Digital Divide

Can the “smart” and the “inclusive” come together in a way to make our cities better places to live for everyone? An answer in the affirmative is possible, but not inevitable.

For this to happen, stakeholders—mayors, businesspeople, and community leaders—must have an appreciation of three things:

1. The smart city and the inclusive city are very different
2. One (inclusiveness) does not follow necessarily from the other (a smart city).
3. Action is necessary to bridge the gap between a smart and an inclusive

Modernizing Lifeline for broadband is critical for poor people and people of color, who are more likely to be on the wrong side of the digital divide and who cite cost as a major barrier to adoption. Lifeline is the only federal program poised to increase broadband adoption and provide a pathway out of poverty for millions of people. When talking about Lifeline, we hear a lot about waste, fraud and abuse. But this narrative is overblown and frankly offensive.

I have long been troubled by the tenor of the Lifeline debate: There’s a tendency to wage war on the poor, to demonize and assume the worst about Lifeline recipients. And I cannot sit here today, especially as white supremacy is on the rise around the country and in the White House, without directly confronting the racist undertones of these assumptions. We should avoid inflated stories of waste, fraud and abuse at the expense of poor people and people of color, who rely on Lifeline to meet basic needs. The first priority should be expedient implementation of the 2016 Order. We should reject radical measures such as moving Universal Service funds to the U.S. Treasury “to offset other national debts,” as the FCC Chair’s office evidently suggested to the GAO. This could undermine all USF programs, including Lifeline and others designed to connect rural Americans, schools and libraries.

Blacks and Hispanics remain less likely than whites to own a traditional computer or have high-speed internet at home, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in fall 2016. But mobile devices are playing important roles in helping to bridge these differences.

Roughly eight-in-ten whites (83%) report owning a desktop or laptop computer, compared with 66% of blacks and 60% of Hispanics. There are also substantial racial or ethnic differences in broadband adoption, with whites more likely than either blacks or Hispanics to report having a broadband connection at home. (There were not enough Asian respondents in the sample to be broken out into a separate analysis.) But despite these inequalities, blacks and Hispanics have mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers in shares similar to whites. There are differences between Hispanics born inside and outside the U.S.: 88% of native-born Hispanics own a smartphone, compared with 62% of Hispanics born abroad. About three-quarters of whites and blacks own a smartphone. Mobile devices play an outsize role for blacks and Hispanics when it comes to their online access options. About two-in-ten Hispanics (22%) and 15% of blacks are “smartphone only” internet users – meaning they lack traditional home broadband service but do own a smartphone. By comparison, 9% of whites fall into this category. In addition, blacks and Hispanics are also more likely than whites to rely on their smartphones for a number of activities, such as looking up health information or looking for work.

How fast is a broadband internet connection?

That question is at the heart of a controversy at the Federal Communications Commission. After a study about connection speeds in the US, the FCC decided that too few people had access to high speed internet. But that conclusion never sat right with the commission's Republicans, who argued that the agency set too high a bar in deciding what counts as broadband. Now that the GOP is in the majority at the agency, the FCC is considering new guidelines for gauging the availability and competitiveness of high speed internet. There's no specific proposal yet, but based on their past statements there's a good chance those same commissioners will vote to lower it. That could affect how much funding is available to expand broadband networks into rural or low income areas.

The issue hasn't received as much attention as the debate over net neutrality, but Roberto Gallardo , a researcher at Purdue University's Center for Regional Development, worries that lower standards would reduce the motivation of broadband providers to expand service into rural communities, which already lag behind urban areas in both speed and availability of high speed internet.

If the FCC decides that rural areas and poor neighborhoods have adequate coverage, future funding for internet infrastructure upgrades could receive short shrift, says Harold Feld, a senior vice president of the digital-rights advocacy group Public Knowledge.

[Commentary] Broadband infrastructure is only a prerequisite for adequate digital inclusion, not a sustainable solution in itself. Research examining the economic impacts of broadband access in rural regions in the US found a stark difference in economic outcomes when ‘access’ was defined as the availability of broadband infrastructure versus ‘access’ being defined as the adoption of a residential broadband connection. Broadband infrastructure alone provided only minimal economic benefits to households and regions, while increased broadband adoption was linked to individual-level and community-level economic improvements.

The cost of fixed broadband subscriptions is often cited as the single most important factor in hindering broadband adoption in areas where the infrastructure is available. However, research suggests that while affordability is certainly key, there are also other factors that should be considered. One well-cited cross-country analysis of cultural factors affecting broadband adoption lists lack of understanding of the services and content that can be accessed online as one reason individuals in the US may not adopt high-speed broadband, as well as an actual insufficiency in online content relevant to a particular community. To truly equalize the digital playing field, we need to carefully consider the factors affecting individuals’ ability to gain high-speed broadband access once the infrastructure becomes available in their geographic region. The findings cited here speak to the importance of investments in educational programs and services addressing digital literacy, content creation, and other aspects critical to sustainable broadband adoption.

[Jana Wilbricht is a Ph.D. Candidate in Communication Studies at the University of Michigan, and worked with NDIA during the summer 2017 as a research fellow of the Consortium on Media Policy Studies (COMPASS).]

Attorney Daryl Parks has filed a formal Federal Communications Commission complaint against AT&T on behalf of three African American low-income residents of Cleveland (OH) alleging digital redlining. The complainants--Joanne Elkins, Hattie Lanfair, and Rochelle Lee--allege that "wealthier and predominantly white areas have gotten premium upgradable high speed broadband access at bullet speed," while the three complainants "receive slow speeds at a rate as low as 1.5 mbps downstream or less, although they pay AT&T for high speed access."

They say that is unjust and unreasonable discrimination in violation of the Communications Act. They also allege that is part of a pattern of discrimination by AT&T nationwide, relying on a study by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. The parties say they met with AT&T in July, which "flatly" denies that it is redlining, hence the suit. The complaint concedes AT&T offered to expand a 5G wireless broadband pilot program, but says that is not sufficient. Parks and company want the FCC to investigate the charge, including holding a hearing, which would likely be before the FCC's Administrative Law Judge, and they want damages.

[Commentary] It took the death of a young woman at the hands of one of the neo-Nazis she was protesting to force the ever-expanding media universe to face a question it has been evading for years: Where’s the line?

Unlike the last big communications revolutions — brought about with radio and then television — this one came with no barrier to entry in terms of expensive equipment like towers and studios. There have been no governmental limits like broadcasting standards and licensing requirements. But as the downsides of informational democratization become more evident — the opening it has provided for nefarious state actors, terrorists and hate mongers — those who have some control over the web’s content stream have had a hard time figuring out where to build some much-needed dams. The trouble has come in finding the line between what some may find offensive and what is objectively dangerous speech. But at this point, if we can’t set a line at neo-Nazis and white nationalists inciting hatred and violence, can we set any line at all?

Seattle is upping its financial contribution to a program that for the past 20 years has helped community groups provide technology, as well as the skills needed to use technology, to residents who are traditionally underserved and often left behind. The program is called the Technology Matching Fund, and the Seattle City Council recently voted to award $430,000 through it to 15 local groups.

This year the fund is expected to help more than 6,000 residents of Seattle in underserved or underrepresented communities, including those of immigrants and refugees, seniors, at-risk youths, and people with disabilities. The resources will help these residents by being put to use through a wide range of social groups, including the Boys and Girls Club, LaunchCode, the West African Community Council and many others. The matching facet of this program is a simple one: For every dollar the city gives, an organization will match it with 50 cents of its own money then being put toward tech. What the money is used for varies from organization to organization, but in a broad sense it all will go to one of the three priorities that have been established by Seattle’s digital inclusion planning: increasing connectivity throughout the city; fostering better digital skills among residents; and providing devices and other technology to those who do not presently have access to it.

Comcast Corporation announced that its acclaimed Internet Essentials program, the nation’s largest and most comprehensive high-speed Internet adoption program, has now connected more than four million low-income Americans, in one million households, to high-speed Internet service at home. The State of Florida is second to California with the most connected households in the country, having connected more than 120,000 low-income households benefitting nearly 500,000 Floridians.

The company also announced three key program enhancements:
For the fourth time in six years, Comcast will increase the program’s Internet service speeds, this time from 10/1 Mbps to up to 15/2 Mbps.
To help family members connect to the Internet on the go and save money on their wireless bills, Internet Essentials customers will now enjoy 40 hours of free out-of-home WiFi access per month to the company’s growing network of 18 million Xfinity WiFi hotspots.
Comcast is also expanding its pilot program for low-income senior citizens from five cities and metropolitan areas to 12, including today in Miami-Dade County (FL).

Sprint plans to support 180,000 low-income high school students with free wireless devices and connectivity. About 70% of America’s high school teachers assign homework that requires online connectivity, yet low-income students often don’t have the broadband at home that they need to complete their schoolwork. It’s a problem known as the “Homework Gap” that affects more than 5 million families.

As part of the 1Million Project, the Sprint Foundation is ponying up to supply service and equipment for up to four years while the kids finish high school. The first year of the five-year project kicks off this week, to encompass more than 1,300 schools across 32 states. The initiative should impact 180,000 students. Over the course of the program, the hope is to help up to 1 million high schoolers who lack internet access at home.