essential services. Prior Common Sense
reports have discussed high-level policy actions that states can take
to invest in closing the digital divide.\63\ As summarized in Figure
13, this section builds on that work with more in-depth steps and
recommendations for states in light of the recent legislation and
influx of funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Ali, T., Chandra, S., Cherukumilli, S., Fazlullah, A.,
Galicia, E., Hill, H., McAlpine, N., McBride, L., Vaduganathan, N.,
Weiss, D. & Wu, M. (2021). Looking back, looking forward: What it will
take to permanently close the K-12 digital divide. Common Sense Media.
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/
files/final_-_what_it_will_
take_to_permanently_close_the_k-12_digital_divide_vfeb3.pdf.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
1. Build State Capacity
First, states should work to understand the funding and technical
requirements of the IIJA. The IIJA's programs are complicated and
require states to comply with rules that cover a range of subjects,
from labor laws to climate impact and cybersecurity. An approximate
time line of next steps follows in Figure 14. For up-to-date guidance
on submission requirements, see the NTIA's Internet for All
website.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) Internet for All website. https://www.internetforall.gov/
programs.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Successful implementation of these programs will require a
dedicated and fully staffed broadband office. In addition to program
implementation, offices will serve as central hubs to share best
practices and technical assistance, convene stakeholders, and hold
forums for sharing ideas with other regions. An ideal broadband office
requires expertise that spans a range of roles, as demonstrated in
Figure 15. These roles are illustrative of the practices and
responsibilities of an ideal broadband office, but they should be
adapted to the unique needs of each state.
The roles and responsibilities within an ideal broadband office
include:
Broadband Office Director. Acts as a central resource hub
and strategy coordinator, overseeing all director and manager
roles within the broadband office. Institutes working groups
across stakeholders to facilitate discussions that can inform
policy, strategy, and planning. Builds the office's
capabilities and capacity, and supervises the launch, pilot,
and expansion of major broadband programs.
Broadband Infrastructure and Grants Manager. Identifies
geographies for broadband infrastructure projects. Oversees the
design of a subgrantee and grants management process,
understanding that grants evaluation will require technical,
financial, and legal expertise to expertly vet grantees for
award. Leads the grants evaluation team and administers funding
according to the principles established by the office's
broadband strategy. Establishes internal reporting requirements
against which grant performance will need to be tracked, and
leads Federal funding reporting to ensure successful program
delivery and compliance.
Community Engagement Manager. Designs a strategy to engage
with stakeholders across the full digital equity ecosystem,
including public entities, ISPs, anchor institutions, and CBOs.
Understands the needs and local expertise of these
stakeholders, which will be critical in ensuring successful
broadband program delivery. Prepares proposals for the use of
BEAD funds in collaboration with these stakeholders, as
collaboration is a requirement of the BEAD application process.
Leads technical assistance with the implementation of
community-level digital equity plans, and acts as a point of
state support for local leaders. Participates in stakeholder
program planning; helps stakeholders understand how they are
impacted by the digital divide, where they have programmatic or
funding needs, and what goals need to be established to ensure
shortfalls are addressed. Helps build capacity to ensure
broadband projects are successfully delivered at the local
level.
Strategic Planning Director. Spearheads the development of
statewide broadband plans, which should incorporate clear
metrics, KPIs, and time lines to ensure successful delivery.
Serves as an expert on Federal developments in broadband
policy, while also analyzing developments in the programs and
policies of peer states to ensure continued implementation of
best practices. (This will be critical in ensuring that best
practices are incorporated in the planning process.) Uses
expertise to inform and write BEAD and other funding proposals,
while documenting existing funding and program efforts across
the state.
Digital Equity Planning Director. Spearheads and builds
long-term digital equity plans, programming, and capacity.
Establishes clear goals and KPIs for programs to ensure
continued year-over-year measurement. Serves as a strategy and
policy expert for ongoing digital equity projects and engages
stakeholders across the full ecosystem to ensure expertise
represents various perspectives. Works closely with the
Strategic Planning Director to build programming, and sets best
practices related to digital equity across the broadband
office. NDIA provides a list of suggested activities for
digital equity offices,\65\ including coordinating digital
inclusion activities; developing digital equity policy;
coordinating funding; strengthening digital equity ecosystems;
educating policymakers, local governments, and stakeholders on
digital equity and inclusion; guiding digital equity research
and data use; and piloting scalable digital inclusion models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Huffman, A. (2021). Defining a state digital equity
office.National Digital Inclusion Alliance. https://
www.digitalinclusion.org/defining-a-state-digital-equity-office/
Program Planning and Evaluation Director. Serves as a leader
in ensuring that the state's broadband plan is adopted and
implemented. Evaluates the performance of the program against
predetermined goals and identifies areas to refine and build
out future programs. Collaborates with other directors and
managers within the office based on findings to ensure that
their respective initiatives are lean and on track for success.
Prepares public-facing reports in concert with this evaluation
to inform stakeholders of existing program progress and include
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
plans for future program development.
North Carolina offers an example of a broadband office that is
investing in helping counties with their own digital equity efforts.
The state established the Nation's first state Office of Digital Equity
and Literacy, which is housed within the Department of Information
Technology, Division of Broadband and Digital Equity (DBDE). In
addition to investing substantially in digital infrastructure, the
state allocated $50 million in a digital literacy awareness campaign.
It is also providing an important technical assistance role, helping 18
counties in the state to develop their own digital equity plans and
providing a digital inclusion plan template to guide county-level
digital inclusion planning.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Bergson-Shilcock, A. (2022). States are leading the way on
digital equity. National Skills Coalition. https://
nationalskillscoalition.org/blog/digital-equity/states-are-leading-the-
way-on-digital-equity/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Kelly of Kansas also created an Office of Broadband
Development housed in the Kansas Department of Commerce to deliver a
coordinated statewide approach to broadband strategy. In the creation
of this office, the governor emphasized the importance of connectivity
for economic development, education, and healthcare. The governor also
noted that the promise of telemedicine to transform health care would
be undermined without sufficient internet.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Carpenter, T. (2020). Gov. Laura Kelly signals new wave of
broadband development in Kansas. Kansas Reflector. https://
kansasreflector.com/2020/10/08/gov-laura-kelly-signals-new-wave-of-
broadband-development-in-kansas/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Map the Divide
In late 2022, the FCC is expected to release new broadband maps
that will show, down to the address level, where broadband is available
and where it is not. The NTIA will then use these FCC maps to do two
things: allocate BEAD funding to each state based on the relative size
of their digital divide, and determine where a state should prioritize
BEAD deployment. However, the existence of these FCC maps does not
negate the need for states to create their own state maps. In fact, the
need for state maps is perhaps greater than ever.
State maps have several uses that will be vital to the success of
Federal programs. First, state maps can help verify the accuracy of the
FCC's maps. The FCC maps, like all new maps, will have flaws, and so
the FCC will open a challenge process by which states and the general
public can suggest corrections. If a state has its own maps and data,
it will be more effective in the challenge process and thereby ensure a
better implementation of BEAD. Second, state maps can capture details
which will not be included in the FCC maps, such as broadband access
within multi-dwelling units (e.g., apartment buildings), the cost of
available Internet services, the prevalence of digital skills and
devices, and other such barriers to adoption. These additional metrics
will be useful to understand all aspects of the digital divide and
inform Digital Equity Act goals. Third, the state mapping process can
provide a venue for states, ISPs, and community organizations to build
a shared vision of the digital divide and align on priority projects.
Finally, state maps will help states to independently anticipate
project costs, evaluate the progress, and hold grantees accountable.
We recognize that obtaining household-level connectivity data can
be difficult. To collect community-level data, states should enable and
partner with community institutions that have a close relationship with
households (e.g., schools, public housing, and public health).One of
the simplest ways to do this is by incorporating questions about
connectivity into existing surveys. Such questions, also known as
digital needs assessments (DNAs), can provide a snapshot of a
community's connectivity. DNAs should measure a variety of metrics,
including the availability, quality, and price of devices and Internet
service; an individual's comfort and skills with technology; and an
individual's reliance on public Wi-Fi.\68\ DNAs should also be
conducted on a recurring basis and, where possible, tied to location
and demographic information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Council of Chief State School Officers. (2020). Home digital
access data collection: Blueprint for state education leaders. https://
ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/7.22.20_CCSSO%20
Home%20Digital%20Access%20Data%20
Collection%20Blueprint%20for%20State%20Leaders.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example, in 2022 Virginia passed S.B. 724,\69\ which requires
schools to add questions about home connectivity to their existing
student surveys. Schools already routinely survey their students, and
so, by adding questions about household connectivity, Virginia has
found a simple way to collect broadband data. This will be useful for
communities looking to unlock Federal funds. Similarly, the Colorado
Office of the Future of Work collaborated with the Department of Public
Health & Environment to include questions on digital skills in a health
survey.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Text of Virginia State Bill 724. https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-
bin/legp604.exe?221+ful+SB724.
\70\ Bergson-Shilcock, A. (2022). States are leading the way on
digital equity. National Skills Coalition. https://
nationalskillscoalition.org/blog/digital-equity/states-are-leading-the-
way-on-digital-equity/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond DNAs, states can collect data using more specialized
institutional tools.\71\ In California, the nonprofit California
Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) administers a ``Statewide Survey on
Broadband Adoption.'' This helps California understand statewide trends
in adoption among vulnerable communities.\72\ Similarly, North Carolina
has a set of visual dashboards that track a range of connectivity
indicators, including fixed and cellular coverage, service cost, and
upload and download speeds. The dashboards are updated daily and can be
disaggregated by county to show areas of specific need.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Ritzo, C., Rhinesmith, C., & Jiang, J. (2022). Measuring
library broadband networks to address knowledge gaps and data caps.
Information Technology and Libraries, 41(3). https://doi.org/10.6017/
ital.v41i3.13775.
\72\ California Emerging Technology Fund. (n.d.) Statewide surveys:
California broadband adoption by the numbers. https://www.cetfund.org/
action-and-results/statewide-surveys/#::text=
CETF%20developed%20and%20sponsors%20the,from%2055%25%20to%2090%25.
\73\ North Carolina Department of Information Technology. (n.d.)
Broadband survey dashboards. https://www.ncbroadband.gov/broadband-
survey/broadband-survey-dashboards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Plan with Institutions
To unlock their full funding, the BEAD program and the State
Digital Equity and Capacity Grant program both require states to
develop detailed plans and submit them for Federal approval. Each of
these plans will require states to describe planned uses of the funds
and establish measurable goals.
One of the major requirements of these plans is that states
collaborate with community stakeholders. Specifically, BEAD's Five-Year
Action Plan and State Digital Equity Plans must describe a
comprehensive community engagement process, showing collaboration with
local, regional, and tribal entities. NTIA has released guidance on
Setting Up Initial Stakeholder Engagement\74\ and Planning a
Stakeholder Engagement Strategy.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA). (2022). Setting up initial stakeholder engagement. https://
broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/
Initiating%20Stakeholder%20Engagement.pdf.
\75\ NTIA. (2022). Planning a stakeholder engagement strategy.
https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc
.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/
Planning%20a%20Stakeholder%20Engagement%20Strategy
.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These plans should also incorporate a vision for how broad-band
infrastructure and digital equity initiatives will enhance
institutional services. To ensure plans meet institutional needs,
states should include institutional stakeholders in the planning
process as early as possible. For example, a state broadband office
might collaborate with the state's Department of Education to
understand connectivity requirements for online learning in the
state.\76\ Similarly, the state could work with the Department of
Health to understand the connectivity requirements for innovations in
public health. States can also connect with nonprofit organizations,
like the School, Health, and Libraries Broadband Coalition (SHLB)\77\
and the National League of Cities (NLC),\78\ to understand the unique
needs of their institutional members and the communities they serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Common Sense Media's prior report, Closing the K-12 digital
divide in the age of distance learning, provides a guide on technical
requirements for various elements of digital learning. https://
www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/
common_sense_
media_report_final_7_1_3pm_web.pdf
\77\ School, Health, and Libraries Broadband Coalition (SHLB)
website. https://www.shlb.org/
\78\ National League of Cities website. https://www.nlc.org/topic/
technology/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutions can help build state broadband plans in a variety of
ways, including but not limited to:
Defining technical requirements (e.g., broadband speeds,
latency, jitter, and device capabilities) needed for current
and future internet-based services;
Articulating the digital skills needed to use internet-based
institutional services. Clearly defined skills will help states
create comprehensive digital equity plans;
Including local communities in digital divide efforts. For
example, by distributing resources and surveys (as detailed
above), promoting ACP adoption (as detailed below), or
encouraging public participation in the planning process;
Conducting research on the impact of broadband connectivity
on education, healthcare, and other essential services.
Once stakeholders align on strategy, states should develop public-
facing documentation of the goals and road map. This will increase
transparency, allow for more informed public feedback, and promote
accountability. New York,\79\ North Carolina,\80\ Texas,\81\ and other
states\82\ offer good examples of a comprehensive, transparent planning
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ New York State ConnectALL Initiative website. https://
broadband.ny.gov/.
\80\ North Carolina Department of Information Technology. (n.d.)
North Carolina's digital divide. https://www.ncbroadband.gov/digital-
divide.
\81\ Texas Broadband Development Office. (2022). Texas broadband
plan. https://comptroller.texas.gov/ programs/broadband/plan.php.
\82\ A full list of state broadband plans is available on the NTIA
website: https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/ resources/states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Promote the ACP
Historically, ISPs have prioritized investments in areas with a
high concentration of potential customers. These areas, typically
populous and/or affluent, are more likely to generate return on
investment (ROI), an important consideration when building something
with high up-front cost like a broadband network. However, this pursuit
of reliable ROI has meant that ISPs neglect lower-income and rural
areas, which have unreliable ROI.
The ACP can change this calculation. With widespread enrollment,
the ACP could turn lower-income communities into a reliable source of
ROI. This would make them attractive to existing ISPs and could even
support the development of new ISPs. By doing so, the ACP could bring
connectivity to digitally redlined communities and potentially foster
competition in the broadband market (see Figure 16, page 31).
However, research shows that there is a general lack of awareness
of the ACP, and the application processes can discourage enrollment,
especially among individuals with low digital literacy.\83\ Therefore,
states should support institutions and other community-based
organizations to promote enrollment in the ACP as a means of
incentivizing infrastructure investment in digitally redlined
communities. This will be especially important in the coming years as
ISPs decide where to apply for BEAD grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Goodchild, C., Hill, H., Kalmus, M., Lee, J. & Webb, D.
(2022). Boosting broadband adoption and remote K-12 education in low-
income households. Boston Consulting Group. https://mkt-bcg-com-public-
pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/accelerating-broadband-adoption-for-remote-
educa
tion-low-income-households.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 17 (see page 270) shows how the ACP improves ROI
calculations for ISPs. Our analysis finds that the ACP reduces the per-
household subsidy required to incentivize ISP investment by $500.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The ACP improves the economic case for deployment for several
reasons:
1. It effectively lowers the cost of service and thereby increases
the take-up rate (i.e., the percentage of households that
subscribe to Internet service).
2. ACP subscribers have lower churn (i.e., fewer cancellations per
month). Because their bill is subsidized by the government, an
ACP household's ability to subscribe is less contingent on
income and employment. For similar reasons, ACP households are
also less likely to voluntarily churn because some price
sensitivity is removed. Moreover, ACP customers are less likely
to switch service providers because the burden of signing up
with a government benefit is higher.
3. ACP subscribers are easier for ISPs to acquire. Governments and
philanthropies are funding awareness campaigns, and community
organizations are assisting with enrollment. These activities
reduce the marketing costs needed to acquire ACP
subscribers.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Kalmus, M., Hill, H., Lee, J., Goodchild, C. & Webb, D.
(2022). A human approach to closing the digital divide. Boston
Consulting Group. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/how-to
-close-digital-divide-with-human-approach.
States should work with institutions to promote enrollment in the
ACP. Common Sense, in partnership with the Digital Equity Institute and
Arizona State University (ASU), demonstrates one way this can be done.
Together, these partners are running an ACP marketing campaign in
Phoenix, Arizona, that is designed to overcome the three main barriers
to ACP adoption:\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Common Sense Media. (2022). Common Sense Media launches
campaign in Arizona to help families apply for free internet. https://
www.commonsensemedia.org/press-releases/common-
sense-media-launches-campaign-in-arizona-to-help-families-apply-for-
free-internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Lack of awareness of and trust in the ACP;
2. The ACP's complicated enrollment process, particularly for
disconnected households;
3. Lack of digital skills among the ACP's target population.
The campaign uses traditional marketing (e.g., TV, radio, digital,
physical) to raise awareness in high-eligibility areas. The marketing
highlights the potential for free Internet and/or cost savings. The
marketing is co-branded with trusted local organizations to
differentiate the ACP from similar sounding but less trusted ISP
offers. It also emphasizes the ACP's status as a new federally
guaranteed benefit and highlights the potential to get free Internet
service.
Interested individuals are offered two methods to enroll: a website
and a phone hotline. The website allows individuals to quickly and
easily enroll themselves. But, being an online website, it requires an
Internet connection and digital skills to access, which the ACP's
target population may not have. The hotline is designed to provide an
offline alternative. It allows callers--both those without connectivity
and those who simply need extra help--to get customized, one-on-one
guidance from an ACP enrollment specialist. This level of support can
be critical to overcoming the myriad issues that can arise during the
enrollment process. Finally, both the website and the hotline offer
users digital inclusion resources, which help newly connected
individuals successfully use the internet. In this way, the ACP can be
used to attract disconnected and low-income households into the digital
inclusion ecosystem.
The California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) is leading a similar
campaign in California.\86\ CETF's goal is to achieve 90 percent
enrollment, and they are tracking their progress through a partnership
with the University of Southern California (USC). CETF and USC have
built a data dashboard that calculates ACP eligibility and enrollment
at the county and ZIP code level,\87\ which allows CETF to precisely
target its outreach and better coordinate with local partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Walters, S. (2022). How Los Angeles county is boosting
broadband subsidy enrollment. California Emerging Technology Fund.
https://www.cetfund.org/how-los-angeles-county-is-boosting
-broadband-subsidy-enrollment/.
\87\ California Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) Enrollment
dashboard. https://www
.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/8c0249a9de8d404a9b49966fb824b728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These campaigns demonstrate how institutions can play a key role in
promoting the ACP. ASU is using its tech support center as a hotline to
provide the community with digital navigator services, and USC is using
its capacity for data analysis to monitor and refine ACP outreach. By
promoting enrollment in the ACP, states and institutions can help
connect low-income communities and potentially incentivize deployment
in the areas that need it most.
5. Create Sustainable Funding and Policy
To ensure the current broadband opportunity results in lasting
progress, states should create policy ecosystems that incentivize
competition, sustainable funding, and consumer protections.
States can encourage competition by making nontraditional broadband
providers (e.g., community broadband providers, electric cooperatives,
and public-private partnerships) eligible for current and future
broadband programs.\88\ While their eligibility will not guarantee that
communities build their own networks, it will allow the possibility
where communities are interested. And often, the simple act of allowing
robust com-petition and new market entrants is enough to result in
higher-quality projects from existing providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Weng, S. (2022). Could investments in community broadband
bridge the digital divide? Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/
urban-wire/could-investments-community-broadband-bridge-digital-divide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States should also ensure that they have sustainable sources of
funding for local broadband initiatives. To date, funding for such
initiatives has been insufficient to close the digital divide.\89\ One
reason is that funding opportunities, including recent Federal
programs, are often time limited. While the upcoming funds provide an
unprecedented amount of support, states should also identify and/or
create more long-term sources that are not reliant on stimulus or
short-term grants. In addition, states should seek to maximize
available funding. For example, combine Capital Project Funds with BEAD
funds to achieve more comprehensive projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Ali, T., Chandra, S., Cherukumilli, S., Fazlullah, A.,
Galicia, E., Hill, H., McAlpine, N., McBride, L., Vaduganathan, N.,
Weiss, D. & Wu, M. (2021). Looking back, looking forward: What it will
take to permanently close the K-12 digital divide. Common Sense Media.
https://
www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/
final_-_what_it_will_
take_to_permanently_close_ the_k-12_ digital_divide _vfeb3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One example is the Connect Illinois program, which is making an
over $400 million investment to bring universal broadband access to the
state by 2024. It is doing this by leveraging a combination of public,
private, nonprofit, and philanthropic funding opportunities. Similarly,
the California Department of Education raised over $18 million from 138
donors, enabling the state to distribute 1.1 million devices and
100,000 hotspots to students across 97 percent of counties.\90\
Finally, the New York Digital Inclusion Fund, which is funded by
Schmidt Futures and managed by NDIA, will support digital inclusion
coalitions and innovative partnerships to increase connectivity.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ CDE Foundation. (n.d.). CA digital divide fund. https://
cdefoundation.org/digitaldivide
support/.
\91\ Benjamin, G.C. (2021). New York Digital Inclusion Fund opens
requests for proposals. National Digital Inclusion Alliance. https://
www.digitalinclusion.org/blog/2021/09/16/new-york
-digital-inclusion-fund-opens-requests-for-proposals/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States should also expand digital consumer protections to ensure
that, as broadband expands and online activities become increasingly
common, individuals' data and welfare is protected. To do this, states
should empower existing consumer protection agencies, such as public
utility commissions (PUCs) and offices of the attorney general (AG), to
track and audit broadband service offered by ISPs. This will help
states consider future broadband projects and identify ISPs that fail
to meet promised service obligations. Similarly, states should pass and
enforce measures to prevent ISPs from exploiting market dominance. For
example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) mandated, by
way of executive order, the elimination of data caps and overage
charges by ISPs. Additionally, to ensure privacy-protective practices
for data, state policymakers should provide clear guidance to ISPs,
schools, and other institutions as to how they should collect and share
data for government purposes (e.g., mapping, DNAs).\92\ Examples
include privacy protections such as those found in the California
Consumer Privacy Act \93\ and the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act,\94\ and platform accountability legislation like the
California Age Appropriate Design Code Act,\95\ which will protect
vulnerable new users from predatory online practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Common Sense Media. (2022). Maximizing Federal funding to
close the K-12 digital divide. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/
default/files/featured-content/files/homework_gap
_state_policy_primer.pdf.
\93\ California Consumer Privacy Act. https://ccpa-info.com/
california-consumer-privacy-act-full-text/.
\94\ Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. https://
www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?
DocName=09500SB2400&GA=95&SessionId=51&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=&DocNum=2400&G
A
ID=9&SpecSess=&Session=.
\95\ California Age Appropriate Design Code Act. https://
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bill
TextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
For decades, leaders in education, health care, workforce
development, and government have been cautious about integrating
internet-based technologies into institutional services, in part
because the benefit of these technologies--cost savings, service
improvement, expanded access--cannot be fully realized without causing
harm to those caught in the digital divide. Now, by making it possible
to close the divide, the IIJA and ARPA could unlock innovation within
these institutions for the benefit of all.
To take advantage of this opportunity, state leaders should:
Ensure that populations served by institutions are fully
connected . This means universal home access to fast, reliable,
and affordable Internet service and high-quality devices as
well as training in the skills to use them. If these conditions
are not met, then institutions will not be able to
comprehensively integrate internet-based technologies into
their services, and the entire public will suffer from the
missed opportunity.
Include institutions responsible for essential services in
the planning process for BEAD and the Digital Equity Act . To
ensure these plans meet the requirements of institutional
services, states should specifically include schools, health
care providers, local governments, business, and related
community organizations in their broadband planning processes.
These institutions can help define the technical specifications
(e.g., speeds, reliability, cost, device capabilities) and
technical skills needed to use their services.
Consider both online and offline services when drafting
plans. Plans that enable and encourage institutions to shift to
online services should also ensure that offline services remain
accessible, have similar functionality, and are specialized for
the needs of offline users. Moreover, consider designing
offline and low-bandwidth services so that they can be used
during emergencies and major Internet disruptions.
Prioritize fiber. The largest downside of fiber networks--
their cost--can be offset by current Federal funding programs.
Leverage this opportunity to build fiber networks that will
last for generations. Fiber networks provide the fastest and
most reliable service of any technology available; they have
the lowest operating costs; they are simpler and relatively
inexpensive to upgrade; and they are the most resilient to
usage increases, signal interference, weather, and natural
disasters.
Create broadband and digital equity funding programs at the
state level . Many current sources of funding are temporary.
Programs tied to emergency designations, like the ECF, may end,
and when they do, the connectivity they established could be
lost. Similarly, the recent Federal funding programs, big as
they are, are scheduled to end after five years. To maintain
universal connectivity in the absence of Federal funding,
states will need to create their own sources of state-level
funding. The CPF and ECF provide good models for such funding
programs. By funding devices, affordable service, flexible
deployment, and digital inclusion, these programs cover the
main ongoing costs of universal service.
Implement digital needs assessments through existing
institutional networks. Many institutions already collect data
on their community. By adding DNAs to these existing surveys,
states can easily collect data on connectivity, which can be
used to challenge FCC maps, target broadband deployment, and
measure the effectiveness of connectivity initiatives.
Use the ACP to incentivize deployment and competition . High
rates of ACP enrollment can make lower-income communities more
attractive to ISPs, driving deployment and new market entrants.
By promoting ACP enrollment, states can help to bring service
to historically underserved communities, creating more service
options and driving down prices for the whole community.
Use the ACP to drive high-quality, inclusive, and effective
use of connectivity. Use ACP awareness and enrollment campaigns
as a way to encourage lower-income households to adopt high-
quality Internet service and connect them to relevant digital
inclusion resources.
Update consumer protections as more people and services move
online. Consumer protections should encompass data privacy and
protect against abusive online practices. Empower existing
consumer protection agencies (e.g., public utility commissions
and the offices of the attorney general) to monitor, audit, and
respond to unfair or deceptive practices undertaken by
providers and other technology companies.
Appendix A: Support Analysis
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix B: Case Studies
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix C: Interviewees
Arizona State Library
Arizona State University
Baltimore Public Schools
California Labor Federation Workforce and Economic Development Program
Charlotte Regional Business Alliance
City of Portland Comcast
Connect Waukegan
EducationSuperHighway
Harvard Business School--Managing the Future of Work Project
HCS EdConnect & The Enterprise Center
Information Equity Initiative
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Insure the Uninsured Project
Land O'Lakes
McLaughlin School District
New York University Langone Health
Oregon Employment Department
Oregon Health Authority
Purdue Center for Regional Development
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine
Washoe County School District
World Education
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Kimball Sekaquaptewa
Middle Mile Infrastructure. In October, NTIA announced it received
235 applications asking for more than $5.5 billion to deploy middle
mile infrastructure. This existing middle mile program, however, only
has $1 billion in funding. Congress would need to provide additional
middle mile funding to meet this demand.
In addition to this demand, we've seen examples where partnerships
between electric utilities and broadband providers have used existing
middle mile facilities from utilities to help push broadband deployment
in Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Mississippi.
That is why, in the 117th Congress, Senator Capito and I introduced
the GRID Broadband Act (S. 4763), which would leverage existing
electrical grid infrastructure to produce cost-efficient, resilient,
and future-proof networks that increase connectivity in unserved and
underserved areas.
This legislation could create thousands of skilled jobs, enhance
the capacity and resilience of our critical networks, reduce costs to
providers and consumers, and set the stage for sustained long-term
economic growth.
Question 1. How have middle mile network construction projects in
your community brought to expanding broadband connectivity in your
local communities?
Answer. It is a natural extension for electric utilities,
especially coops, to enter broadband with their extensive pole line
routes, not to mention billing systems, help desk, GIS databases, and
trucks that can roll for installs or repairs. Some challenges include
aging pole lines, which require replacement, or hunters' stray shots or
mylar birthday balloons frying lines (that did take down one our
networks). Buried fiber is still king but given the cost, the role of
existing utilities should be maximized. And the proximity to local
memberships living and working in those communities creates a
commitment to best serve local needs, whereas and in despite of high-
cost FCC subsides, the incumbent ISPs have not chosen to build out
their networks in vast swaths of rural America.
In our experience, the existence of middle-mile networks begets
last-mile deployments when the tribes act as ISPs. Our first two
middle-mile networks connecting six tribes were lit in 2018. And it was
these exact tribes that during the pandemic, were able to pivot and
stand up last mile residential services--and those with utility
departments can most easily transition for the above stated reasons. In
fact, when our schools closed in March 2020, one of these tribes
installed a fixed wireless network serving all homes for the start of
school in August 2020, only five months later. They were able to spend
a few hundred thousand dollars as opposed to the millions because the
middle mile network was already in place and the backhaul challenge was
already solved. And instead of years of construction they were able to
provide residential Internet access in a few months. During COVID-19
all six of the tribes with access to backhaul set up fixed wireless or
fiber-to-the-home.
It is our experience that reliable and affordable middle mile
service is vital to expanding and maintaining high quality, affordable
broadband connectivity. The open network requirement for current and
upcoming NTIA grants require reasonable access to middle mile network
resources for transit and transport, providing ISPs, community
networks, tribal networks, state education networks, etc. access to a
variety of Internet services, including backhaul. When entities have
access to middle-mile services they are able to implement their
networks in a wide variety of ways to meet individual needs and network
designs. This is opposed to the historic model that the incumbent ISPs
had proprietary networks and sold a few services, which I believe to be
an antiquated model in the evolution of the Internet. To prevent
competition, incumbents restricted the middle-mile resources either
through preventing access to dark fiber or charging extremely high
prices especially in rural areas perpetuating, if not creating the
digital divide. Breaking through that model with innovative new
entrants into the broadband space such as electric coops provides a
next generation approach to connect the least connected.
Question 2. Do you agree that additional investment in middle mile
infrastructure deployment will help bridge the digital divide?
Answer. Yes--robust middle-mile availability creates options for
all. In fact, I would say that the current IIJA middle mile grant for
$1 billion is well intended but underfunded. My current tribal
education middle mile project of 324 miles will be able to serve both
tribal and non-tribal lands in New Mexico, connecting rural tribes to a
carrier hotel in downtown Albuquerque. Along the way we can help
connect some of the most rural communities in New Mexico, whether as
community networks or to provide backhaul to ISPs serving those areas.
In this way middle-mile projects serve beyond the stated tribes in the
grant.
As New Mexico state efforts to inventory broadband assets are
learning, the existing middle mile resources are not always adequate
and therefore, are not robust enough or as resilient as we need for
immediate and future needs, i.e., scalability. A big piece of this
puzzle is affordable, reliable middle mile service. In order to ensure
all areas receive quality broadband service for everyone, it will be
important to ensure adequate middle mile service exists (for example,
to ensure all people are able to receive 100/100 Mbps at a minimum, a
certain level of middle mile capacity will be necessary).
Efficient Use of Broadband Funds. My home state of Washington
recently received substantial amounts of broadband funding, including
$64.3 million in Tribal Broadband grants to expand broadband access for
the Lummi Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
reservation.
However, as we know, receiving funding is only the first step.
Coordinating broadband deployment and ensuring that funds are used
effectively and quickly to provide connectivity to stakeholders are
certainly challenges.
Question 3. What more should Congress and Federal agencies be doing
to help communities with limited capacity use Federal broadband funds
effectively?
Answer. This is a very important question, as many TBCP grant
recipients will likely face challenges in the execution of the grants
not to mention day forward sustainability of operations and management.
From workforce training to management training, these new operations
will need on-going support for financial sustainability. In fact, many
are small operations where the revenue to provide home Internet access
will not be enough to pay for the operations. Nor should they be
expected to do so. The TBCP opportunity for tribes was created in
response to the fact that the market did not bear the return on
investment for private companies to invest in those areas, and for that
reason, they did not build out. Tribes now are solving the digital
divide on their own and new paths for sustainability funds need to be
identified. Access to universal service funds, such as Lifeline could
be made possible in the creation of broadband only ETC designations.
For Tribes, the Federal Communications Commission's most recent
broadband progress report shows that while the digital divide gap is
narrowing, it isn't narrowing at a fast enough pace to allow Tribal
Communities to keep at par with the rest of the United States. In
addition, middle mile infrastructure funding is only part of the
equation. The National Tribal Telecommunications Association recently
released a white paper entitled ``Evaluating the Critical Need for
Broadband Sustainability Funding on Rural Tribal Lands'' which goes
into detail about the need for Tribes to have the ability to sustain
broadband networks after these networks are constructed. Infrastructure
and sustainability deployment go hand in hand and should be addressed
cohesively.
For the recently awarded TBCP projects, Federal interagency
coordination and prioritization of broadband infrastructure projects in
the DOI and BIA are critical to successful on-time on-budget tribal
deployments. New Mexico tribes, including the SFIS Pueblo Education
Network (PEN), are proud to have recently earned nine TBCP grants to
date. The implementation and agency support of the November 2022
Department of Interior-Federal Communications Commission, and
Department of Commerce NTIA MOU is essential to the success of the NTIA
TBCP grants because historically the required DOI and BIA agency
approvals on infrastructure projects have had delays due to lack of
personnel resources, financial resources, prioritization, and
confusing/changing approval processes within the agency. If this MOU
elevates the need for interagency coordination and prioritizes the
required approvals, all tribes and tribal entities trying to implement
and execute the projects efficiently and compliantly will benefit.
Relative to the BIA in New Mexico, it is important to provide the
personnel and financial resources to the Southwest Regional Office
(SWRO) and its agencies, which includes Southern Pueblos Agency and
Zuni Agency. Those entities will need to engage with and work with the
respective Pueblo governments regarding any real estate approvals, land
title and records support, and environmental permitting approvals
required for the compliant construction tribal projects. Nationally,
all BIA regional offices and agencies need to be provisioned with the
necessary resources to support the current (and only first) wave of
TBCP projects that already should have started in the NEPA and Section
106 review processes.
Furthermore, the initial grant period for the TBCP program was a
year, with the possibility of a one-year extension that could be
included in the grant application. Given the real-world challenges of
lengthy Federal environmental assessments and the global supply chain
issues, the grant period can now be extended to four years. However,
the administrative costs are capped at 2 percent per statute, well
below tribal indirect cost rates, and cannot be increased in the
budgets. Therefore, the tribal entities will need to carry the
administrative costs for the extended grant period. As a result, TBCP
projects may require gap funding to complete projects and Congress as
well as NTIA could encourage state broadband planning to consider that
the effective use of Federal funds includes successful implementation
of these TBCP Federal grants in their state broadband planning and
grant fund development.
With respect to the tribes that have yet to apply for broadband
funding, namely the smaller less-resourced tribes, state outreach is
critical. In these cases, it will be vital to provide Tribes and
Tribally-owned or affiliated entities with the resources they can use
to prepare for grant-funded deployment. One example of this type of
assistance is California's Local Agency Technical Assistance program
and the Tribal Technical Assistance program, both of which provide
assistance for entities for pre-construction activities such as
engineering designs and feasibility analyses. Grant writers and post-
award compliance and Federal grant reporting professionals are in short
supply, requiring special attention as a workforce that needs to be
developed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Kimball Sekaquaptewa
Question 1. When the United States auctions spectrum located over
the lands of an Indian tribe it does not share any portion of the
proceeds with the tribe. Should it?
Answer. Given that Tribal governments are sovereign over their
lands, it seems that proceeds from the sale of spectrum over Tribal
lands should at least be shared with the Tribe. Senator Schatz's
``Tribal Spectrum Trust Fund Act of 2022'' certainly seems like a good
first step in repairing this historical inequity. If you think of the
airwaves as roadways, would not a fair market value to use the asset be
reasonable? Financial exchange in the form of profit sharing and right-
of-way and leases costs could motivate lessees to use the spectrum and
expand network services. Too often we see lessees or secondary market
lessees sitting on spectrum over tribal land neither providing services
nor allowing for tribes to use the spectrum for their own operations.
Also important is for tribes to have sovereign control over the
airwaves above us as with our other natural resources. That said, the
spectrum is currently leased and/or earmarked for specialized
applications, such as public safety, therefore requiring a dynamic
response to the issue at hand. At a minimum, the tribe should benefit
from services such as public safety services traversing their airwaves,
which might not always be a given. Before any FCC public auction,
tribes should be given the opportunity to lease the spectrum, such as
that which occurred for the first time ever in the 2020 Tribal Priority
Window for the 2.5 GHz band, formerly known as EBS. Tribes should also
be provided the first right of refusal for potential lessees through
meaningful tribal engagement ahead of, not after, the auctions.
Question 2. Please provide your analysis of how well the FCC's new
broadband maps portray the availability of broadband on tribal lands.
Should the FCC display tribal boundaries just as it displays state
boundaries, or at least allow that as an optional layer on its
nationwide map? Should the FCC provide the number of locations
associated with individual tribal areas, in addition to offering an
aggregated rollup of the number of tribal locations and tribal
broadband availability nationwide? Are there changes you believe the
FCC needs to adopt with respect to how it displays broadband
availability on tribal lands?
Answer. While the new National Broadband Map does allow for the
display of Tribal boundaries as an optional layer, there should be an
indication, that is easily accessible, of the number of locations
served and unserved with X speeds. In addition, it has been reported
that the locations included in the broadband fabric used in developing
the National Broadband Map is significantly less accurate in Tribal
areas than in other areas (for a variety of factors, including the lack
of USPS addresses). These issues need to be resolved before the
National Broadband Map can be relied upon to accurately reflect the
status of broadband deployment in Tribal areas.
In addition to the mapping interface and database features, the
workflow to engage in the mapping process is also important to
consider. Yes, the FCC map allows for individuals to challenge
availability, but putting this burden on the populace is less effective
than a Tribe completing batch challenges--a skill Tribes need help to
develop. In New Mexico, as part of the state BEAD planning, we have a
tribal outreach program. In brainstorming the most effective way to
improve tribal data, we skipped the webinar and the how-to videos.
Instead, we provided a day-long work session inviting the Tribes and
their designees from utility departments, housing departments, IT
staff, and GIS staff to bring a laptop to complete the location and
availability challenges. After an overview of the broadband mapping
goals and an introduction to the tools, we had state broadband office
GIS staff work with each tribe to see what the map currently showed and
identify a strategic path to complete the challenges. There was
significant variety in the best approach for the different Tribes and
the work is ongoing, but this level of support was required to improve
the accuracy of the National Broadband Map by the people who know their
communities the best.
In workforce training discussions relative to broadband
infrastructure, we often hear about fiber-optic technicians or tower
climbers but increasingly we need GIS specialists for Tribes to
participate advanced data efforts. The expert use of data is critical
to maximize funding eligibility, and less-resourced tribes without this
capability will be excluded from the process.
The NTIA Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program NOFO allowed for
tribal self-certification, providing tribes the chance to articulate
their access to affordable high-speed Internet on their lands. Internet
adoption in Tribal areas, often low-income, is also an affordability
issue not just an availability issue. One variable that the FCC
broadband map doesn't quite capture yet is affordability. Until such
time, companion documentation such as tribal self-certification, should
be accepted in Federal programs.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Kimball Sekaquaptewa
Effective and Efficient Deployment of Federal Funds. The
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act invested $65 billion in
broadband infrastructure, the largest investment our country has ever
made in broadband. We must now ensure that these funds are used
efficiently to get our communities connected quickly.
Question. What steps do you think Congress should take to ensure
that the historic investment in broadband that we made is deployed
efficiently and effectively?
Answer. For the upcoming allocation of the Broadband Equity, Access
and Deployment (BEAD) program funding, it appears that the NTIA and
states are moving forward prudently, and only time will tell if the
funding is effective. The most accurate data on FCC National Broadband
Map used to determine national formula funding for states is important
for effective use of the funds. To achieve the best data, balanced with
speedy allocation of the funds, an additional window to add location
challenges would add a lot of missing broadband serviceable locations
to the map. However, this is not likely before June 2023, NTIA's
formula funding deadline. Part of the challenge is that both the FCC
and NTIA have different statute-bound accountabilities calling into
question the expectations for interagency cooperation. Congress
monitoring interagency cooperation is an important piece of the puzzle.
A challenge of BEAD is that local governments and tribes are
eligible to apply but will find the eligibility requirements
functionally prevent successful participation. These barriers include a
minimum 25 percent match, audited financials, letters of credit, etc.
The prescriptive requirements in the development of the BEAD and
Digital Equity state plans, coupled with BEAD NOFO requirements
foreshadow what we can expect from the program. I believe that we will
find that BEAD is designed for the existing private sector who will
pick their next best markets as their preferred grant areas. I fear
that the most expensive rural and low-income communities will too
easily be missed because the application process is difficult and
requires both financial and personnel resources that may not be
available.
BEAD is not the only Federal broadband fund. For the effective and
efficient deployment of Federal funds, the GAO's ``Broadband: National
Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Broadband Programs'' identifies
broadband opportunities that may fit a specialized need such health
care or provide a broadband related planning for communities that are
not currently competitive for BEAD funding. Although difficult for
applicants to navigate the myriad of grants, there is a need for a
diversity of funds to provide for multi-faced broadband needs from
special sectors such education and health care to governmental and
business functions to adoption. There is a need for alignment of grant
processes but not at the cost of forcing a singular solution to a
highly complex and dynamic landscape.
Considering the Tribal digital divide, while narrowing, still
exists, the states should ensure that engagement with the Tribes occurs
to ensure Tribal broadband needs are met. In addition, please see above
as it relates to the effectiveness of infrastructure investment and the
interplay with sustainability funding. Effective investment cannot be
accomplished without considering how Tribes will be able to maintain
and sustain these networks into the future.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
Kimball Sekaquaptewa
Better Leveraging Broadband Funding for Tribal Communities. Nevada
is home to 28 Tribal Nations, which are spread across our vast state.
All of these Tribal communities have unique needs, but access to
affordable, high-speed Internet can dramatically improve the quality of
life and economic future of all Tribal Nations, especially those in
rural areas--including better health outcomes and improved job
prospects.
Question 1. Ms. Sekaquaptewa, under your leadership, New Mexico
tribal schools and libraries leveraged E-Rate funds to get fiber to
tribal schools and libraries. For Tribes across the country looking to
benefit from the BEAD, E-Rate, and other broadband grant programs, how
can they best leverage these funding sources to achieve more
connectivity for tribal communities?
Answer. It will be very important for states, for example, to
engage with Tribal governments when awarding BEAD grants to ensure
Tribal needs are met. Please also see above for Tribal challenges in
BEAD participation. Many states have begun this process, but there
needs to be more effort in state planning grant efforts and NOFO
development prior to BEAD funding awards.
We are fortunate that our New Mexico Office of Broadband Access and
Expansion has a positive relationship with tribes and has proactively
engaged tribes in the BEAD and Digital Equity planning. However, this
is not true in all states that have tribal lands. I believe that the
White House and NTIA are both responsible to hold states accountable to
include tribes in the planning and awarding of grants as expected per
statute. Unfortunately, while tribes and local governments are eligible
to apply for the BEAD, the smaller less-resourced tribes will not have
the resources or knowledge to engage in the BEAD process without
consistent and direct outreach.
For E-Rate, a key to our success was to build a consortium of
tribal schools and libraries. We took advantage of the E-rate self-
provisioned network eligibility to build a middle-mile network. This is
detailed in the American Library Association's, ``Built by E-Rate: A
Case Study of Two Tribally-Owned Fiber Networks and the Role of
Libraries in Making It Happen.'' We built an economy of scale by
clustering tribal communities within a geographic vicinity to apply
together in a network design that connects small and rural school and
libraries to higher education. Across the country, higher education
participates in extensive research and education networks and tapping
into these resources using E-rate can solve for Internet access while
also improving educational programming and potentially transforming K-
12 education.
The FCC Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF), a sister program to E-
rate conceived as a response to COVID-19, merits a permanent funding
stream. Unlike E-rate, ECF allows for schools to purchase devices and
Internet access for students to use at home, in their residences. This
was important during the COVID-19 lockdowns for remote learning. For
tribal homes, school-provided Internet and devices were the only tools
that students had to engage in learning. The pandemic has permanently
changed the expectation that students will use mobile devices on and
off campus every day. By virtue that ECF allows for schools to bulk
purchase the Internet instead of individual families, it is a unique
program that fills a critical niche. As rural tribal lands are well
established to be the least connected in the United States, the role of
education supported by ECF to connect tribal students as often their
only Internet lifeline is vital.
The pandemic also uplifted the issue of digital inclusion,
including digital equity and concepts of digital discrimination. The
IIJA funding opportunity for digital equity grant funding is an
opportunity for tribes. Tribes were eligible to apply for planning
funds, similar to a state. To do so, tribes completed a Letter of
Agency to NTIA to participate and will receive formula funding (TBD) to
create a digital equity plan in advance of the grant window. Most
tribes in the United States submitted the LOA. The success was a mixed
blessing, as the amount of funding divided by the number of
participating tribes reduced the expected allocation significantly.
Furthermore, the prescriptive elements required by NTIA for the digital
equity plan will be a challenge for small one staff libraries, small
tribal governments, or their designees. Coordinating the tribal efforts
for planning activities such as data collection will enable group
success. Folding the tribal efforts into state digital equity planning
is a strategy that would help the tribes and also help the state meet
their requirements for outreach and data collection.
Question 2. Ms. Sekaquaptewa, I also understand you have advocated
for leveraging E-Rate funding to construct middle-mile networks. As the
author of NTIA's Middle Mile Infrastructure Grant, I understand the
importance in investing in middle-mile networks and leveraging public-
private partnerships to deploy last mile networks. How can communities
use the Middle Mile Infrastructure Grant Program to tap into local
expertise to deploy broadband to the home?
Answer. The challenge of using E-rate for middle mile networks is
that the network use is limited to schools and libraries. In our NTIA
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP) award, it can be used for
all community needs. When we designed the middle-mile project
connecting three tribes over 324 miles, we looked at the route and
identified the municipalities, higher education, Federal research
facilities, K-12 schools and libraries, and tribes and met with them
during the planning period. Some heard of our project and sought us out
because they were struggling with their own connectivity issues and
were looking for opportunities and partnerships beyond what the current
market offered them. Planning with the higher education institutions
not just on routes, but collocation and network aggregation points
resulted in new regional opportunities for all.
Please see the previous comments on how the tribal middle-mile
network spring boarded the last mile deployments. For the TBCP program
and the tribes, we designed the middle-mile facilities to hand-off
transport Internet to the sovereign and independent last-mile networks.
We also offered technical assistance to help design fiber-to-the-home
networks and provide grant writing resources to the three tribes to
meet their last mile needs. These sister projects were awarded and now
the project teams meet as a cohort to achieve overall group success.
Our project team is comprised of a fiber engineer, network engineer,
environmental engineer, Federal grant specialist, attorney, and a
project director, all local professionals who are invested in the well-
being of our tribal communities and state. NTIA's Middle Mile
Infrastructure Grant can tap local expertise by awarding points for the
use of local vendors and building consortia that will naturally include
local stakeholders, achieve economies of scale, and harness subject
matter expertise.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Hon. Michael Powell
Question 1. When the United States auctions spectrum located over
the lands of an Indian tribe it does not share any portion of the
proceeds with the tribe. Should it?
Answer. Proceeds generated by spectrum auctions are deposited in
the U.S. Treasury unless otherwise specified by Congress. This enables
the expert technical agencies that oversee spectrum to make decisions
about spectrum allocation and access to spectrum in a manner that
promotes new and diverse entrants, including Tribal entities.
Question 2. Please provide your analysis of how well the FCC's new
broadband maps portray the availability of broadband on tribal lands.
Should the FCC display tribal boundaries just as it displays state
boundaries, or at least allow that as an optional layer on its
nationwide map? Should the FCC provide the number of locations
associated with individual tribal areas, in addition to offering an
aggregated rollup of the number of tribal locations and tribal
broadband availability nationwide? Are there changes you believe the
FCC needs to adopt with respect to how it displays broadband
availability on tribal lands?
Answer. The FCC met an important milestone with the release of the
first draft of its new broadband map, a marked improvement over prior
broadband availability maps. But it was only the first step and the
FCC's process allows for iterations to correct errors and omissions.
Additional information and data--such as tribal boundaries or areas
subject to enforceable commitments to deploy broadband--could help
Congress and other stakeholders evaluate the progress towards closing
the digital divide.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Hon. Michael Powell
Resilient Broadband Infrastructure. The best time to build
resilience into a network is before a disaster occurs.
Question 1. How are your members ensuring that new deployments
utilizing Federal funding will be able to withstand potential natural
disasters?
Answer. For all deployment and upgrades, NCTA members design
networks to be resilient by minimizing points of failure and ensuring
redundancy. Moreover, in every jurisdiction they serve, each company
has an emergency plan that includes preplanning for resiliency, plans
for during communications outages, as well as post-event analysis.
Given the variety of challenges confronted by NCTA members across the
country--from blizzards to wildfires, hurricanes to volcanos--
communications providers need the flexibility to tailor their
preparation and response to likely events in their specific
communities.
Question 2. How could current resilience rules be improved to
ensure that outages are less likely to occur?
Answer. First, one-size-fits-all approaches will not be effective.
Given the wide variety of scenarios that could affect network
resiliency, there must be flexibility to respond to changing facts on
the ground and apply best practices developed from previous
occurrences.
Second, modern communications networks are engineered to operate
with a commercial power source. Operators do have backup power systems
in place and are committed to maintaining power to the networks to
support first responders and critical facilities as long as conditions
are safe. However, communications companies' networks are not designed
to be a long-term replacement for commercial power and cannot replace
electric utility networks.
In light of the above, continued progress in coordination and
communication among service providers, electric utilities, and
emergency officials is crucial to improvement of recovery efforts and
prompt network restoration.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
Hon. Michael Powell
Ensuring Success in Digital Affordability Programs. Most rural
areas in Nevada have low Affordable Connectivity Program enrollment
rates, despite being the areas where this support is needed most and
could provide the greatest benefit.
Question. What do successful outreach and engagement strategies
look like, beyond the usual ``find trusted community partners and get
the word out''? And how can strategies that have been successful
elsewhere in the country be replicated in communities where enrollment
rates have been low?
Answer. Successful outreach and engagement strategies will need to
be tailored to the specific communities where enrollment rates are low.
The number of households that could subscribe to broadband today but
choose not to is significantly larger than the number of homes without
broadband service available at all. Promoting awareness of existing
adoption programs--like the Affordable Connectivity Program or
providers' own programs--continues to be a necessary component of the
strategy, and outreach by trusted voices within the community is often
more successful. But other barriers to adoption should also be
addressed, including lack of digital skills, lack of perceived
relevance, and the cost of obtaining and maintaining computer
equipment. Therefore, initiatives that include trusted ``digital
navigators'' (individuals trained to help people get online) can help
build essential digital skills and the confidence needed to prepare and
encourage non-adopters to take full advantage of digital opportunities.
Our members actively support and participate in such programs, and such
programs could be funded through either the Digital Equity Act or the
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Jonathan Spalter
Question 1. When the United States auctions spectrum located over
the lands of an Indian tribe it does not share any portion of the
proceeds with the tribe. Should it?
Answer. Spectrum is a national resource and as such, any proceeds
from a spectrum auction should be spent on national priorities as
determined by elected leaders.
Question 2. Please provide your analysis of how well the FCC's new
broadband maps portray the availability of broadband on tribal lands.
Should the FCC display tribal boundaries just as it displays state
boundaries, or at least allow that as an optional layer on its
nationwide map? Should the FCC provide the number of locations
associated with individual tribal areas, in addition to offering an
aggregated rollup of the number of tribal locations and tribal
broadband availability nationwide? Are there changes you believe the
FCC needs to adopt with respect to how it displays broadband
availability on tribal lands?
Answer. USTelecom and its members are committed to working closely
with the FCC to get the broadband maps right. We thank Congress for its
leadership in passing the Broadband DATA Act, and the FCC for its hard
work in getting the first iterations of the maps released.
Tribal lands have been historically under-connected, and USTelecom
and its members will continue to work with the FCC, NTIA, and tribal
leaders, to ensure 100 percent connectivity is achieved. An optional
layer in the FCC maps to display tribal boundaries, as the FCC does
with state boundaries, could be helpful in order to understand the
availability of broadband on tribal lands. However, as noted in Kimball
Sekaquaptewa's oral testimony, the FCC may not always have the ability
to collect the number of serviceable locations associated with
individual tribal areas unless tribes self-report.
USTelecom believes that good data are critical to ensuring the
success of the FCC maps in reporting broadband availability on tribal
lands and throughout the country. When it comes to tribal lands, it may
require relying on self-reported raw data from the tribes themselves.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Jonathan Spalter
Resilient Broadband Infrastructure. The best time to build
resilience into a network is before a disaster occurs.
Question 1. How are your members ensuring that new deployments
utilizing Federal funding will be able to withstand potential natural
disasters?
Answer. USTelecom members are committed to investing in redundancy
and resiliency for wireline broadband services. They are transitioning
away from legacy to next generation networks (i.e., copper to fiber)
wherever possible and laying fiber underground when the terrain allows.
USTelecom members are also spearheading voluntary initiatives aimed
at increasing network resiliency and preventing the harms caused by
disaster-driven outages. One such effort is the Cross-Sector Resiliency
Forum, which brings together representatives from the communications
and electric sectors to improve communication and coordination in
preparing for and responding to natural disasters. USTelecom members
also are proud to have been appointed to serve on President Biden's
National Infrastructure Advisory Council, which is focused on shaping
effective resiliency policies and protocols across the range of our
national critical infrastructure, including broadband.
Question 2. How could current resilience rules be improved to
ensure that outages are less likely to occur?
Answer. Agencies such as the FCC should build upon existing
voluntary frameworks and best practices to foster a flexible, rather
than prescriptive, approach to network resiliency. Natural disasters
are unpredictable and best addressed by allowing providers to respond
to the situation on the ground rather than by mandating a set of rigid
rules to which all must adhere regardless of changing conditions or the
technologies involved. Promoting communication and cooperative
practices, including encouraging participation in voluntary frameworks,
facilitates optimal tailored responses to emergency scenarios.
To facilitate disaster response and recovery, the communications
and power sectors have been collaborating through fora such as the
Cross-Sector Resiliency Forum and the White House National
Infrastructure Advisory Council on issues such as identifying critical
sites for priority power restoration, coordination of emergency
operations centers, distribution of local contact information, and
debris-clearing. Federal and state officials should continue raising
awareness about how electric companies should avoid inadvertent fiber
cuts that otherwise create secondary network outages following a
disaster and thereby undermine recovery efforts. And the FCC should
continue to foster, promote, and facilitate voluntary measures that
promote the coordination of the communications and power sectors.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
Jonathan Spalter
Ensuring Success in Digital Affordability Programs. Most rural
areas in Nevada have low Affordable Connectivity Program enrollment
rates, despite being the areas where this support is needed most and
could provide the greatest benefit.
Question. What do successful outreach and engagement strategies
look like, beyond the usual ``find trusted community partners and get
the word out''? And how can strategies that have been successful
elsewhere in the country be replicated in communities where enrollment
rates have been low?
Answer. In addition to partnering with community organizations and
digital navigators to help address the multiple barriers to broadband
adoption and raise awareness about the Affordable Connectivity Program
(ACP), USTelecom members continue to invest in social media, mailings,
newspaper ads, and other media and are working with State broadband
offices on local outreach. We are encouraged that NTIA's Digital Equity
Act grant programs and the FCC's Your Home, Your Internet Pilot Program
and ACP Navigator Pilot Program will promote innovative and successful
digital equity and adoption strategies that will also increase ACP
enrollments.
Today, more than 1,300 broadband providers and more than 15 million
households are participating in the program, which provides up to a $30
discount on monthly broadband bills and enables qualified households to
receive low-or no-cost high-speed internet. However, funding for this
critical program could run out sometime in 2024. Congress should make
permanent this commitment to connecting low-income households and
ensure that everyone can connect to the power and promise of broadband.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
Jonathan Spalter
Question. Is there still a shortage of well-trained
telecommunications workers? Please describe what challenges you're
facing to secure the workforce needed to deploy broadband
infrastructure. What steps can Congress take to help develop a well-
trained telecommunications workforce?
Answer. Yes, the Nation does indeed face a profound shortage of
well-trained telecommunications workers. At the same time, however,
with the proliferation of BEAD and other Federal and state broadband
projects coming online, USTelecom members will need to have all skilled
workers' hands-on-deck to deploy broadband as quickly as possible. A
highly skilled broadband workforce goes hand in hand with maintaining
our communications infrastructure and ensuring we stay connected. The
broadband workforce that keeps our networks connected are essential
frontline employees, and it is imperative that Congress encourages and
funds programs aimed at strengthening the broadband workforce.
In the last Congress, USTelecom was pleased to support S. 996, the
IMPACT Act as introduced by Senator Wicker that would award $100
million in grants to historically black colleges and universities,
tribal colleges and universities, and minority-serving institutions to
develop job training programs to educate and train students to
participate in the telecommunications workforce. In addition, USTelecom
also supported S.163, the Telecommunications Skilled Workforce Act as
introduced by Senator Thune which establishes an FCC-led interagency
working group that, in consultation with the Department of Labor will
make recommendations to address workforce issues within the
telecommunications industry. We strongly encourage the reintroduction
and consideration of both pieces of legislation.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Jonathan Spalter
Question. Concerns have been raised about potential fraud related
to participation in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). Do you
think the FCC has adequate controls in place to prevent or detect
fraud? Are there fraud-prevention measures the FCC should implement?
Answer. USTelecom members are active participants in and are
committed to the success of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).
The FCC has taken steps to provide necessary oversight of the program,
such as improving IT systems to better detect and prevent improper ACP
enrollments. Overall, the ACP is proving successful. Today, more than
1,300 broadband providers and more than 15 million households are
participating in the program, which provides up to a $30 discount on
monthly broadband bills and enables qualified households to receive
low-or no-cost high-speed internet. However, funding for this critical
program could run out sometime in 2024. Congress should make permanent
this commitment to connecting low-income households and ensure that
everyone can connect to the power and promise of broadband.
Question. What do you see as the role and key function for the
FCC's Universal Service Fund programs and its statutory mission going
forward as these grants are being distributed?
Answer. The Federal Universal Service Fund (``USF'') High-Cost
Program plays a unique role in connecting the millions of Americans
living in rural America. Unlike the newly created BEAD Program, or the
broadband programs at the Department of Agriculture that provide
funding for building networks, the USF high-cost programs provides the
ongoing operating expenses to keep rural networks viable and
affordable. Often, municipalities and other new entrants emphasize
network construction costs, but overlook the more critical costs of
maintaining and upgrading the networks over time. Ultimately, they have
been unable to upgrade and continue to operate the network.
A healthy USF program is the key to sustaining BEAD investments. As
such, the USF contributions base should be expanded to include those
companies that benefit the most from broadband connectivity,
specifically dominant edge providers that drive the vast majority of
Internet traffic but do not contribute to the Fund. Congress should
quickly pass legislation that instructs the FCC to adopt an order that
expands the base of contributors to include the edge.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Angela Siefer
Efficient Use of Broadband Funds. My home state of Washington
recently received substantial amounts of broadband funding, including
$64.3 million in Tribal Broadband grants to expand broadband access for
the Lummi Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
reservation.
However, as we know, receiving funding is only the first step.
Coordinating broadband deployment and ensuring that funds are used
effectively and quickly to provide connectivity to stakeholders are
certainly challenges.
Question. What more should Congress and Federal agencies be doing
to help communities with limited capacity use Federal broadband funds
effectively?
Answer. Congress and Federal agencies should be allocating
substantial efforts to understand the experiences, voices, and needs of
communities with limited capacities.
For several of the IIJA programs, the agencies administering the
programs have consulted with communities via public comment periods or
focus groups. However, for small community-based organizations and
resource strapped communities, the consolidated timelines, limited
technical assistance, and the programs' complexity have inhibited them
from participating in the programs. For the remaining programs that
have yet to be established, we encourage Congress and the Federal
agencies to simplify the application processes and ensure they are
approachable and accessible to the intended grantees. In addition, we
encourage Federal agencies to provide robust technical assistance to
organizations representing covered populations and communities with
limited capacity and resources.
Individual members of Congress can also help these organizations
connect to philanthropy and industries who benefit from increased
broadband adoption. Collectively, Congress can establish the Digital
Equity Foundation with spectrum proceeds, permanently fund the
Affordable Connectivity Program and Emergency Connectivity Fund, and
dedicate additional digital equity funding to Indian Country and
Territories. Permanent solutions to broadband adoption must be
holistic--taking into account digital skills training and device
ownership. They're key to broadband adoption, as is public education
and outreach.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Angela Siefer
Many state agencies that administer Federal programs have not
entered into data-sharing agreements with USAC.
Question. What challenges do eligible individuals who reside in
these states face when they sign up for the Affordable Connectivity
Program or Lifeline? How are their experiences different than those who
reside in states where agencies have enrolled in data-sharing
agreements? In your opinion, what impact does this have on enrollment
numbers for these programs?
Answer. The application process for the Affordable Connectivity
Program is already cumbersome and difficult for applicants and is
causing many applicants to not complete their application and enroll in
the program, despite being eligible for it. A lack of data-sharing
agreements between Federal agencies, state governments and USAC adds an
additional complication to the application process and makes it even
more difficult for consumers to enroll in the program. Applicants
attempting to verify their eligibility through their participation in
one of the Federal or state programs that do not have a data-sharing
agreement have a longer, more complicated enrollment process than those
who can leverage information from the data sharing agreements. In these
instances, applications require the applicant to identify and upload
documentation to prove their participation in the program, and manual
reviews of submitted documentation, which can slow down application
approvals and benefits.
Computer matching agreements reduce the need for manual reviews,
and this also makes the application process easier for consumers who
would most benefit from ACP. NDIA recently hosted a roundtable
discussion to learn more about the barriers for enrollment in ACP. One
thing our digital navigators shared is that too much time is spent
helping consumers find and learn how to use other systems just to get
the documentation they need to submit supporting documents for ACP.
Automatic database connections support both the accuracy of the
verification process and minimize hurdles for consumers.
While we don't have data on the number of households this process
is inhibiting from enrolling in the program, in 2021 GAO found that 68
percent of applications for the Lifeline program were abandoned when
they required manual review.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Angela Siefer
Effective and Efficient Deployment of Federal Funds. The
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act invested $65 billion in
broadband infrastructure, the largest investment our country has ever
made in broadband. We must now ensure that these funds are used
efficiently to get our communities connected quickly.
Question. How can the $2.75 billion of funding Congress passed for
Digital Equity Grants be used to help improve digital literacy?
Answer. The state digital equity capacity grants and the
competitive grants embedded in the Digital Equity Act section of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act have the potential to improve
digital literacy and digital skills since programs that advance digital
skills are an eligible expense for both grants. However, funding
individual programs alone will not be enough if they do not support
systems-level change. We need robust digital inclusion ecosystems
across the country that allow us to continually adapt as technology
changes.
The DEA grants have the potential to do this if meaningful
community engagement is employed by both NTIA and the states, DC, and
territories. Community leaders who are closest to the problems are best
suited to create innovative solutions tailored to their community.
While monumental--alone, the DEA programs will not be sufficient
for closing the digital skills gaps across the country. We will need
continued Federal support and long-term solutions, like the Digital
Equity Foundation Act, to create systems that meet people where they
are and provide opportunities to advance one's skills for future,
unknown needs.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
Angela Siefer
Ensuring Success in Digital Affordability Programs. Most rural
areas in Nevada have low Affordable Connectivity Program enrollment
rates, despite being the areas where this support is needed most and
could provide the greatest benefit.
Question. What do successful outreach and engagement strategies
look like, beyond the usual ``find trusted community partners and get
the word out''? And how can strategies that have been successful
elsewhere in the country be replicated in communities where enrollment
rates have been low?
Answer. To ensure those who need these programs have access, we
need more training, simplicity, and continued funding for on-the-
ground, person to person innovative enrollment support.
It's essential that both trusted organizations and providers are
well-trained to properly enroll and serve households that need support
with understanding the ACP process. Many NDIA affiliates have invested
countless hours in understanding the unique nuances of the enrollment
process, documenting the different paths to enrollment, and have formed
a community of practice sharing best practices with each other. More
formalized training and technical assistance and support from USAC
would ensure more organizations have the tools and training they need
to adequately serve their constituents.
Likewise, providers should ensure all their customer service
personnel and their contracted or third-party customer service vendors
are well-trained on ACP and the low-cost services they offer. In
addition, accessing these low-cost services should be more simple and
user friendly.
Finally, the on-the-ground, trusted partners need continued
financial support. That support could come from Congress, but it can/
should also come from the industries that benefit from their customers
being online, philanthropy, and local/state governments. Educating
constituents and providing one-on-one support is time and labor
intensive but can take many forms. For example, one NDIA affiliate
signed up over 600 participants to the program through street teams.
Others have printed flyers, gone door-to-door to enroll participants,
paid for ads in local news outlets, and advised individuals and
households on the best options for their household. Another still
hosted a community concert during Digital Inclusion Week where they
advertised the ACP program amongst other digital inclusion programs.
Initiatives like these--varied as they are--are crucial to ensuring
people know of, understand, and can enroll in the program.
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117shrg57049_chrg-117shrg57049.htm
- Size
- 1,169,873 bytes
- SHA-256
- f63fb1c7e4c8e6f1ae41365f002644548dee6984127c4d92dba3ea407bbfd838
- Original
- No public link identified.