The Biden administration recently announced its plans to invest over $100 billion into broadband infrastructure, a decision that broadband companies vocally oppose. During a trip to Pittsburgh, Biden laid out the details for his next legislative priority — a massive push to invest $2.25 trillion into U.S. infrastructure.
One of the more significant aims of the American Jobs Plan is the administration’s intention to expand broadband access significantly. It stated that “more than 30 million Americans live in areas with no broadband infrastructure that provides minimally acceptable speeds. Americans in rural areas and on tribal lands particularly lack adequate access.” The administration also noted that high prices and racial issues contributed to these disparities in internet access. The inability to have such connections ended up having severe effects across America, contributing to “compounding learning loss and social isolation” for students in 2020.
The Biden administration stated that it intends to expand broadband infrastructure in the next eight years, with the hope of reaching 100% coverage. It also hopes to promote price transparency, remove barriers that limit competition by local providers, and reduce the cost of broadband internet service as a whole.
The expansion of broadband into rural areas has been a consistent rallying issue for every administration since Bill Clinton. Bush proposed in 2004 that broadband coverage be universally available within three years. Barack Obama made similar promises, arguing in 2009 that the federal government should boost internet investments “so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.” Donald Trump promised to invest several billion into rural networks as well.
In the few cases in which the federal government has gotten involved in rural broadband expansion, results were questionable. A 2015 investigation found that the Rural Utilities Service, which manages assigning funds for rural infrastructure, mishandled billions of dollars in funds over several years. In many cases, these mismanaged dollars were given to organizations that had no experience in broadband expansion.
“The norm for decades has been to rely on private providers for rolling out internet service,” said Kristian Stout of the International Center for Law and Economics. “Overwhelmingly, that system has worked well. Despite record usage surges, U.S. networks held up far beyond expectations and even exceeded the performance of some European counterparts. We have a very innovative broadband industry in the U.S., and most (but not all) of the U.S. has access to fast, reliable broadband.”
Several telecom organizations have also voiced their concerns about the bill. “We share the end goal of the Biden broadband proposal: ensuring that 100% of Americans have access to robust broadband networks,” wrote Michael Powell, president and CEO of the telecom advocacy organization NCTA. “However, such a monumental plan must be properly targeted to achieve our principal national objectives — getting broadband networks built in areas where they don’t exist, and modernizing a safety net to help low-income families adopt and afford internet service.” USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter voiced similar concerns and encouraged Congress to “prioritize affordability and accessibility solutions that are fast and smart and incentivize continued private investment to get the job done.”
Stout told the Washington Examiner that if the Biden administration wishes to make such an investment successful, it needs to focus on the “unserved in order to guarantee as much efficacy as possible.” That works best through public-private partnership solutions that strive to fill in the gaps until the private sector can take over. When asked for a comparative example, Stout mentioned the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as an example of a similar partnership.
