As 2021 begins, cities across the country have finalized their budgets and are beginning to implement them for the new year. Informed by the challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, many city governments are focusing on the most basic services and programs, like food assistance, housing, and unemployment. As we outline below, we believe connectivity should rank just as high.
According to the American Community Survey, nearly 1 in 4 households in Cuyahoga County (where Cleveland is situated) have no Internet access of any kind. More than half of the households making less than $20K a year, and more than 37% of all seniors, are fully unconnected.
Home Internet access has enabled online classrooms for most children in the COVID-19 era. On the other hand, a lack of Internet connectivity has seriously disadvantaged other children. Internet access also impacts other factors that shape the standard of living like access to employment, financial management, healthcare, and more. It also enables a far better delivery of city services to its community. Countries with higher adoption of home Internet see improved GDP, innovative Internet-based services, and workforce growth, according to a report from the ITU.
Internet Equity
While Cleveland ranks as one of the worst-connected cities in the country, the challenges it faces in addressing these digital divides are relatively commonplace. Therefore, the solutions we propose are also applicable in other post-industrial cities. Through a mix of technology innovation, regulatory intervention for Internet equity, new business models like public-private partnerships, the city governments can increase connectivity for their residents at affordable costs.
In cities like Cleveland, where any upgrades to connectivity will have to either replace or incorporate existing infrastructure, cost is a major barrier. It is always cheaper to lay infrastructure in greenfield (undeveloped) rather than brownfield areas. This makes it difficult to convince Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like AT&T or Comcast to invest in costly infrastructure without a secured customer base, which disadvantages lower-income neighborhoods and rural areas where population density is low.
While industry will continue to improve cost and performance of its products the service providers who deploy this technology are ultimately driven by profit margins and not digital equity. A pure market-based solution will never effectively address the needs of the lowest-income residents.
One example of good Internet equity is India, where the federal government funded much of the fiber backbone infrastructure in the country, and then leased it to private service providers to provide the last mile service. As a backbone supplier, the government is able to persuade the service providers to offer Internet access for the lower income population.
Technology Landscape
There are several ways to provide Internet service to households: xDSL (copper), cable, FTTP (fiber), WiFi, fixed wireless, and cellular are the most common, though satellite connectivity is increasing.
Fiber broadband remains highly desirable due to its promise of security, reliability, and speed. In most countries, fiber connectivity has only reached high penetration rates when governments shouldered the cost of infrastructure. Germany and the UK combined existing copper infrastructure with fiber technology, creating a cost-effective solution and reaching an impressive penetration rate, while in Spain, Australia, and France, fiber has been less successful.
Not every household requires the 1 Gbps download speeds that fiber can offer. Even video streaming services only require 20–30 Mbps download to provide HD quality. Therefore, many other technologies like cable, fixed wireless, satellite, or copper are more likely to be much cheaper.
Connecting residents living in low-income areas cities should look at a mix of technologies based on home density, and availability of existing infrastructure like fiber, copper and cable. In a situation where there is little in ground infrastructure, wireless may prove to be most cost effective. 5G at 3.5 GHz and Millimetric Wave Distribution Networks are gaining traction in many markets for home Internet. In rural areas with low home density, satellite may be attractive, and several companies are building satellite Internet.
Looking to the Future
A 21st century community requires 21st century tools. Children without home Internet access fall behind on homework during a regular year; in 2020, they were cut off from education opportunities completely. The shift to remote work due to COVID-19 was only possible for employees with stable home Internet access. Telehealth services had their strongest year of growth ever, and the trend is likely to continue.
As our society grows increasingly dependent on access to the Internet to reach both essential and useful services, the digital divide will become harsher.
Technology will only get us part of the way towards reaching higher connectivity rates. It will take a collaborative effort among policymakers, advocates, and ISPs to address the digital inequalities in the U.S. and provide workable solutions. Government officials at the city, state, and federal levels must recognize that businesses driven by profit alone will not solve this problem without effective regulation and enforcement.
Internet access to homes is an essential service, as was made amply clear in the past year. A goal of universal Internet to homes should be a top priority for the incoming administration; but it will take funding, an informed approach to public-private partnerships, and a practical mindset to make this a reality in the U.S.
