Broadband and Digital Inclusion
Digital Opportunities Compass: Metrics to Monitor, Evaluate, and Guide Broadband and Digital Equity Policy
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA) and the Digital Equity Act of 2021 (DEA) establish a broad framework and significant funding to advance broadband connectivity and digital equity. Both Acts recognize that closing the broadband access and device gaps are necessary first steps toward digital equity. To fully realize the full benefits of digital technology for individuals, communities, and society at large additional efforts are needed.
The Digital Equity Act assumes that affordable robust broadband service, Internet-enabled devices that meet user needs, applications and online content, access to digital literacy training, quality technical support, and measures to ensure privacy and cybersecurity are identified as six stepping stones toward digital equity. Both the IIJA and the DEA also establish requirements to monitor the effectiveness of programs. Specifically, they require the tracking of measurable outcomes in accordance with the six stepping stones. IIJA also requires an assessment of how the measures based on the various funding programs relate to broader community outcomes.
Doing this work well requires complementing the framework established in IIJA and DEA with additional insights from what we know about how broadband enables social, community, and economic development. With tremendous effort, states are developing a clear understanding of the current availability, quality, and affordability of broadband. Many realize that pursuing a longer-term digital equity strategy requires going beyond the mapping of availability, access, and access quality. However, there is less clarity on which other factors are relevant and should be considered when seeking to maximize the benefits of high-speed connectivity for community and economic development.
The Digital Opportunities Compass offers a framework to assist in the development of state plans that meet the reporting and assessment requirements of IIJA and DEA but go beyond access and affordability to fully harness the benefits of digital technology. As communities and states develop plans to improve digital equity, it is important to establish a shared framework to establish goals and priorities, to identify opportunities, and monitor progress toward these goals.
MSU Digital Equity Consortium: A Partner for Michigan
The MSU Digital Equity Consortium is a collaboration of experts and practitioners from multiple units and colleges at Michigan State University. The Consortium was formed in the fall of 2022 to help the State of Michigan in harnessing the tremendous MSU Digital Equity Consortiums benefits of advanced digital connectivity while mitigating the potential risks of emerging technologies. The Consortium was formed to coordinate the universities capabilities related to advancing high-speed internet access and economic development in Michigan.
Currently, the Consortium comprises the Quello Center, MSU Extension, the Center for Community and Economic Development, K-12 Outreach Education, Michigan 4-H Youth Development, the College of Human Medicine, Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems (RS&GIS), MSU Innovations, and experts with expertise in specialized vertical application areas from across the university.
A collaborative leadership structure was created to offer an effective contact gateway to state government and other stakeholders in Michigan. We belief that the Consortium positions MSU well to contribute to the State’s efforts to address the challenges of leveraging digital technology to foster economic development and to achieve digital equity and inclusion. Efforts to overcome discrepancies in high-speed Internet access are an integral part of our strategic plan and of the land grant mission of the university.
Broadband Policy FAQs
There is no clear threshold at which a connection can be considered “broadband”. The National Research Council defined broadband flexibly as a connection able to support advanced applications and services (CSTB, 2002). The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) currently defines broadband as Internet access that supports a download speed of 25 mbps and an upload speed of 3 mbps. At these speeds, several users in a household are able to stream video, but the connection might not support more advanced tasks. There are proposals to increase the threshold to 100/20 mbps and some of the recent federal programs only subsidize connections that can offer that speed.
Why is broadband important?
Advanced information and communication technologies have enormous capabilities that can unleash a broad range of innovations. Educational technology, tele-health, precision agriculture, industry 4.0, smart mobility, and green energy offer enormous possibilities to improve our lives. A next wave of technologies, including artificial intelligence and advanced robotics, promise novel solutions to pressing problems. Broadband can help create future-proof jobs, community development, and sustainable growth. As digital technology is increasingly embedded in the American economic and social fabric, Lack of high-quality broadband will increasingly be associated with disadvantages and hardships.
What are the benefits of broadband?
Anecdotal evidence and correlations suggest a positive association between broadband and community development. Such high-level data need to be interpreted with caution. More solid, statistical evidence is more nuances but does generally support these observations. Broadband connectivity and adoption are associated with higher economic growth and income. They are also associated with entrepreneurial startup activity and with lower unemployment. There is also evidence that broadband has additional benefits for communities. It facilitates new forms of personal and civic engagement, can contribute to the safety of communities, and can help increase the quality of life.
Does broadband have any risks?”
The services and applications enabled by broadband also have some potential downsides. Good policy and responsible uses will assure that the benefits will outweigh these risks. For example, better broadband connectivity may motivate more people to show online from distant suppliers. This may put additional pressure on local businesses that do not adapt to the world of digital commerce and even force them to close. Like traditional media, social media may have harmful effects on certain vulnerable groups. There are currently fewer legal and regulatory safeguards than in traditional media. This creates new challenges for digital literacy and responsible parenting, which can mitigate these risks.
What about information security?
The increasing use of digital technologies also increases potential vulnerabilities to cyberattacks. Research shows that awareness and skills building among users is one effective way of reducing such risks. Additional policies to increase the incentives of software developers, hardware manufacturers, network operators, and service providers are needed. Security-aware design of communication systems and improved digital literacy will mitigate security concerns. In addition to enhancing defenses against cyberattacks, it is important to improve the resilience of systems. This will allow to recover quickly after a security breach.
What is the digital divide?
Research currently distinguishes three forms of digital divides. First, there are discrepancies between individuals, social groups, and locations in access to modern information and communication technologies, including broadband Internet. Second, there are discrepancies in the digital literacy that result in great variation in skills to use these technologies well. Third, because of these two divides, there are differences in the outcomes associated with using of modern information and communication technologies. Consequently, some individuals and groups may be able to translate broadband access better into benefits and advantages than others.
How serious are digital divides in Michigan?
Digital divides were first identified in 1995 by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Despite this awareness, data documenting digital divides are inaccurate and incomplete. According to the American Community Survey (ACS), in 2020, 18% of households in Michigan did not have access to broadband. Fifteen percent of households did not have any Internet at all. Twelve percent did not have access to a computer, smartphone, or tablet. On average, rural areas are much worse off than urban areas. Large discrepancies exist by income, education, and ethnicity within both rural and urban areas.
What are unserved and underserved areas?
Broadband policy programs use the terms unserved and underserved. Like the notion of broadband, they are difficult to define in a meaningful way. The IIJA defines “unserved” locations as census tracts that do not have access to broadband with minimum download and upload speeds of 25/3 mbps and “underserved” as census tracts that do not have access to 100/20 mbps service. The Building Michigan Together Plan and the supplemental spending bill, Senate Bill 565 (SB 565) go further and define “unserved” as any location that is not served by 100/20 mbps.
What explains these discrepancies?
Remote and sparsely populated locations are expensive to serve. In some areas, the investment cost is higher than the anticipated revenues from broadband subscriptions. In this case, private businesses do not have a sustainable business model and will not offer service. Second, some demographics cannot afford the current price for broadband service, even if it is available in a location. Currently, there are more individuals and households across urban and rural areas that cannot afford broadband service than individuals and households without availability. These factors are aggravated by the lack of competition in many areas that keeps prices high and service quality low. A third factor is that potential subscribers may not appreciate the benefits of broadband.
What is the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF)?
The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund RDOF was introduced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in August 2019 to expand broadband Internet speeds to unserved, underserved, and partially served homes and businesses across the country. The program earmarked $20.4 billion to broadband expansion between 2020-2030. Phase I of RDOF used a reverse auction process to award subsidies for broadband to the lowest bidders. Provider made commitments to serve over 5.2 million unserved homes and businesses, almost 99% of the locations available in the auction. The total subsidy needed was $9.2 billion, significantly below the budgeted $16 billion, with the saved $6.8 billion rolled over into Phase II of the program. The RDOF Phase II auction will award up to $11.2 billion in support of bringing broadband and voice to census blocks determined as partially served by the FCC’s new granular broadband mapping approach, Digital Opportunity Data Collection (DODC), and the remaining unserved areas not reached through RDOF Phase I.
What broadband funding was included in the infrastructure bill?”
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) sets out a $65 billion investment into broadband. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will administer $48.2 billion in four programs. In addition, the FCC will administer a $14.42 billion Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), the U.S. Department of Agriculture will administer $2B via the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and $600 million will be dedicated to private activity bonds to be used by state and local governments for rural broadband.
What is the Affordable Connectivity Program?
According to the FCC, the Affordable Connectivity Program is a “benefit program that helps ensure that households can afford the broadband they need for work, school, healthcare and more. The benefit provides a discount of up to $30 per month toward internet service for eligible households and up to $75 per month for households on qualifying Tribal lands. Eligible households can also receive a one-time discount of up to $100 to purchase a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet from participating providers if they contribute more than $10 and less than $50 toward the purchase price. The Affordable Connectivity Program is limited to one monthly service discount and one device discount per household.” See https://www.fcc.gov/acp.
What programs does the NTIA support from IIJA?
The Broadband Equity and Deployment Act (BEAD) earmarked $42.45 billion for investment in unserved and underserved areas. States will receive allocations based on their share in the total national unserved and underserved populations, which will be determined later in 2022 based on the revised FCC broadband map. $1 billion will go toward the Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program. $2 billion will be provided to the existing Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program. And $2.75 billion will be distributed through the Digital Equity Act Programs to promote digital inclusion and equity to ensure that all individuals and communities have the opportunity to acquire the same skills, technology, and capacity needed to engage in the Nation’s digital economy. See the website.
What is digital equity and broadband equity?
The National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) defines digital equity as a “condition in which all individuals and communities have the information technology capacity needed for full participation in our society, democracy, and economy. Digital equity is necessary for civic and cultural participation, employment, lifelong learning, and access to essential services”. NDIA defines broadband equity as a state “when all people and communities are able to access and use affordable, high-speed, reliable internet that meets their long-term needs”. See https://www.digitalinclusion.org/definitions/.
What is digital inclusion?
NDIA defines digital inclusion as “the activities necessary to ensure that all individuals and communities, including the most disadvantaged, have access to and use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). This includes five elements: (1) affordable, robust broadband internet service; (2) Internet-enabled devices that meet the needs of the user; (3) access to digital literacy training; (4) quality technical support; and (5) applications and online content designed to enable and encourage self-sufficiency, participation and collaboration. Digital Inclusion must evolve as technology advances. Digital Inclusion requires intentional strategies and investments to reduce and eliminate historical, institutional and structural barriers to access and use technology.” See https://www.digitalinclusion.org/definitions/.
Are municipalities eligible for broadband funding?
Studies show that states that allow municipal and other non-profit ownership of broadband networks have higher rates of broadband coverage and adoption (e.g., Whitacre, B., & Gallardo, R. (2020). State broadband policy: Impacts on availability. Telecommunications Policy, 44(9), 102025. DOI). The Metropolitan Extension Telecommunications Rights-of-Way Oversight (METRO) Act of 2002 and the Michigan Telecommunications Act of 1991 allow public ownership only under certain restrictive conditions, such as the unwillingness of private operators to serve a location.
What funding does Michigan have available?
Several sources of funds are available to extend broadband to unserved and underserved locations. During the Whitmer-Gilchrist Administration, Internet service providers have secured: $363 million through the Federal Communications Commission’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction; $28 million in grant awards through the state-level Connecting Michigan Communities Grant Program; $32.6 million through the United States Department of Agriculture’s ReConnect Program; and $4.8 million through the FCC’s COVID-19 Telehealth Grant Program. Michigan earmarked $250 million from the American Rescue Plan for the expansion of broadband. Finally, Michigan expects an allocation of $1.3-1.5 billion from BEAD.
Selected Broadband Publications
Hampton, K.N. & Shin, I. (2022). Disconnection More Problematic for Adolescent Self-Esteem than Heavy Social Media Use: Evidence from Access Inequalities and Restrictive Media Parenting in Rural America, Social Science Computer Review, published online August 5, 2022. Download at https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393221117466.
Hampton, K.N., & Shin, I. (2022, May). Disconnection is more problematic for adolescent self-esteem than heavy social media use: Digital inequality, restrictive parenting, and the relationship to time rural youth spend with friends and family. International Communication Association. Hybrid Conference. May 25-30, 2022, Paris, France.
Reisdorf, B., Fernandez, L., Hampton, K.N., Shin, I., & Dutton, W.H. (2022). Mobile phones will not eliminate digital and social divides: How variation in Internet activities mediates the relationship between type of internet access and local social capital in Detroit. Social Science Computer Review, 40(2), 288-308.
Hampton, K.N., Robertson, C.T., Fernandez, L., Shin, I., & Bauer, J.M. (2021). How variation in internet access, digital skills, and media use are related to rural student outcomes: GPA, SAT, and educational aspirations. Telematics and Informatics, 101666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101666.
Prado, T.S. & Bauer, J.M. (2021). Improving broadband policy design using market data: A general framework and application to Brazil, Telecommunications Policy, 45(5), 102111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102111.
Bauer, J.M.; Hampton, K.N.; Fernandez, L.; Robertson, C., Overcoming Michigan’s Homework Gap: The Role of Broadband Internet Connectivity for Student Success and Career Outlooks (October 19, 2020). Quello Center Working Paper No. 06-20, Download from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3714752 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3714752.
Hampton, K.N., Fernandez, L., Robertson, C. T., & Bauer, J.M. Broadband and Student Performance Gaps. James H. and Mary B. Quello Center, Michigan State University, March 3, 2020. https://doi.org/10.25335/BZGY-3V91.
Fernandez, L., Reisdorf, B.C., & Dutton, W.H. (2019). Urban Internet myths and Realities: A Detroit case study. Information, Communication & Society, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1622764.
Mack, E.A., Dutton, W.H., Rikard, R.V., & Yankelevich, A. (2019). Mapping and measuring the information society: A social science perspective on the opportunities, problems, and prospects of broadband Internet data in the United States. The Information Society, 35(2), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2019.1574526.
LaRose, R., Bauer, J.M., DeMaagd, K., Chew, H.E., Ma, W., & Jung, Y. (2014). Public broadband investment priorities in the United States: An analysis of the broadband technology opportunities program. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 53-64.
Research Projects
Broadband and Student Performance Gaps (completed)
Broadband and Student Performance Gaps is the result of a project designed to understand the repercussions of poor or no home Internet access on student performance and the associated costs to society. The Quello Center at Michigan State University (MSU) and Merit Network, in December 2018, brought together the K12 Citizen Science Working Group, a small group of stakeholders from Michigan school districts.
Research Team: Keith N. Hampton (MSU), Laleah H. Fernandez (MSU), Craig T. Robertson (Oxford), Johannes M. Bauer (MSU)
The COVID-19 Pandemic and Rural Digital Inequities in Educational Attainment, Student Performance, and Psychological Wellbeing
This project studies the role of digital inequality on change in rural student’s academic performance, educational aspirations, and psychological wellbeing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilizing existing survey and student record data from a 2019 sample of rural students will be paired with student records from standardized exams (2019-2022), and information on student internet during the pandemic.
Research Team: Keith N. Hampton (MSU), Gabriel Hales (MSU), Megan Knittel (MSU), Johannes M. Bauer (MSU)
Human-Centered Infrastructure Design and the Future of Rural Digital Connectivity
This study by Jean Hardy, Director of the Rural Computing Research Consortium (RCRC) and Research Fellow at the Quello Center, seeks to answer the following: First, what are the localized, and often invisible, connectivity needs of rural people? Second, how do we design infrastructure so that it better serves rural connectivity from a rural perspective?
Research Team: Jean Hardy (MSU), Ava Francesca Battocchio (MSU), Johannes M. Bauer (MSU)
In the Media
September 1, 2022- Broadband Bunch: Broadband Podcast: Focusing on Digital Skills Not Technology
August 19, 2022- State of the State podcast: Inflation, recession, and expanding broadband services to all Michiganders