How To Build a Connected Future: Prioritizing Accuracy, Affordability, and Workforce Development

Recently, while on travel for several tech policy events in Georgia including our “The Path to Digital Equity: Elevating Local Voices to Drive National Impact” panel discussions, I overheard a seemingly frustrated employee at a restaurant say to their colleague in a sing-songy voice, “Accuracy over speed.” Her comment sounded like something that Jeremy Allen White’s character, Carmy, might say on Emmy award-winning television series “The Bear,” which depicts how Michelin-star (and aspiring Michelin-star) restaurants must be precise in their internal communication, service, and food preparation. While diners may recall how long it took for their entree to arrive, the kinds of things that come to define a restaurant are the quality of the goods they offer and the degree to which they accurately satisfy a need; people will always remember if the steak was overcooked, under-seasoned, or paired with a garnish that triggered their allergies despite repeated warnings to the server. Quality and accuracy matter. 

Like in the finest restaurants, the same principle – “Accuracy over speed” – should guide our country’s broadband funding initiatives, particularly the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, both now and in the future. Specifically, these initiatives must focus on: 

• Engaging the right stakeholders to be involved in the development of broadband access, adoption, and affordability plans;
• Developing plans that will be effective and inclusive; and,
• Ensuring broadband is deployed where it is needed the most to avoid wasting time and resources.

Recently, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a hearing titled, “From Introduction to Implementation: A BEAD Program Progress Report,” and while some lines of questioning seemed to grasp at straws, there were important points that should be revisited in future hearings. Here are some key takeaways:

Process Still Matters

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) BEAD program is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deploy high-speed internet across America. It allows states to expand affordable, reliable broadband access to the nation’s most unserved and underserved communities. As Public Knowledge has previously commented, the NTIA has worked closely and collaboratively with states, civil society, community-based organizations, and industry to find the best path forward to reach this goal, but the right process takes time. Processes are created to ensure efficiency, minimize mistakes, and allow for flexibility when needed. 

As one witness, Blair Levin, Policy Analyst at New Street Research and Non-Resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution stated in his testimony, BEAD was always intended to be a longer-term, process-oriented solution to close the digital divide. Congress and the American public cannot afford a repeat of mistakes that occurred with previous programs to be made again, such as some of the rush to get money out the door in the Federal Communications Commission’s 2020 Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) reverse auction despite there being significant mapping issues. As Levin explained, “The FCC used a map that included unserved locations where there was obviously already broadband coverage such as in Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco, Apple headquarters, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus, and several large airports including international hubs in Dallas-Fort Worth and San Francisco.”

Simply put, this is about knowing better and doing better. And this may take some time – but it is imperative for us to measure twice and cut once. Furthermore, we know that the outcomes of major industrial investments hold deep political salience – if BEAD is successful, it paves the way for similar investments down the road, and likewise, BEAD’s failures could deter necessary future action.

Addressing the Affordability Challenge

This year, Congress failed to extend the widely supported Affordable Connectivity Program, or ACP, before it expired in May 2024. Watching our representatives fumble the ball over and over again in the fights to save this program brings to mind a famous question from “The Bachelor” franchise: “Are you here for the right reasons?” The obsession with scoring political points and claiming the win, and/or taking away opportunities for “the other side” to claim a win, has left 23 million households choosing between staying connected and paying for other household necessities.

Public Knowledge has pointed out that the lack of long-term ACP funding creates inefficiencies in the BEAD program. Likewise, in Levin’s recent testimony, he mentioned that broadband “programs are fundamentally about subsidizing the capital expense or subsidizing the operating expense” and that without a program like the ACP funding operating expenses, “people are going to lose… access to fiber, because the BEAD dollars don’t go as far, so you need the combination of the two to make the total business plan.” Without a nationwide affordable broadband subsidy, a gap could emerge between consumers benefiting from the low-cost offer requirement who subscribe to BEAD-subsidized networks and those in densely populated areas who cannot afford to connect to existing broadband. Additionally, there are calls circulating on the Hill that ACP needs to be reformed to only include those who really “need” the subsidy. Some lawmakers misguidedly argue that affordability programs should only be targeted to non-subscribers, which ignores those who are “subscription-vulnerable” and cycle on and off service based on their financial situations. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 37.9 million people in the United States live in poverty. So that tells us that at a minimum, the working poor, and those on fixed incomes including communities with disabilities and aging populations, need some form of support for consistent connectivity, similar to support rightly provided by the government to subsidize access to housing, food, and healthcare.

A recent report by Next Century Cities, “Broadband Affordability: The Metrics that Drive and Divide Us,” further illustrates the challenge:

• Average monthly rent for 2024: $1,536 
• Average monthly cost of groceries in 2024: $1,000 
• Average monthly payment for one used car: $533 
• Average monthly cost of family care center for one child: $920 
• Average monthly cost of daycare for one child: $1,284 
• Average monthly cost of family health insurance: $1,619

Let’s put that into perspective – the federal poverty level for a family of four in the U.S. is $31,200. That’s $2,600 a month – not even accounting for taxes. If the costs above are added, the total is a number nearly twice what the median family earns. As NCC stated, for those living at or just above the poverty line, a “necessity-based budget vastly exceeds the monthly income, without accounting for any emergency, miscellaneous costs or savings, or the price of broadband service.” It’s a no-brainer that these 37.9 million people need support, regardless of if they were broadband subscribers before, but the nation’s newest efforts to increase broadband adoption also demonstrate that many of those who need support are covered populations under the Digital Equity Act – individuals living in households with incomes at 150 percent of the poverty level. There is no need for policymakers to spend extra time crunching the numbers to figure out who is “deserving” of a broadband subsidy; it’s been done and the facts are clear: It’s hard for many working families to make ends meet, and life is always life-ing. While some reforms could make the program more efficient in serving the needs of consumers, we must also dedicate time to problems that the ACP alone cannot solve, like the need for a robust device voucher program and increased broadband competition so consumers do not feel the ill effects of a deeply concentrated communications market.

Policymakers must act urgently to ensure these families have some breathing room by refunding the Affordable Connectivity Program, because we all benefit economically and socially when everyone is connected to high-speed internet. 

Workforce Development and Economic Benefits for All 

Critics have raised concerns about the slow pace of broadband network buildout, noting that while the NTIA is adhering to the process laid out in statute, there are not enough trained workers to facilitate the buildout. Congressman Marc Veasey (D-Texas) remarked that there are more jobs than people in Texas. The NTCA’s Shirley Bloomfield stated that “getting labor workforce into a rural community is an additional challenge” and similarly, Montana’s state broadband director, Misty Ann Giles, brought up the critical connection between labor and housing. She stated that Montana has a significant housing shortage and “even if we can hire them; I’m not sure where we’re going to put them.”

The Fiber Broadband Association notes there are three primary reasons for the telecommunications workforce shortage:

1. The workforce is aging.
2. There is low awareness of high-wage fiber broadband career pathways amongst job seekers.
3. There is a lack of focus on the specialist training required for critical fiber broadband and wireless jobs.

Research also shows there is “a strong relationship between household broadband subscription, computer access, and labor market disparities.” The internet is the way people are notified about job openings, where people apply for jobs, and how people are upskilled and reskilled for various jobs. In other words, while we most definitely need a skilled workforce to build and maintain broadband networks, we need that potential labor source to have access to affordable, reliable broadband themselves just to be able to even join the workforce in the first place. As Levin summarized in the hearing, “workforce and supply chain… are critical issues, and… if you’re going to hold another hearing…throw in workforce.” It is time to consider just that. 

The successful deployment and adoption of broadband hinges on the principle of “Accuracy over speed.” Policymakers must act in accordance with this principle and keep three key considerations in mind in the months ahead: 1) the precision at which broadband is deployed will determine the long-term success of this massive investment, 2) broadband access without affordability is not real access, and 3) if we invest in workforce development, we can drive technological and economic growth.