The problems with U.S.have been evident for years. Service costs more than in many wealthy nations, but it still doesn’t reach tens of millions of Americans, and the companies that provide it don’t face much competition. The promises to do something about those issues as part of its proposed $2.3 trillion infrastructure package.
The plan, which would devote $100 billion to connect all Americans, is moreand lacks essential detail. But it sketches out a striking new vision of activist government measures intended to improve high-speed , following decades in which the government has largely left the job to private companies.
WHAT IS BIDEN’S PROPOSAL?
It would spend $100 billion to” “future-proof”, calling high-speed connections” “the new electricity” “that’ss now a necessity for all Americans. (For history buffs, that’ss a reference to the Rural Electrification Act — Depression-era legislation that sped the extension of power lines to farms and rural communities.)
It could signal a significanttoward lowering the high cost of internet service, rather than just handing money to broadband providers for building out networks.” “Americans pay too much for the internet,” the plan bluntly states.
It pushes for greater competition that could lower prices by encouraging and, cooperatives, and nonprofit organizations. Currently, roughly 20 states restrict municipal broadband. Prioritizing such networks could give them a leg up when the government doles out money for extending service.” “The most important thing about what has done in the proposal is that he’s redefined the digital divide,” said Larry Irving, a top telecom official in the Clinton administration.” “The simple act of recognizing that poverty is a bigger indicator of lack of access than geography is a huge statement” It’ss not clear how the Biden administration plans to bring that about.
WHY IS THIS NECESSARY?
The pandemic has made clear that millions of Americans are not online, a problem not limited to rural areas but includes cities. The White House says more than 30 million Americans don’t have, and millions can’t afford it.
The divide persists even after the government has spent billions encouraging broadband providers to connect far-flung and often isolated communities. From 2009 through 2017, federal spending on such programs totaled $47.3 billion, according to a. Over the next decade, an additional $20 billion is lined up for rural called 5G in sparsely populated regions. Billions flowed more to broadband from the three substantial enacted during the pandemic. According to Gigi Sohn, an official in the Obama-era FCC, America’s rural-internet policy has been an ongoing mistake.” “A lot of what we have is prolonged,” she said. The White House now says it wants” “future-proof,” networks” “in unserved and underserved areas” so they don’t have to be rebuilt again because they’re out-of-date.
Precisely what those terms mean for what gets built and where isn’t clear, and many Republicans oppose cutting federal funds to work in areas that do have internet even if it’s slow —what’s called “overbuilding.”