This Policy Proposal discusses a five-point plan to strengthen the effectiveness of the Biden-Harris Internet for All Initiative. (The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, whose information can be found below.)
Big Picture:
The passing of the Internet for All Initiative was a crucial step for American digital equality. But it wont amount to much if the funding it authorizes is not distributed effectively and efficiently. The U.S. must take steps to ensure that the application for the $30 subsidy is accessible for people without internet access, and emphasizes that the infrastructure effort focuses on the areas in the country that need it most.
Operative Definitions:
Important Facts and Statistics:
Five-Point Plan:
(1) Develop a standard of implementation. The goal internet speed is 100/20 Mbps, which indicates a download speed of 100 Mbps and an upload speed of 20 Mbps. While this is an adequate speed standard, it could be improved by the supplemental provision of each household in need of internet access within their property, instead of doing so geographically in a general area. This is important, as many times, these rural blocks are very large and that one spot of internet is insufficient.
(2) Collect accurate data about which areas are most in need of broadband. The administration should focus on collecting maps with accurate data since there is no readily available and accurate information about which areas have suitable internet and which do not. Making such maps with the previous standard of implementation in mind will ensure past mistakes are not repeated, such as counting an area as covered if it has old, slow internet. It will also ensure distribution based on data rather than industry or political connections, which has been a problem in the past.
(3) Only use a tech-neutral approach when necessary. A tech-neutral approach, which is defined by considering different electric solutions when solving a broadband problem, can be useful in offering multiple solutions and allowing flexibility based on what would suit each area the best. At the same time, it can lead to the preference for cheaper alternatives in lieu of a high-speed fiber-optic cable network, which would be higher quality and make it easier and cheaper to keep up with technological developments in the future. Alternative solutions should be the answer only when they are the best options, such as when fiber is unable to be installed.
(4) Lower barriers to accessing the internet. The $30 or $75 subsidy to pay for internet is easiest to access through the internet, which may be inaccessible to those who cannot afford internet in the first place. Mail-based information about the program should be promoted, as well as the currently available option of mailing in the application. There should also be a focus on making the broadband development infrastructure simple and straightforward, as that will aid in a more prompt delivery of internet access to people in need.
(5) Establish a feedback system. Having an accountability and feedback system, such as a survey, after deploying the internet services will go a long way towards making sure the funds from the bill are put towards effective internet access. In the past, there have been federal funds from the Connect America Fund that apparently went towards supplying internet, but the people never actually received internet access. A feedback system will hold companies that receive the funding accountable for providing the services they claim to provide.
Why This Initiative is Important:
Making sure that broadband access is distributed effectively is essential in the effort to lower and hopefully eliminate the digital divide in the long run. This will go a long way towards ensuring that every American has the opportunity to access educational resources, healthcare, job opportunities and other necessities. Simply pouring money into the situation will not be effective if there are no steps taken to prevent previous mistakes that hindered effective internet access for everyone, such as inaccurate data and low standards of deployment.
Acknowledgements:
The following student(s) worked on this proposal: Pooja Huded, Vassar College.
Sources:
Barrett, Rick and Kelli Arseneau. “With poor data, deficient requirements and little oversight, massive public spending still hasn’t solved the rural internet access problem.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 7, 2022, https://www.jsonline.com/in-depth/news/2021/07/14/weve-spent-billions-provide-broadband-rural-areas-what-failed-wisconsin/7145014002/.
“FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration’s “Internet for All” Initiative: Bringing affordable, reliable high-speed internet to everyone in America.” InternetForAll, May 13, 2022, https://www.internetforall.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20IFA%20Launch_0.pdf.
Furlow, Matt. “Infrastructure Bill Has $65 Billion for Broadband Deployment. Now What?” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, April 14, 2022, https://www.uschamber.com/infrastructure/the-infrastructure-bill-has-65-billion-for-broadband-deployment-now-what.
“U.S. Chamber Applauds Launch of ‘Internet For All’ Initiative, Provides Recommendations to Ensure Success.” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, May 13, 2022, https://www.uschamber.com/infrastructure/u-s-chamber-applauds-launch-of-internet-for-all-initiative-provides-recommendations-to-ensure-success.
Wheeler, Tom. “5 Steps to get the internet to all Americans: Covid-19 and the importance of universal broadband.” Brookings, May 27, 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/research/5-steps-to-get-the-internet-to-all-americans/.