By Shane Tews

The Joe Biden administration’s infrastructure plan includes
$100 billion for bringing “affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband to every
American.” The plan proposes a major shift in the way America finances and
develops broadband networks across the country, prioritizing government-owned
networks over those financed by private investment. But laying fiber for
broadband across America is not analogous to pouring asphalt for roads. This is
not the best way to accomplish the goal of connecting every American to
broadband.

Policies for broadband buildout should encourage the creation of
networks tailored to community needs, not government overspending for political
effect. A combination of private investment and well-crafted public actions
would result in a healthier overall level of network infrastructure investment
than the Biden plan’s approach would.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has warned that
Biden’s infrastructure plan is a “Trojan horse . . . [hiding] more borrowed
money, and massive tax increases on all the productive parts of our economy.”
Investments in technology infrastructure should be designed and implemented
with positive community outcomes in mind and a focus on growth, not on imposing
future financial restraints on communities and the country. As we have
experienced over the past decade, investors’ ability to
access market capital has been a boon to local communities that embrace
investments in network access as part of their digital transformations.

Swapping human judgment and financial accountability for large government-funded programs has considerable downsides: consequences of faulty strategic planning and a lack of measurable outcomes for communities on how and where to concentrate their spending priorities. A 2019 study by the Technology Policy Institute’s Sarah Oh “[did] not find evidence that municipal broadband yields benefits in broadband subscription rates or employment growth.”

Advocates of government-funded broadband, such as Susan Crawford,
have been bad-mouthing private market competition for years in favor of a “massive government mobilization”
plan. She likes the end goal of 100 percent connectivity, but only at taxpayers’
expense. Apparently, free-market ideas need not apply. In 2018, Crawford argued that
“you can’t have advanced 5G wireless without fiber optic lines everywhere,
which the US doesn’t have.” This would be news to many investors that have
funded the research, development, and deployment of next-generation
networks. 

Jennifer Huddleston argued in January that:

Access in rural areas will require creative thinking and new technologies such as improved satellite internet. While calls for universal broadband may appeal to many, the reality of the cost to connect the most rural areas may make it difficult using only traditional broadband. The last two percent of households would cost $40 billion to connect.

Infrastructure investment should bring economic opportunity to communities, and government spending isn’t the only way to achieve the goal of connecting citizens and bringing them the accompanying economic opportunities. Elon Musk noted in March 2020 that SpaceX’s Starlink satellite program would aggressively pursue the goal of bringing broadband to rural areas through a hybrid of technologies. It is “intended for about the 3% ‘hardest to reach customers’ for telecommunications companies, in rural areas where ‘5G is really not well-suited’ . . . SpaceX intends Starlink to have a high-speed connection for any users, with latency below 20 milliseconds.”

Amazon is also joining the satellite-to-broadband business with its Project Kuiper satellite constellation looking to bring broadband to unserved and underserved communities. While Musk called Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos a satellite copycat, we should welcome the two billionaires tackling the broadband access challenge and commercial competition between leading innovators over a county commissioner spending taxpayer funds to overbuild broadband in their community any day. 

The internet is essential for modern life and access to commercial
and government services. But infrastructure costs money, and a collaborative
effort between investors, industry, and governments can bring demand in line
with long-term financing that can be designed to ensure maximum impact in
communities currently lacking connectivity. Borrowing more money and enacting
massive tax increases are not necessary to build out broadband in the US.
Creating expensive government-sponsored programs financed through public
spending is not a good idea. It will discourage capital market investing in
next-generation networks by requiring the private sector to compete with
government’s ability to spend without any regards toward outcomes.

The post Biden’s broadband boondoggle appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.