To Close the Digital Divide, Governments Need Future Proof Broadband Definitions

The global COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of affordable fixed broadband connectivity for access to education, healthcare, employment, government services, entertainment, and other daily activities. One critical piece to closing the digital divide is how governments define broadband. Governments use broadband definitions to measure their progress in closing the digital divide and to develop and implement policies aimed at addressing areas where progress is lacking. One of the challenges with broadband definitions is that they often are not ambitious enough and are updated too infrequently, such that they end up widening the broadband gap. In this blog, I argue that now is time for the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to restructure its fixed broadband definitions, so that they better reflect consumer demand and market realities and are more resilient to the accelerating pace of technological change. In addition, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development (Broadband Commission) should lead an effort to develop globally-harmonized and future-proof broadband definitions, that do not continually relegate people in some countries to second class connectivity. Complementary, but not substitutable, mobile broadband is not the subject of this blog, but a similar assessment of its definition may be warranted.

Adopted in 2015, the FCC’s current definition for fixed broadband is 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream. From 2010 to 2015, the FCC’s broadband definition was 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream. From 1996 to 2010, the FCC’s broadband definition was 200 Kbps in both directions. In 2015, the FCC concluded that the 25/3 Mbps broadband definition was justified considering “advances in technology, market offerings by broadband providers and consumer demand.” At that time, the FCC reported that approximately 87% of Americans had access to 25/3 Mbps broadband, but that less than half of rural Americans had such access. Having only defined fixed broadband three times in the last 24 years and once in the last five years, is now a good time for the FCC to change its broadband definitions?

The FCC has a Broadband Speed Guide and a Household Broadband Guide, which summarize the typical download speeds required for different applications – from basic email and internet browsing to high definition video conferencing and ultra high definition 4K video streaming. For example, while a basic 1 Mbps connection can support email and internet browsing, a single 4K video stream requires throughput of at least 25 Mbps.  As social isolation enforced by the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated, today’s households need reliable fixed broadband connections with robust downstream and upstream speeds and low latency supporting multiple simultaneous users. As an indication of this need, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) reports that “[a]bout 61% of all subscribers [in the US] now have connections of 100 Mbps or faster.”

The results of the FCC’s recently concluded Rural Digital Opportunities Fund (RDOF) auction provide further evidence of where the market is going and that new broadband definitions might be warranted. The RDOF auction determines the amount of universal service funding made available to winning bidders to deliver fixed broadband in unserved rural communities across the US. The FCC reports that RDOF auction winners committed to deliver broadband with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps in 99.7% of locations and at least 1 Gbps and 500 Mbps in 85% of locations. This outcome clearly shows that network operators are optimistic that they will have access to myriad technologies they need to deliver broadband at these speeds in some of the hardest places to serve in the US.

In homes where simultaneous HD video streaming, HD video conferencing, and multiuser online gaming are now commonplace, the FCC’s current 25/3 Mbps broadband definition is strained. Moreover, a variety of bandwidth hungry technologies, including 8K video, augmented reality, and virtual reality, are on the near horizon. Using the FCC’s 2015 criteria as a guide, a residential broadband definition of 100/20 Mbps seems more aligned with what is now widely available in the market, as well as what the typical US household is demanding.  At the same time, sound arguments have been made that a residential fixed broadband definition of 1 Gbps up and down is unwarranted given that such connections are not widely available in the market and simply does not reflect what consumers actually are demanding.  It’s also not clear that consumer applications available today or in the foreseeable future will require 1 Gbps residential broadband connections. A more demanding fixed broadband definition, such as 1Gbps/500Mbps, however, should apply to anchor institutions, like schools, libraries, and healthcare providers, with 100s of simultaneous users.  Regardless of how the FCC defines it, fixed broadband should support low latency applications and have no data caps.  Broadband definitions should continue to be technology neutral.

Another option would be to build upon the framework used in the FCC’s recent RDOF auction, which included four residential fixed broadband tiers: (1) “Basic Broadband” defined as providing at least 25/3 Mbps; (2) “Enhanced Broadband” defined as providing at least 50/5 Mbps; (3) “High-Speed Broadband” defined as providing at least 100/20 Mbps; and (4) “Ultra High Speed Broadband” defined as providing speeds of at least 1Gbps/500Mbps. The RDOF tiers recognize that broadband is not simply one level of service and that consumers purchase tiers of service based on needs and costs, but that policy makers can play a powerful role ensuring that consumers can purchase higher throughput broadband services.  For example, the FCC could limit new universal service subsidies to locations where at least High-Speed (100/20 Mbps) Broadband is delivered. 

In addition, once established, the broadband definitions could include an annual “bandwidth escalator,” such that the download and upload speeds increase by a set percentage each year. Given that consumers’ uses of online services are becoming more symmetric over time, the upload speed should probably increase at a higher annual percentage (for example 15% annually) than the download speed (for example, 10% annually), so that eventually download and upload numbers will approach parity. This will ensure that the FCC’s broadband definitions keep pace with increasing demands for online services, without the need for further rulemakings.

Broadband definitions also impact every other government on the planet. It is time to consider globally-harmonized and future-proof broadband definitions. The ITU defines entry-level fixed broadband as providing at least 5GB of monthly data consumption on a connection providing at least 256 Kbps. The Broadband Commission has set goals for achieving universal internet connectivity, including that by 2025 broadband adoption should reach: i) 75% worldwide; ii) 65% in developing countries; and iii) 35% in least developed countries. Using a definition of broadband from the mid-1990s – when entry-level DSL connectivity was state of the art – gives governments a false sense of progress and will further digital inequities. It will hardly matter if 75% of people worldwide have at least 256 kbps if in 2025 the basic applications needed for social and economic inclusion require download speeds 100s times faster. Nowadays it feels like a fixed broadband definition of 100/20 Mbps would be a far more suitable target than 256 Kbps. If people on the wrong side of the digital divide are ever going to catch up to people on the right side of the digital divide, governments should start by establishing suitably aggressive and future proof broadband definitions. While they cannot force governments to modernize their broadband definitions, the ITU and the Broadband Commission are in a unique position to convene governments and gain agreement on suitable definitions.

With rapid progress in technologies, the digital divide is at risk of widening at an accelerating pace over time. If set too low, basic connectivity targets will simply lead to greater inequalities.  There needs to be a coordinated and concerted effort to achieve digital inclusion targets and that begins with aggressive but achievable broadband definitions.