The Rural Digital Divide

There's little argument about the enormous advantages one has with access to high speed internet. And the issue of the digital divide is one of the most widely discussed topics within the realm of IT.

In a previous blog, I discussed the issue of the generational digital divide, but a far greater problem (at least from a public policy perspective) is that of the rural digital divide. Millions around the world are disconnected from the Internet simply because they live in an area without high speed internet connections. In this blog, I will specifically discuss the rural digital divide in the US, as well as some proposed options for bridging it.

I grew up in rural West Virginia and attended high school in the late 90s. My family was definitely more tech-savy than most people who lived around us, but the entire time we lived in that area, the only internet connection option was dial-up. We used the Internet all the time, so we even had a separate phone line used exclusively for internet connection. However, back then that was a fairly common way to connect to the Internet, even in urban and suburban areas. Unfortunately, in 2008 if I were to move back to my hometown, I'd still be limited to a "high-speed" dial-up connection. The area is simply too remote and too rural to make it worthwhile for an ISP to offer broadband. And can we blame the ISP's? Or can we count on them (i.e. "the market") to eventually fix this problem? Or should government acknowledge the indisputable value and advantage high speed internet access provides and take measures to intervene?

I certainly wouldn't have been alone without such access. This May 23, 2008 PC World article cites a recent study by the California State Broadband Task Force that found 1.4 million California residents do not have access to broadband networks. A Penn State study released this month examines the positive effects broadband access could have on rural communities.

There are many debates within the issue of broadband policy. To start one the issue Bob Bocher discussed in his presentation about net neutrality: whether broadband internet access should be considered a public utility the same way electricity, water, and other basic services are now considered. As Mr. Bocher told us, in 2005 the FCC determined that this was not the case, and that the "common carrier" rule that applies to essential utility services is not applicable to broadband services. Despite this decision, the nature of broadband service is still highly contentious and is likely to continue to come up in future broadband policy debate.

So should government play a bigger role in broadband policy? And if so, what should that role be? In 2004, President Bush promised country-wide broadband access by 2007, which was no where close to being achieved. His approach includes tax breaks and deregulatory policies for broadband providers. Other ideas for government involvement include private-public partnerships like the Connected Nation program in Kentucky that helped to provide 95% of Kentucky residents with high speed access.

However, the broadband policy debate is still wrapped up in minor debates such as lack of competition of providers, and net neutrality issues. According to the linked PC World article above, universal broadband access has been an issue discussed by both Democratic Presidential candidates, indicating the debate will continue in the next presidency.

After considering the issue of broadband access, I find myself airing on the school of thought that says high speed internet access needs to be considered an essential public utility, and therefore access to it a basic right. In my opinion history has proven that leaving such major social problems up to the private sector to resolve is not the best course of action. Especially where a basic, cross-country service is concerned. I think major broadband policy reform is in order and modeling after state-regulated European approaches would be a good course of action.