Broadband Is Too Important for This Many in the US to Be Disconnected

For the vast majority of us, broadband has become so commonplace in our professional, personal, and social lives that we rarely think about how much we depend on it. Yet without broadband, our lives would be radically upended: Our work days would look different, we would spend our leisure time differently, and even our personal relationships would exist differently.

But if broadband is an essential part of daily American life in the 21st century, how can we be comfortable with the fact that over 19 million households do not have a mobile or in-home subscription? Imagine if an electricity outage like the 2003 Northeast blackout occurred every day. Or if the Flint water crisis impacted the entire states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. That’s the scale of broadband disconnect this country experiences.

Simply put, the country needs to make an aggressive case to reach universal broadband adoption. But what does that even mean? Compared to electricity and water, do we understand all the ways broadband impacts individual and community wellbeing? Based on an initial scan of academic and applied research, the short answer is no.

With communities all across the country exploring ways to overcome the digital divide, and with Congress sending clear signals about the importance to address rural disconnect, now is an opportune time to help policymakers and practitioners understand the benefits of pursuing new infrastructure, public policies, and training programs. For us, that process begins with understanding where the current state of knowledge is clear and where it falls short.

Continue reading at Brookings.edu

 

One thought on “Broadband Is Too Important for This Many in the US to Be Disconnected

  1. Pieter van Leeuwen (@pedro_deleon54) August 15, 2019 / 7:52 pm

    “Simply put, the country needs to make an aggressive case to reach universal broadband adoption.”

    NO.
    Availability, MAYBE.

    But wired connections to sparsely populated locations are prohibitively expensive in most cases, especially for existing homes.
    Subsidies mean others are forced to pay to supply connections to people who CHOOSE to live where they do. Unless you are in prison, you can always vote with your feet.

    Should satellite based service ever become competitive in terms of bandwidth, latency and tech support, then the cost of serving a rural customer would come down to the cost of CPE, as the other marginal costs of service should be minimal. And subsidies might be justifiable.

    That question is premature at this point.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s