Op-Ed

Where are we in terms of closing the seven gaps that we think of, or should think of, as the elements of the digital divide? The seven gaps are the rural access gap, the affordability gap, the operating gap of very high-cost rural providers, the adoption gap, the institutional gap, the cable/copper gap, and the utilization gap. We could be using the network to improve outcomes in education, health care, government services, public safety, carbon reduction, civic engagement, and other public purposes. But to do achieve those goals, we need to close all seven broadband gaps.

I’ve spent my entire life fighting to ensure that Americans from any background, of any color or creed, have the opportunity to fight for their very own American Dream.

As a government shutdown looms over the nation, millions of Americans risk losing internet access. Americans have come to rely on the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) for a $30/month broadband subsidy to stay connected to their communities. Many will be forced to go without, from families who receive Medicaid and SNAP benefits to veterans and Pell Grant recipients. As costs for everything from housing to healthcare continue skyrocketing, families who struggle to make ends meet will have to choose between putting food on the table and having essential broadband access.

Despite increased reliance on access to high-capacity and reliable broadband Internet for everyday activities, disparities in fixed broadband availability persist. States’ broadband programs are part of the effort to close the infrastructure gap, which has been linked to geographic, demographic, socio-economic, market, and policy factors. However, the pandemic is prompting a shift in broadband policy—with the concept of “access” being expanded to address both disparities in coverage and digital equity concerns.

In the bi-partisan 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Congress decided to provide a larger Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) benefit in high-cost areas—up to $75/month, compared to the standard $30/month benefit. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) quietly announced that service providers could start filing applications on January 17, 2024, to become eligible to receive this larger benefit.

Charles Dickens opened A Tale of Two Cities writing that “It was the best of times, it was worst of times”. Therein may lie some helpful context for understanding where our country finds itself today. I don’t propose to cover the entire issues waterfront in this brief piece, but will instead focus on a few of the things I see dragging our country and our government down today. For the purposes of this essay, I will include telecommunications and media, Congress, and the courts. To start off on the positive, there’s some really good news at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Portland Community College (PCC) has recently welcomed 14 digital navigators to facilitate greater technological accessibility for its students. A digital navigator serves as a specialized guide focused on helping individuals bridge their digital skills gaps and achieve greater confidence in the use of technology. Situated within the PCC libraries and tutoring centers, these professionals are tasked with overseeing a comprehensive digital inclusion agenda.

In “Digital and Equity and Justice in Maryland: Challenges and Opportunities” recently published by Economic Action Maryland, I present findings from a qualitative study that sought to answer the following research question: What is the landscape of issues related to universal broadband access, digital equity, and related community standards in Baltimore City and across the state of Maryland? My hope was that the findings would be useful for residents, policymakers, and other stakeholders interested in advancing broadband access and d

A recently released survey of fixed-broadband providers demonstrates their workforce expectations as the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program gains momentum across states. Representatives of 46 broadband providers—including electric cooperatives and fixed-wireless, telephone, and cable companies—completed the survey. These providers typically served between 5,000 and 50,000 customers.

The commissioners sitting on the Federal Communications Commission should issue a joint statement reminding the public that “the comment process is not a vote.” To my mind, inviting commenters to make some noise and raise a ruckus is not the proper way to encourage public participation most conducive to creating a rulemaking record consistent with the agency’s supposed expertise. To the extent that making noise and raising a ruckus is understood as gearing up the mass comment machines, the notion is devalued that the FCC will be applying its expertise in deciding complex issues—say, what co