|
Op-Ed:
Critics worry BRIDGE Act could result in broadband overbuilds and widen
digital divide
[The Center Square]
Johnny Kampis | Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Critics say the BRIDGE
Act, a $40 billion legislative bill intended to boost broadband access
across the U.S., could actually exacerbate the digital divide due to
some questionable provisions regarding unserved and underserved
communities. |
|
 The bill, formally titled the Broadband Reform and Investment
to Drive Growth in the Economy Act of 2021, was introduced by Sens. Michael F.
Bennet (D-Colo.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Angus King (I-Maine). The legislation
strangely only allocates 50% of funds expressly for unserved areas, which are
defined as areas lacking the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) standards
of 25 megabits-per-second download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds. The
legislation allows the other half of the money to go toward what is defined in
the BRIDGE Act as an underserved area lacking speeds of 100 Mbps/25 Mbps.
The bill further creates another designation of “other
qualifying area” that could provide funding to areas that lack symmetrical
gigabit speeds of 1,000 Mbps once other areas are taken care of.
But given the current gap in services, critics of the legislation believe the
efforts to “future proof” broadband could result in many unserved areas
continuing to be unserved.
Eric Peterson, director of policy at the Pelican Institute in Louisiana, told
Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) this aspect of the bill is where the
legislation “really goes off the rails.”
“It’s the role of government to get internet to unserved areas, not where
there’s already internet service,” he said.
He noted, too, that the pandemic proved the current FCC standard provides the
speed needed to power internet in the country. Zoom and other teleconferencing
software worked well at upload speeds of 3 Mbps.
“The current use case for our internet does not show we need to spend government
money there,” Peterson said of the plan that would allocate 50% of BRIDGE Act
funding to underserved and other qualifying areas.
Jeffrey Westling, resident fellow in technology and innovation at the R Street
Institute, told TPA the claim that the BRIDGE Act is intended to bridge the
digital divide while also giving local governments the flexibility to spend
funds in areas that already have internet is strange.
[to top of second column] |
“If we’re going to spend significant taxpayer money
on this, we need to focus on getting those areas lacking internet
service into the 21st century economy,” he said.
The bill doubles down (or, technically, quadruples down) by
requiring new networks to be built with symmetrical speeds of
100/100 unless the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration grants an exemption for 100/30. Recipients of the
funds must also provide a rate-regulated option for low-income
residents. These speeds must also be 100/100 and cannot include data
caps.
American Enterprise Institute’s Bronwyn Howell noted that the
100/100 standard is a push for fiber-optic cable, but she asked in a
recent op-ed if fiber is truly future proof. She points out that
once fiber enters a home or business, most devices connect to the
internet via wireless Wi-Fi anyway.
“Arguably, in a technologically dynamic environment such as
telecommunications, there is no such thing as future-proof, as
nobody can predict the future (except when future environments are
strictly controlled so only predetermined paths are permitted),” she
wrote. “Who, for example, would have wagered thirty years ago on
copper-based switched voice telephony becoming a doomed business, or
that personalized streaming would overtake broadcast television?”
Westling said that government should let the free market determine
which technology is best rather than push for fiber-only networks.
Satellite and fixed wireless networks are working to help bridge the
digital divide, but wouldn’t be an option under BRIDGE Act
parameters.
“It’s stifling innovation,” he told TPA. “A lot of these
technologies are in their infancy and we don’t know what in the long
term they can provide.”
Johnny Kampis is a senior fellow and investigative
reporter for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. |
