Imagine living in virtual darkness: zero access to Internet connection in your home; shut out from scientific and technological innovations; unaffected by the explosion of digital information in the last two decades; sealed off from the ever-bustling world.
That’s close to reality for half of low-income Americans who do not have high-speed internet connections at home, and it presents one of the largest barriers to social mobility in the United States today. Yet little attention is given to these silent populations. In a world seemingly more connected than ever, those without Internet access remain left behind and forgotten, unable to fully participate in the 21st century or enjoy the fruits of economic advancement.
Not having Internet connection, like many other societal infrastructures, perpetuates the poverty trap: it becomes incredibly difficult to search for a job, supplement classroom education with instructional videos and resources, and navigate the best healthcare options. Upward mobility hinges on families carefully focusing on these issues and slashing their expenses. Amidst the rise of the Internet as a social connector, and one intimately tied to entertainment, it’s easy to forget that access to modern economy is contingent on Internet connection. With so many low-income people not able to benefit from the services of the Internet, some have even dubbed lack of connectivity the “new inequality frontier.”
According to the most recent census data, a quarter of Americans still don’t have household high-speed Internet access. Families in poor areas are almost five times more likely to not have access to high-speed broadband than the most affluent American households. On top of concerns about equality, this reality also delivers a deadly blow to the vitality of the US economy. As a critical factor in global competiveness, Internet connection spurs national economic growth on the whole. The diffusion of best practices and consumer trends depends on symmetrical distribution of information—though our current system does anything but provide balance.
Analyzing OECD countries (a club of 35 developed nations) from 1996 to 2007, economists find that a 10-percentage point increase in broadband penetration can raise annual per capita growth by 0.9–1.5 percent. US counties that implement municipal fiber-optic networks, which provide public Internet access, experience faster economic growth than those that don’t. Nearly a third of the increase in productivity in Germany, France, and the UK from 2001 to 2011 is attributable to broadband technologies. Simply put, widespread Internet access lifts incomes for nearly all. Without competitive Internet infrastructure, the United States misses an opportunity to boost overall economic growth.
When people don’t have access to the Internet, they cannot tap into an important economic highway. At comparable skill levels, unemployed people looking for jobs online found work 25 percent faster than those without Internet access. Moreover, sluggish Internet speeds and high costs place a ceiling on small business expansion, the engine of middle class growth. If businesses try to relocate to areas with better connectivity, they likely cannot afford the rent — and so the self-perpetuating cycle presses on. Struggling business owners have no option to escape it. They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
Dealing with the lack of Internet access should be included in any serious plans to address our nation’s infrastructure. Usually, plans focus exclusively on food deserts, inadequate transportation, and public housing. Partially due to this tunnel vision, the United States doesn’t crack the top ten in nations with the fastest average Internet speeds and broadest access. It’s taken a back seat, when it should instead stand alongside other infrastructure programs. And since poorer individuals can’t boost their productivity at nearly the rate of wealthier ones without Internet access, income inequality becomes trickier to deal with. Unfortunately, the government can’t fix this issue unilaterally; regulators must take decisive action to break up regional telecom monopolies, and invite competitors into the market.
For the most part, the United States has achieved widespread availability of Internet connections. However, availability doesn’t necessarily translate to accessibility, as some people locations with Internet access can be difficult to find or reach. To address this, President Obama injected $7.2 billion into broadband infrastructure investment through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. President Obama also set his sights right with his 2013 ConnectED Initiative, which sought to connect 99 percent of American students to high quality broadband by 2018. Large corporations have jumped aboard, providing billions of dollars supporting Wi-Fi in libraries and schools, and supplying Internet-connected devices for children.
These gains, however, are largely cosmetic. Though the vast majority of classrooms are “internet-enabled,” students from poorer school districts often don’t have the devices they’d need to take advantage of the resource. This divide makes it extremely difficult for teachers to integrate the Internet into the classroom; a survey of thousands of teachers uncovered stark contrasts between the role of technology in wealthier and poorer school districts. 92 percent of teachers say the Internet has a “major impact” on their ability to access content, resources, and materials for their teaching. But 39 percent of teachers of poorer students believe their schools are “behind the curve” when it comes to technology for learning. That places a wall in front of teachers in underserved communities, leaving their students on poor footing.
High cost and poor quality of broadband comprise the two major forces behind lack of access in the United States. Unless the nation addresses those factors, it will continue to stumble. While other countries provide a 1,000 Mbps connection for less than $70 per month, it costs consumers $300 a month for a 500 Mbps connection in the US. In order words, it costs Americans over four times as much for half the Internet speed of most European countries. The United States’ problem is largely due to the lack of access in rural areas, where there’s little incentive for telecom firms to operate. Nevada, Montana, New Mexico, and Colorado, for instance, have some of the largest areas without Internet access — places where between 80 and 100 percent of homes are left in the dark. But even in US metropolises, we lag behind. Twenty-seven percent of NYC households lack broadband access at home, concentrated heavily in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens. The Internet problem seeps into every corner.
A handful of telecom companies dominate the industry and enable these disparities. Sometimes two or three firms technically “compete” in the same area and don’t wear the typical monopoly garb; but, since the companies compete for customers only through ad campaigns and not by lowering prices, they still function as regional monopolies. This allows telecom companies to drastically inflate the cost of access: the cost of broadband to providers is about $5 per month, though it’s sold, on average, for $50 a month. The now-settled $85 billion buyout of Time Warner by AT&T complicates the situation even more. “A [telecom company] owning content is something that was expressly prohibited for a century” by the government, writes Craig Moffett, an analyst at MoffettNathanson. It appears we are moving towards even greater market monopolization, and even less flexible Internet pricing.
Internationally, researchers find compelling evidence that the entrance — or even the hint — of new competitors drives prices down and quality up. When Google Fiber, a broadband and cable service, popped up in Kansas City, Internet speeds shot up 86% at the same time. New telecom firms will help stir the Internet monopoly pot, sparking cheap, quality connections.
To integrate all its citizens in the modern economy, the US must both broaden access to and improve the quality of Internet. South Korea can serve as our template. It leads the world on this front, with 80% of connections having an average speed faster than 10Mbps (or almost double the global average internet speed). To accomplish this, the South Korean government took a two-pronged approach: first, invest in a public Internet framework, and second, reconsider private sector telecom regulation. They lowered the barriers to entry for fresh Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and allowed them apply pressure on large telecom providers. As the smaller firms snatched up the Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services, big firms improved their own provisions. The “big three” that once held 80% of the business now contend with a number of other firms, keeping the hegemons on their toes.
Thus, the cure to the United States’ problem doesn’t have to come from nationalizing telecom provisions. While that can artificially lower prices to spread access, it will likely run a deficit for a long time. Instead, it’s time to unleash some competition. The US has followed the first step with ConnectED and ARRA. We now have to make the second step.
Temporarily subsidizing smaller businesses to reach rural areas with Internet access may be the cure. Grants allow that up-and-comers to take more risks and butt heads with bigger telecom firms by financing pursuits they feel hesitant about. Better still, regulators in the UK forced big-box companies to lease their networks to competitors at cost. This essentially forces private businesses to subsidize newbies, without any public outlays.
In the case of Internet access, small and localized programs can allow for faster, more effective dispersal than large national ones can. The Red Hook Initiative, in the relatively isolated section of Brooklyn, New York, sets a solid precedent. It installed wireless nodes throughout the neighborhood in 2012, which provided an invaluable service when Hurricane Sandy hit the area and people required emergency services.
Mark Zuckerberg’s global-minded Internet.org sums up well how important broadening Internet access is: “By giving people access to the tools, knowledge and opportunities of the Internet we can give a voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless.” The Internet carries individuals into a vibrant network, enabling social causes to flourish and hidden problems to receive the spotlight. Local communities should step in to ensure reasonable public access to Internet services, supplementing the federal government’s effort to whip up competition and private businesses’ provisions of Internet devices. California’s poor Coachella Valley district placed Wi-Fi hotspots in school buses and nearby trailer parks so students can have access outside of the classroom. Wi-Fi kiosks in public housing developments, such as those in Washington state’s Kent School District, work as well.
Cutting the restraints from poorer communities should be of the highest priorities for legislators. Right now, impoverished families fight an unwinnable fight: it’s nearly impossible to join the ranks of the middles class without access to the Internet. Making informed decisions rests on access to reliable resources. This has evolved into the latest frontier of the war on inequality. The government should send more anti-trust soldiers to engage the suited gremlins at Time Warner, Verizon, and Comcast in order to win.
