This complex problem requires a comprehensive solution. To close the digital divide for good, we must solve both issues:

We cannot close the digital divide until reliable, high-speed internet service is available to 100% of the country.

The most recent data from FCC reports at least 14.5 million Americans are unable to access high-speed internet at home, 78% of those – more than 11 million Americans – live in rural areas. After many years and billions of dollars invested (or in the process of being invested), the locations that remain unserved are some of the most difficult and expensive to reach. And unless government deployment subsidies are fiercely protected to bring access to unserved areas, many more years will pass, many more billions will be spent, and these families and small businesses will still be waiting for their turn.

In fact, the costs to reach rural areas alone are often so high that they will not ever be reached without at least some government support subsidies.

It sounds simple, but to reach 100% access, every unserved family must have high-speed internet service available.

To make that possible, broadband deployment subsidy programs have to prioritize reaching those with absolutely no access first. Today, most broadband deployment subsidy programs define “unserved” as having no access to 25/3 Megabits per second (Mbps), which means subsidies for unserved communities can only be used to reach those with no access at all or those whose access is slower than 25/3 Mbps.

How and why do subsidies continue to miss the rural areas they are meant to connect?

The cause has often been a failure to ensure money is spent building to the hardest-to-reach areas. Those tasked with building internet networks will reliably build to the most profitable, easiest-to-reach locations first. It makes business sense. But if we want to reach those without robust internet, we need to make sure subsidies require building to such areas. Additionally, if unnecessary speed or technology requirements are imposed that allow funding to be used to build in large metro or suburban areas (even though they already have incredibly fast service available), the exurbs and rural areas get pushed to the back of the line… again.

What speeds are necessary?

In fact, the average Downstream:Upstream bandwidth ratio has been exceptionally asymmetrical since 2010, and research from CommScope predicts these asymmetric usage patterns will continue in the years ahead, with the U.S’s average Downstream:Upstream bandwidth ratio in the 10:1 to 15:1 range.

As a result, if policy makers decide to raise the speed of “unserved” from 25/3 Mbps, they should keep the same asymmetric ratio to reflect how people have used and are expected to continue using the internet.

Conversely, if well-meaning policymakers focus on raising speeds rather than connecting the unconnected, unserved communities are likely to suffer – and no progress will be made in closing the broadband availability gap

What is the role of government-owned internet in achieving 100% availability?

Government-owned internet is created when a local government – often a municipality or town – attempts to build and operate its own internet network. To reach 100% availability, government-owned networks will be an important solution for every remote or costly-to-reach unserved areas, where subsidies still do not attract a private sector internet service provider (ISPs) to build. But where ISPs already serve an area – or are willing to do so with government support – using tax dollars to build a government-owned broadband network ignores the many consumer drawbacks and taxpayers risks – including a history of failure across the country – and in spite of the other needs of these communities. When possible, partnering with industry experts is a highly efficient and effective way to leverage the interests of private providers in extending network reach, while ensuring citizens have access to the the ongoing benefits of high-quality scaled commercial broadband networks.

While some rural Americans continue to struggle with the problem of access to high-speed internet, for many living in urban environments the problem is one of adoption. The adoption gap in the digital divides comes from people who aren’t online because they lack the digital or language skills to get online, are unable to afford home internet or a computer, or fail to see why broadband is necessary. The adoption gap cuts across demographic and geographic lines, but disproportionately impacts less advantaged communities. According to the National Urban League’s Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and Inclusion, the adoption gap is most likely to impact “low-income households, those with lower education levels, older adults, Black Americans, Latinxs, and Native Americans.”

Addressing the adoption gap requires a clear-eyed understanding of the underlying and systemic barriers to adoption that millions of Americans face. Only by addressing these root causes of inequity will we be able to reach our goal of closing the digital divide.

One of the key barriers to adoption for many American families is affordability. To make broadband affordable for all Americans, the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act created the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). The ACP offers eligible families in need a discount of up to:

• $30 per month toward internet service and up to $75 per month for eligible households on Tribal lands.
• Eligible households can also receive a one-time discount of up to $100 to purchase a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet from participating providers if the household contributes more than $10 and less than $50 toward the purchase price.
• Most eligible low-income families can now subscribe to high-speed internet service at absolutely no cost to them – but many families still don’t know about the program. Spreading awareness of the ACP is a key step in lessening barriers to adoption.

More than 10 million households have already enrolled in ACP, but many more are eligible. Spreading awareness of this program will help many more families who struggle to afford internet service get online.

• Help Your Community Enroll: The FCC is mobilizing people and organizations to help share important consumer information about the new Affordable Connectivity Program. Sign up as an enrollment partner today at www.fcc.gov/ACP.
• Spread the Word: Are you organizing school packet pick-ups or a local food drive? Print out flyers to include in pick-up materials.  Print off your choice of flyers in a variety of sizes and languages by visiting www.fcc.gov/acp-consumer-outreach-toolkit.
• Connect with Anchor Institutions: Ensure your local schools, libraries, and community centers know about the ACP and have the information they need to help their eligible students and patrons enroll.
• Share information about ACP on Social Media: The FCC has ready-to-post graphics, videos, and PSA’s ready for you to share with your network. Download the sample graphics/explore the gallery here www.fcc.gov/acp-consumer-outreach-toolkit.
• Request a Speaker for an Event: Have a local event coming up?  Do you host a local news program? Want to train your members to serve as local ambassadors for the program? Request a speaker to share more information about the Affordable Connectivity Program by emailing [email protected].

2021 data from Pew Research Center found 77% of U.S. adults already have broadband service at home, narrowing the universe of unconnected to the remaining 23% of non-broadband users.

Because of the successful Affordable Connectivity Program, the FCC is taking action to remove affordability barriers. So, while a limited number of Americans (mostly in rural areas) do still lack the high-speed internet availability at home, 46% of non-broadband users name a reason other than access or affordability, a set of issues referred to in policy circles as the “adoption gap.”

The importance of solving for the adoption gap (and complexities of doing so) have been seen across the country. Even in instances when access and affordability barriers are removed from the equation, a significant percentage of American families still don’t get connected.

For example, Connecticut subsidized computers and internet service for every elementary and high school student who needed them for remote learning, but thousands didn’t log in. Similarly, Chicago schools offered internet service at no cost to 235,000 eligible students, but after six months, only 50,000 students had enrolled in the program. While addressing access and affordability are crucial steps to closing the digital divide, confronting those pieces alone is not enough.

A report from Boston Consulting Group looking at best practices to accelerate internet adoption highlighted some underlying adoption issues, including complex housing situations, transience due to housing insecurity, and language barriers.

Now, more than ever, Americans rely on access to high-quality internet service, and government plays an important role in ensuring consumers from coast to coast can get and stay connected. Governments provide support funding to help unserved areas get internet access, provide low-income families subsidies to pay for monthly service, and support programs that improve digital literacy and technology skills and availability.

Where governments want to bring broadband to an expensive, hard to serve area, providing subsidies to an experienced internet service provider is a highly efficient and effective way of ensuring citizens have access to the ongoing benefits of high-quality commercial broadband networks. However, in some unserved areas, subsidies are not sufficient to attract an experienced provider, and the government building its own network may be the best solution. In such cases, these “Government Owned Networks,” or GONs, can play an important role in ensuring the country achieves 100% connectivity.

While GONs can be an important solution in unserved areas, governments need to do their homework. Preparedness and long-term planning are important as noted in research from the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition: “Understanding how likely a project is to remain financially solvent is critical, because any shortfall would require a city either to inject additional taxpayer funds into the project or to default on its loan obligations.”

GONs, however, are not a good solution when they use tax dollars to build duplicative, government-owned broadband networks in areas that already have access. First, those tax dollars should be used to solve real needs. Local governments should focus on improving education, addressing crime and homelessness, upgrading roads and water systems, and the overall needs of their residents, not running technically-complex and duplicative broadband networks themselves. As David Young, former state chair of the NC Democratic Party, and Danny McComas, former Republican NC state representative, summed it up in a recent op-ed: “Private sector companies can serve our broadband needs — they can’t pay our teachers or lower our tax burden — so we should leave Internet service to them, but too many cities aren’t.”

Second, a GON that duplicates an existing broadband network ignores their many consumer drawbacks and taxpayer risks – including a history of failure across the country. Most local governments are not equipped to undertake these highly technical, complex, and costly ventures that history has shown rarely deliver on campaign promises of increased access, faster speeds, or lower prices. In fact, quite often, government-run internet fails altogether and leaves local taxpayers holding the bag. Given most localities have at least one – if not two or more – ISPs already delivering high-quality broadband service, using government funding to build additional, duplicative broadband infrastructure is unlikely to be a wise use of municipal funds – particularly since they typically do nothing to get more people online, wasting limited resources that could instead be dedicated to solving the adoption issue or to more critical, non-broadband government needs.

Americans are increasingly concerned about their online privacy and security – from forgoing free internet service rather than sharing personal information to broader concern about the information the government has and how it is used. Users should be able to explore the internet without concern. In San Francisco, a planned “free” municipal wireless system failed due in large part to concerns about privacy and security and protecting free speech rights: “This no-fee service would have a price—a user’s personal information. Pursuant to Google’s draft contract with San Francisco to be the only no-fee game in town, each time a San Franciscan logged onto the system, Google would know the identity of the individual, what he or she was searching for online, and his or her physical location. Google could obtain a wealth of data about tens of millions of individuals who might not otherwise provide such specific information about their daily activities and interests. All of this information would further increase Google’s ability to develop new targeted products or allow for greater targeted advertising that it could sell at an even higher premium.”

Even when successful, building a new high-speed internet network is typically a multi-year – and even a decades-long – undertaking, offering no solutions to the connectivity problems they propose to address in the meantime.

Underperforming municipal broadband projects “have caused numerous municipalities to face defaults, bond rating reductions, and direct payments from the public coffers” according to research from the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition assessing the financial performance of municipal broadband.

As just one example, after then-Mayor of Burlington, VT, Bob Kiss misused $17 million in taxpayer funds to keep Burlington Telecom afloat, the city’s credit rating toppled six steps to the precipice of “junk bond” status. It took 10 years for the credit rating to recover. Meanwhile, the municipally-backed internet service siphoned taxpayer funds and prompted a property-tax increase. In a press release, the City of Burlington referred to the fiasco as “the greatest financial crisis in the city’s history.”

More recently, research from the Institute for Law & Economics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School analyzed the financial performance of every municipal fiber project in the US operating in 2010 through 2019. 

Actual performance of the resulting 15-project panel dataset revealed that:

US broadband providers make significant investments ($70 billion+ annually) to continually upgrade their networks and technology. When faced with developmental and operational challenges, GONs cannot keep up – leading to lower-quality service, obsolete technology, wasted resources, and hefty financial debts.

• Provo, Utah sold its municipal broadband network to Google for $1 – taking a $40 million loss on the deal. In a hearing on broadband equity, former Provo Mayor and now US Rep. John Curtis (UT-03) put responsibility for the failure of Provo’s municipal network on its “inability to deal with the fast-changing nature of broadband and the large capital needs that happen on a recurring basis.”
  
• As noted by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), “Municipal broadband providers do not invest in innovation the same way the private sector does. Local governments are unlikely to contribute to standards-setting organizations or develop and patent new technologies or techniques like private broadband firms do. If we start to treat broadband as a public utility, such as water pipes, sewers, or roads, we are likely to see the same problems develop: deferred investment, congestion, declining quality, and a lack of innovation.”
  

Having government fund duplicative broadband networks leads to an artificial, taxpayer-subsidized marketplace. The result? ITIF’s examination of the issue found that “mandating additional facilities-based, government-owned competitive “overbuilding” would increase national broadband costs with little benefit.”