The late Congressman John Lewis once prophetically noted that “access to the Internet is the civil rights issue of the 21st century.” In the long struggle to recognize Lewis’ vision and close America’s digital divide, civil rights advocates have repeatedly reminded policymakers of one central truth: progress is measured by results, not good intentions.
In 2015, for example, the Federal Communications Commission modernized Lifeline — a decades-old program that had long helped low-income households obtain phone service — to apply to internet service as well. This was a step forward, to be sure. But counterproductive, outdated restrictions blocked customers of many of the country’s biggest providers from participating. The FCC’s intentions were noble, but the results were disappointing.
More recently, the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) has proved transformational, helping 23 million lower-income households buy internet service without busting their family budgets. However, the federal government’s failure to re-fund the program is about to cost these families their safety net. Millions may lose their connectivity as a result — an entirely avoidable catastrophe. While plenty of leaders in both parties support an extension, all the good intentions in the world won’t matter if Congress doesn’t act.
While the ACP hangs in the balance, the bipartisan infrastructure bill’s $42 billion rural broadband program also offers hope for lower-income Americans, including Black and Latino families who are often overlooked. Again, progress hinges on public servants getting the details right.
Congress wisely insisted that any broadband provider getting money from the infrastructure bill to build rural networks has to offer an affordable option for lower-income customers. Most major providers already do so voluntarily, through programs like Comcast Internet Essentials, Verizon Forward, AT&T Access and Spectrum Internet Assist.
The infrastructure law also strictly prohibits the federal agency implementing the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) bill from regulating broadband prices under the program.
Lawmakers understood price controls would scare off the private investment urgently needed to complement the program’s public funding and make the rural buildout a success. Giving states and providers flexibility in developing options to meet the law’s “affordability” requirements avoids that risk.
NTIA must consider that caution as it reviews the broadband deployment plans every state and territory has submitted for approval. If federal or state agencies load up these plans with mandates and pricing restrictions that rural projects become uneconomic, many capable and experienced network builders might sit out the program entirely.
Federal infrastructure funds could end up going to inexperienced, second-rate providers who make promises they may not be able to keep. Some projects may not even find any network providers willing to risk investment capital. And those rural communities — including communities of color — that we want to help would be left out and left behind. Again.
After well-intentioned but failed experiments with rent control in New York City, wage and price controls in the Nixon administration, and command-and-control economies overseas, we have learned that top-down price controls rarely work as intended. America’s internet has thrived under a much more pragmatic “light touch” regulatory mindset initiated during Bill Clinton’s administration. Under this framework, broadband providers have invested nearly $2 trillion in private capital to build a nationwide infrastructure that brings world-class speeds to 93 percent of Americans’ doorsteps.
We can and must address the challenges of building broadband networks for the communities that still aren’t served while helping hard-pressed households — including the rural poor — afford internet service. However, we should not strangle these goals in a mess of well-intentioned but ultimately harmful regulations. Congress has delivered the funding to realize the goal of “internet for all”; now, federal and state agencies have the chance to deliver real results.
