Brookings

[Commentary] As metropolitan economies of all shapes and sizes prepare for a future with gigabit-speed broadband, one of the biggest costs to deploying a fiber network is preparing utility poles to carry a new fiber line. Since multiple cables typically attach to poles—think about cable television, telephone, etc.—a professional must reorganize them before attaching a new cable. This process, known as “make ready”, has become the next policy battleground in the fiber-dependent “game of gigs.”

Why is this issue important to cities? Most mayors, in my experience, would like to ensure that all their businesses and residents have access to affordable, abundant bandwidth. The issue is that most don’t believe their cities have such broadband today. And while some might consider the city offering its own broadband service to meet that need, most look to market forces and private capital to do so. What cities need to improve local broadband is a new math: one that better balances the high costs of deployment and operations against the risk of returns that don’t match costs. Revisiting the relationship between access to poles and multiple dwelling units and the deployment of next generation networks, as I have noted before, ought to be on the agenda for the next administration. But cities don’t need to wait. They should carefully follow the pioneering efforts of Louisville and Nashville to enable more efficient pole access. Moreover, to the extent they have jurisdiction, all cities should be exploring any methods that can lower the cost of deploying and operating future-proof broadband networks.

The 2016 Brookings Financial and Digital Inclusion Project (FDIP) evaluates access to and usage of affordable financial services by underserved people across 26 geographically, politically, and economically diverse countries. The 2016 report assesses these countries’ financial inclusion ecosystems based on four dimensions of financial inclusion: country commitment, mobile capacity, regulatory environment, and adoption of selected traditional and digital financial services.

We identify four priority areas where action is needed to advance inclusive finance: 1) an increased focus on establishing (and then achieving) specific, measurable financial inclusion targets; 2) promoting more comprehensive data collection and analysis regarding financial access and usage, particularly among traditionally underserved groups such as women; 3) advancing regulatory efforts designed to facilitate financial inclusion; and 4) enhancing financial capability to promote sustainable financial inclusion. Taken together, progress on these action items would amplify opportunities for underserved populations to participate in the digital economy and leverage formal financial services to
improve their well-being.

[Commentary] Potentially unpleasant news for FBI Director Jim Comey: We need you to intervene in the 2016 election again. There is significant evidence that individuals acting at the direction of or on the behalf of Russia—the degree of coordination is unclear—are attempting to use organizational doxing to influence the United States presidential election.

As Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith noted, this raises a number of scary questions regarding preserving the integrity of US election results. It is not entirely clear what is motivating the DNC document dumps or the apparent targeting of Hillary Clinton; some speculate the aim it to benefit Donald Trump, though a plausible goal might simply be to insert a degree of chaos into US politics. Understanding the ultimate goal of the hack and leaks, however, is not all that important to deciding how exactly we should respond. What is critical to mitigating the harm is sufficiently strong public attribution.

[Commentary] As the candidates lay out their plans for the country, cities and technology should be at the heart of the conversation about economic growth and social progress. They should articulate both a strategy and specific ideas about how to accelerate the ability of cities to use new technology to achieve those goals. Here are five such ideas.

1) A Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) for cities -- We need a long-term institution dedicated to helping cities understand the impact of directions in science and technology.
2) An access initiative -- As we look back at the history of communications networks, the deployment of networks capable of offering faster, better, and cheaper services always requires a new capital-allocation decision. This is generally done by a private-sector party but often follows government decisions that lower the cost of deployment or operations and/or increase potential revenue and competition. A continuing challenge, however, lies in assuring access to essential facilities.
3) A tax/next-generation network investment deal -- There is a bipartisan consensus that our tax code needs updating to reflect changes in the economy since the last comprehensive reform thirty years ago. The chances for such a bill are not high; neither are they non-material. In that light, cities should advocate that any such effort ought to be used to accelerate investment in next generation, long-term infrastructure.
4) A government IP transition with an adoption surge -- The next administration should move the United States to the top tier in e-government delivery and broadband adoption.
5) In-Q-Tel4Equity -- When the CIA came to believe it needed to be more intentional about the direction of technology, they created a venture capital fund called In-Q-Tel, opened an office in Silicon Valley, and provided venture capital to tap commercial technology. The Pentagon recently followed with its own Silicon Valley office and fund. They are investing in technology they are interested in buying, and thus they both make money on the investment side and accelerate the deployment of technology they want. The federal government should do the same to tap developing technology to address the needs of low-income communities in health, education, job training, and other areas. While there are good, voluntary existing efforts, nothing concentrates the entrepreneurs’ mind like some old-fashioned venture capital.
[Levin is a nonresident senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program. This is the third in a series of three blogs on cities, technology, the next generation of urban development, and the next administration.]

[Commentary] The federal government should focus on how cities are likely to be the primary government jurisdictions on the leading edge of using new technology to transform the public sphere. The fall campaign should set an agenda for how the next administration can move the country forward by helping the cities that want to lead in this century’s city-led, global information economy. Some might argue that how cities use technology should not be a subject of a presidential election but rather be left to local campaigns. This argument is wrong for a number of reasons, including that the economic and social health of cities is the leading driver of the economic and social health of the nation. American leadership in many sectors requires world-class cities in which to work and live.

Further, cities face a subtle economic barrier to adoption of new technologies. The history of technology cost curves predicts these investments will eventually pay for themselves in service improvements. Cities, however, unlike businesses, have a limited first-user advantage for such new infrastructure, making it more difficult to obtain the critical mass of users that lowers costs in ways that accelerate adoption. If wealthier communities like Austin (TX) can figure out how to use technology to improve how it delivers education, health, transportation, and social services, those practices can be adopted by lower-income communities like Detroit (MI). The federal government has a vital interest in accelerating the improvement of municipal public services by all cities. The best way to drive such improvements is to seed early efforts that provide replicable examples.

[Levin is a nonresident senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program. This is the second in a series of three blogs on cities, technology, the next generation of urban development, and the next administration.]

[Commentary] Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton recently laid out her technology plan. A number of the ideas represent the continuation and expansion of current Obama Administration strategies of increased broadband deployment and adoption. Others call for reinvigorated efforts for education and training related to technology and innovation in government. From a political perspective, the most significant policy is probably the call to protect the FCC’s decision to reclassify internet service providers as Title II common carriers, as that is one technology issue where the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has taken a clear and contrary point of view.

From the perspective of cities, however, the most significant policy may be Clinton’s endorsement of the civic Internet of Things. In a section entitled “Foster a Civic Internet of Things through Public Investments,” her plan states that her administration will invest federal research funding to testbedding, field trials, and other public-private endeavors to speed the deployment of next generation wireless networks and a civic Internet of Things. She also commits to using advances in wireless communications and data analytics to improve public safety, health care, environmental management, traffic congestion, and social welfare services. Why is this proposal so significant? The civic Internet of Things is this generation’s opportunity to recreate the commons at the heart of all cities.

[Levin is a nonresident senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program. This is the first in a series of three blogs on cities, technology, the next generation of urban development, and the next administration.]

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission in 2015 redefined broadband as connections with 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download speeds and 4 Mbps upload speeds. This is more than six times the previous standard of 4 Mbps download, allowing for multiple simultaneous video streams. According to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 10 percent of Americans lack access to broadband by this definition. This number, however, fails to illustrate the stark contrast between rural and urban access to broadband. Rural areas have significantly slower Internet access, with 39 percent lacking access to broadband of 25/4 Mbps, compared to only 4 percent for urban areas. This rural/urban “digital divide” in access severely limits rural populations from taking advantage of a critical component of modern life.

The FCC has been responsible for universal service of telecommunications since its inception in 1934, creating equal access to communications like phone service. In 2007, the Joint Board of the FCC redefined the concept of universal service to include broadband. Coupled with the recent network neutrality decision, the FCC wields a powerful precedent to create equal access to broadband. To fulfill its role, the FCC must do more as a regulatory body to ensure equal access to this public utility. It has made efforts in recent years to expand the Connect America Fund, providing funding to create broadband access for over 7 million consumers over the next 6 years. However, the FCC must expand access alongside advances in technology rather than after the fact, satisfying increased demands for faster internet with infrastructure growth. Otherwise, rural communities will continue to play catch up with their urban counterparts and the US will remain digitally divided.

By the end of the decade, the fifth-generation (5G) network is expected to support 50 billion connected devices with speeds of more than 100 megabits per second. 5G’s connectivity, computing power, and virtual system architecture will soon expand the mobile Internet of things (IoT). The connection of billions of digital devices through IoT will pave the way for innovation across industries and markets; in particular, connected medicine has the potential to transform health care through imaging, diagnostics, and treatment improvements, among other groundbreaking new possibilities.

In this paper, Darrell West discusses the unique capabilities of the 5G era, explores applications of IoT technology in medicine, and recommends policies for making these new care delivery systems a reality. 5G technology has the potential to increase patient access to treatment options, reduce hospital visits, and create a flexible network of telehealth, in addition to reducing overall medical costs. West argues that work needs to be done to facilitate an end-to-end system. Fully realizing the potential of the health IoT will require investments in digital infrastructure and changes in reimbursement policy, privacy protection, and research data. Devices must connect to networks and the cloud in ways that are interoperable and secure. That will enable health providers and patients to receive the benefits of digital innovation for wellness and health care. By overcoming these barriers, both health care consumers and providers will see substantial advances in medical treatment.

[Commentary] What are the implications of Brexit for democracy? Arguably, Brexit represents the first major casualty of the ascent of digital democracy over representative democracy. This claim deserves an explanation.

Many technology optimists have assumed that globalization would lead to the democratization of information and decision-making, and also greater cosmopolitanism. Citizens would be better informed, less likely to be silenced, and able to communicate their views more effectively to their leaders. They would also have greater empathy and understanding of other peoples the more they lived next to them, visited their countries, read their news, communicated, and did business with them. Or so the thinking went. But there has been little to justify such panglossianism. There is some evidence for a correlation between greater information, political democratization and economic progress, in that all three have advanced steadily, if at different paces, over the past two decades. But that correlation is weak. Instead, digital democracy -- the ability to receive information in almost real time through mass media and to make one's voice heard through social media -- has contributed to polarization, gridlock, dissatisfaction and misinformation. This is as equally applicable to the countries in which modern democracy took root -- in the United States and Europe -- as it is to India, the biggest and most complex democracy in the developing world.

[Commentary] We live in an age of Information Overload, with over 2 billion Internet users and the rise of social media, there is far more information than we can possibly process.

Governments should consider engaging more actively in the “marketing” and image making of its policies, taking advantage of emerging image and video-oriented communication technologies instead of solely adhering to its traditional ways of communication.

Tailoring government strategy to our current information-rich environment will be critical to successful policy implementation.

[Ahn is Assistant Professor, Department of Public Policy and Public Affairs, McCormack Graduate School, Governance Studies]