By: Daniel Wang
Connecting America’s future with lessons from the past
Several minutes before class starts, a high school student from Massachusetts can wake up and log onto Zoom. Meanwhile, a student in rural Arkansas drives 20 minutes and parks outside the municipal library — his only consistent source of WiFi. He has not turned on his video for months because the internet is too slow. However integral high-speed internet is to our daily lives, it is a luxury that 21 million Americans cannot afford. Under President Biden’s American Jobs Plan, a $2 trillion infrastructure project, the U.S. government would dedicate $100 billion to expanding broadband access and infrastructure. Lessons from the New Deal show that President Biden’s broadband plan must be passed to ensure social equality and economic relief.
Like electricity and gas, broadband should be universally accessible. Due to the pandemic, the U.S. has turned towards the internet for education and healthcare, both of which are fundamental human rights. With the dominance of work-from-home and the gig economy, broadband has become a cornerstone of the American economy.
That said, 35% of rural Americans lack access to fast and affordable broadband. When the pandemic started, half of West Virginia’s students were stranded without broadband. A year later, band-aid solutions like hotspots fail to provide a long-term solution. According to the National Education Association, black, hispanic, and indigenous students are less likely to have access to broadband than white students. The issue with cost is just as severe as infrastructure: Americans pay more to access the internet than the rest of the world. Biden’s plan takes aim at both accessibility and affordability.
President Biden’s plan is indeed a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity to not only provide lasting infrastructure, but also immediate economic relief. His proposal is reminiscent of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, a response to the Great Depression that built government agencies and infrastructure alike. In Massachusetts alone, the Works Progress Administration built thousands of miles of roadway, bridges, parks, and utilities — many of which still stand today. Also part of the New Deal, the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 empowered millions of families with electricity throughout the 1960s. The number of farms with electricity increased from 11% to 97% over 30 years, achieving “near-total electrification” of rural America.
Critics argue that the government should not regulate or spend money on broadband, and that such endeavors should be left for private companies. Biden’s plan proposes to support municipal broadband networks, or city-run infrastructure, to provide affordable internet instead of making a profit. Republicans and large internet companies strongly oppose municipal broadband on the basis that they reduce competition. Recently, Republican congressmen introduced a bill that would ban municipal broadband networks nationwide.
Yet, the current lack of affordable broadband shows the flaw with letting laissez-faire capitalism dictate access to an essential utility: companies simply lack motivation and financial incentives to lay down costly cables in rural communities. Further, there is no real notion of “competition” in the status quo. Internet service providers split up their territory in order to maximize profit. As a result, 50 million Americans only have access to one or zero internet service providers. In 18 states, it is not even legal for municipal broadband to compete with private companies. Republicans’ plan does not even allow for public-private partnerships, a proven model from the Rural Electrification Act that decreased initial costs by more than 50%. Under Biden’s plan, affordable broadband access can be expanded through competition between bidders and economies of scale.
The long term benefits of infrastructure are intuitive and indisputable. Though the New Deal employed millions of Americans and decreased unemployment by 10 percent, critics rightfully point out that it did not end the Great Depression. Many modern day conservatives view the New Deal as a cautionary tale against large government spending; they claim that it was World War II that ended the economic crisis. However, historians argue that the main reason for the New Deal’s immediate shortcomings was that it did not spend enough. Historian Eric Raunchway writes, “An argument that war mobilization ended the Depression is an argument that the New Deal was an effective policy, and could have worked better only by being as big as mobilization for war.”
Nearly a century later, the United States is faced with another devastating economic crisis. Biden’s American Jobs Plan would spend much more than the New Deal in proportion to the crisis, making it a government response of unprecedented scale. The $100 billion investment into the broadband industry would create countless jobs, providing immediate relief to multiple industries. Further, increasing access to broadband has numerous economic benefits. A study by the World Bank showed that a 10% increase in broadband accessibility would translate to a 1.2% GDP growth for developed countries. The FCC stated that improving broadband access yields higher returns than any other infrastructure investment. Broadband would connect and uplift communities not only socially, but economically.
By reviving the economy while building critical broadband infrastructure, Biden’s plan would fulfill two critical needs simultaneously. The U.S. government can spend as long as the debt it would take on is a worthwhile investment, which it absolutely is in this case. Just like in the 1930s, the government must prioritize people over corporate interests, if not for immediate economic benefit, then for the millions of children that would otherwise grow up disconnected to the future.
(image on 3rd page)
Current broadband access across the U.S.
source: Microsoft
Biden plans to expand broadband access with municipal networks
source: Fast Company
