Don’t let talk of a grand infrastructure compromise in Washington, D.C., fool you: There is still a gulf between Democrats and Republicans. The BRIDGE Act is the first major bipartisan legislation to address internet infrastructure in the new Congress. Unfortunately, this legislation would fail to live up to its name and bridge the digital divide. It turns out that spending money on political constituencies does little to expand internet access where it’s needed most.
Before examining the shortcomings of the BRIDGE Act, it is worth mentioning some ways in which this legislation is an improvement on previous proposals. The Biden administration suggested spending $100 billion on broadband build-out, and Republicans countered with a plan for $65 billion. By contrast, the BRIDGE Act is far more reasonable with “only” $40 billion. While that’s still an excessive amount of money given that current government funding hasn’t even been spent yet, any sign of fiscal restraint in Washington is noteworthy.
Another point in its favor: The BRIDGE Act targets funding primarily at unserved areas. Those are areas where people lack access to speeds of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload, the speeds necessary to stream video and video conferences. They are most often rural and expensive to reach, making them difficult for private providers to serve.
The legislation fails, however, when it strays from partnering with the private sector to reach unserved areas and instead puts the government in the broadband business to compete in already served areas. Funding not dedicated to unserved areas will be spent on “underserved” areas, meaning those without speeds of 100 Mbps download and 25 Mbps upload, or “other qualified areas,” meaning areas without gigabit speeds for uploads and downloads. These areas already have one if not two internet service providers that can meet the needs of 99% of consumers. Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for federal funds in areas where the private sector has already invested.
The tail end of the bill features a provision that would preempt any state legislation preventing funding for government-owned networks. This is taking government interference in the broadband space to another level. Outside of a dubious history of being taxpayer boondoggles, government-owned networks are traditionally built in relatively dense areas where the private sector usually has multiple options. Money spent on government-owned networks is not only likely to be wasted on doomed projects, but it would also do little to expand access or drive down prices, not to mention this requirement is a significant blow to federalism.
In short, too much of the BRIDGE Act isn’t about expanding internet access where it’s needed. It’s about giving money to constituencies that some politicians are eager to subsidize.
Even with the BRIDGE Act’s many shortcomings, however, there is room for optimism on the broadband front. The BRIDGE Act recognizes that both access and adoption are key to closing the digital divide once and for all.
Legislators should focus on the key drivers of the digital divide. Rather than focusing on increasing broadband options and speeds, they should focus exclusively on unserved areas and provide the maximum number of technological options to serve that area, such as satellite internet and fixed wireless internet. They should also make sure current funds are spent rather than throwing billions more at the problem.
Furthermore, rather than entangling the issues of access and adoption, Congress can look to reform the much-outdated Universal Service Fund at the Federal Communications Commission to make adoption more affordable. It should also find ways to empower local civil society organizations to decrease the digital literacy gap and improve adoption rates.
It’s nice to see Democrats and Republicans agreeing in this era of bitter partisanship, but the policies they agree upon should actually solve the problem.
Eric Peterson (@Eric_Peterson_) is the director of the Pelican Center for Technology and Innovation in Louisiana. He lives in New Orleans.
