The Persistent Digital Divide: Selected
April 18, 2023
Broadband Deployment Issues and Policy
Colby Leigh Rachfal
Considerations
Analyst in
Telecommunications
Access to high-speed internet—known as broadband—has become a topic of increasing
Policy
significance over the past few decades, with extra urgency in recent years due to the Coronavirus

Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Deployment of broadband is not uniform across the United
States. Some areas lack broadband entirely—creating a so-called digital divide between those

who have access to broadband service and those who do not.
Although some public entities (e.g., municipalities) provide broadband service, broadband is primarily deployed by the
private sector. Private sector providers typically make their deployment decisions based on economic criteria, such as
whether an area will provide a sufficient return on investment. They may therefore choose not to serve communities that have
a lower population density (i.e., rural or remote areas) if they conclude that the cost to provide service would outweigh the
returns. The terrain in some rural or remote areas may also make some technologies—such as fiber optic cable—more
expensive to deploy. In such cases, it may not make economic sense for providers to deploy broadband in the absence of
some type of subsidy to offset their costs.
Federal support for broadband deployment comes primarily from three agencies—the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (an
agency in the Department of Commerce). Other federal agencies have programs that fund broadband deployment as one
among many possible activities, but in most cases broadband is not the primary eligible funding activity. The federal
government has been providing support for broadband deployment for decades; progress has been made, but the digital
divide persists. To deploy federal resources effectively, an accurate national picture of where broadband is and is not
available is key. The FCC has responsibility for mapping broadband availability, but ensuring the accuracy of the data has
been challenging, and the federal government does not know precisely where broadband has and has not been deployed.
Another issue is that broadband takes time to deploy, especially if there are supply chain problems, labor shortages, or delays
in administration of federal funding.
The digital divide puzzle is complex and has many pieces. Additional funding for broadband deployment may not alone be
enough to close it. The 118th Congress may also assess whether regulatory policies are helping or hindering broadband
deployment and weigh how changes in regulatory policies could help. Possible considerations include
 the sufficiency of federal broadband funding and whether more is needed,
 the numerous federal agencies and programs involved in promoting broadband deployment, which could
lead to coordination issues or duplication of effort,
 the FCC’s minimum broadband speed benchmark and whether raising the speed benchmark could
inadvertently create a new digital divide,
 the potential for prioritization of unserved areas to ensure ubiquitous broadband availability, and
 the potential application of rural electrification strategies to rural broadband deployment.
Policy options proposed in bills currently under consideration by the 118th Congress include, for example, prioritizing the
processing of applications for rural broadband projects located in areas with the shortest construction seasons (H.R. 43),
amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain broadband grants from gross income (H.R. 889/S. 341),
determining whether the lack of network equipment significantly impacted the deployment of broadband (S. 690), and
ensuring that broadband maps are accurate before funds are allocated under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment
Program (S. 1162).

Congressional Research Service

link to page 22 The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

Introduction to Broadband and the Digital Divide
Broadband is high-speed internet service that is faster than traditional dial-up internet service and
offers an “always on” connection. It can be delivered through various technologies, such as
 digital subscriber line (DSL), which uses copper telephone wires to transmit data;
 cable modem, which uses the same coaxial cables used for cable television;
 fiber optic cable, which uses pulses of light shot by lasers through thin strands of glass;
 wireless, which uses a radio connection between a user’s device, such as a laptop or
phone, and a service provider’s terrestrial antenna; and
 satellite, which uses a radio connection between a user’s device and a service provider’s
space-based antenna.1
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—an independent agency over which Congress
has oversight—has set a minimum speed benchmark as its definition of broadband. The
benchmark, adopted in 2015, is 25 megabits per second (Mbps) to download data and 3 Mbps to
upload data. This benchmark is referred to as “25/3.”2
Broadband has become increasingly important as aspects of everyday life continue to move
online. This trend became especially apparent during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic, with activities such as school and work moving from in-person to online. However, not
everyone in the United States has equal access to broadband. The gap between those who have
access to broadband and those who do not is referred to as the digital divide. The term originated
at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in the mid-1990s “to
express the gap between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ in terms of access to computers.”3 The term has
evolved to include other aspects of technology access, especially broadband availability. Despite
billions of federal dollars directed toward broadband deployment, discrepancies in access to
broadband remain. The continuing lack of broadband access in some areas can be attributed to
several factors, including terrain, population density, demography, and market characteristics.
Rural and tribal areas are most affected, but urban areas can also be.
This report provides an overview of the digital divide in broadband deployment and issues that
contribute to it persistence. The report includes a discussion of policy issues facing Congress. An
Appendix lists related legislation in the 118th Congress.4

1 Federal Communications Commission, “Types of Broadband Connections,” June 23, 2014, available
at https://www.fcc.gov/general/types-broadband-connections.
2 25/3 Mbps was an increase from the previous benchmark (4/1 Mbps), which was adopted in 2010. Tyler Cooper, The
FCC Definition of Broadband: Analysis and History, BroadbandNow, November 2, 2021, available at
https://broadbandnow.com/report/fcc-broadband-definition/.
3 Advay Chandra, What Is Digital Divide and Why Must We Understand That Term?, Learning Spaces, May 10, 2021,
available at https://learningspacesglobal.org/what-is-digital-divide/.
4 This report focuses on the digital divide as it pertains to broadband deployment. Broadband adoption and affordability
issues, which are another aspect of the digital divide, are outside the scope of this report. For more information on
broadband adoption and affordability, see CRS Report R46108, Demand for Broadband in Rural Areas: Implications
for Universal Access, by Brian E. Humphreys.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 5 The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

Why Is the Digital Divide Persistent?
Since 1999, the FCC has issued 16 reports that provide a snapshot and assessment of broadband
deployment.5 Table 1 shows percentages of Americans in urban, rural, and tribal areas with
access to fixed6 broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps/3Mbps, since the adoption of the minimum
speed benchmark in 2015, as presented in the FCC’s Fourteenth Broadband Deployment Report.7
Although the percentage of Americans that lack access to broadband has been shrinking, 100%
access to broadband for all Americans in urban, rural, and tribal areas across the United States is
still elusive, as certain factors may contribute to areas perpetually remaining unserved with
broadband.
Table 1. Percentage of Americans with Access to Fixed Broadband at the Minimum
Speed Benchmark of 25/3 Mbps

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
All U.S.
89.9%
91.9%
93.5%
94.4%
95.6%
Urban
96.7%
97.7%
98.3%
98.5%
98.8%
Rural
61.5%
67.8%
73.6%
77.7%
82.7%
Tribal
57.8%
63.1%
67.9%
72.3%
79.1%
Source: Federal Communications Commission, Fourteenth Broadband Deployment Report, January 19, 2021, p. 20,
available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-18A1.pdf.
Notes: The FCC’s Fourteenth Broadband Deployment Report with data as of December 31, 2019, is the most
recent report.
Some challenges that may contribute to the persistence of the digital divide include:
 the federal government does not know precisely who has broadband access and who does
not;
 broadband can be difficult and costly to deploy;8
 broadband takes time to deploy, and
 supply chain problems, labor shortages, or delays in the administration of federal funding
can exacerbate broadband deployment issues.9

The following sections address each of these challenges.

5 Of the 16 reports, 14 have a national focus, while two have a rural focus. An archive of these reports is available at
Federal Communications Commission, Broadband Progress Reports, available at https://www.fcc.gov/reports-
research/reports/broadband-progress-reports.
6 Fixed broadband includes DSL, fiber, cable, fixed wireless, and fixed satellite, but not mobile wireless or satellite.
7 Federal Communications Commission, Fourteenth Broadband Deployment Report, January 19, 2021, p. 20, available
at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-18A1.pdf.
8 Christopher Ali, Everything You Wanted To Know About Broadband (But Were Afraid to Ask), Benton Institute for
Broadband & Society, August 31, 2020, available at https://www.benton.org/blog/everything-you-wanted-know-about-
broadband-were-afraid-ask.
9 NBC5, “Lots of Broadband Money, but US Expansion Finds Speed Bumps,” April 16, 2022, available at
https://www.mynbc5.com/article/lots-of-broadband-money-but-us-expansion-finds-speed-bumps/39741440.
Congressional Research Service

2

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

Broadband Availability Data and Mapping Challenges
Pinpointing where broadband is and is not deployed across the United States has been
challenging. Estimates of how many Americans lack access to broadband vary—ranging, for
example, from the FCC’s estimate of 14.5 million10 to an estimate by BroadbandNow of 42
million11 to Microsoft’s estimate of 157.3 million.12 Without an accurate figure, it is difficult for
policymakers to know how much funding would potentially help close the divide—and where to
direct it. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel stated in a June 30, 2022, blog post:
For as long as people have been talking about the digital divide, there have been complaints
that we lack detailed maps to tell us exactly where broadband is—and is not—available.
This has been a constant source of frustration for policymakers trying to deploy resources
to build broadband in more places as well as consumers, who knew with greater accuracy
than Washington about their what broadband service was available where they lived or
worked.13
The FCC has had primary responsibility for developing a comprehensive map of broadband
access in the United States since 2018,14 but the data and methodology used to compose the map
may have overstated availability. For example, an entire census block15 was considered as served
if at least one home or business in that census block had broadband access. This policy could
have consequences for efforts to address the digital divide, as the FCC’s map is frequently
consulted to identify areas that are completely unserved with broadband, and thus, to determine
where to invest federal resources through programs such as the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund
(RDOF) and the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program.16 Many Members
of Congress have acknowledged the potential implications of inaccurate broadband data and
mapping. For example, some Members have written letters on the topic to the FCC Chair.17

10 Federal Communications Commission, Fourteenth Broadband Deployment Report, January 19, 2021, available at
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/fourteenth-broadband-deployment-report.
11 John Busby, Tyler Cooper, and Julia Tanberk, “BroadbandNow Estimates Availability for All 50 States; Confirms
That More Than 42 Million Americans Do Not Have Access to Broadband,” BroadbandNow, October 13, 2022,
available at https://broadbandnow.com/research/fcc-broadband-overreporting-by-state.
12 Charlotte Edmond, “Airband: The Initiative to Bring the Internet to Everyone,” Microsoft, September 1, 2020,
available at https://news.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2020/09/01/airband-initiative-rural-broadband-digital-divide/.
13 Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, Status Update: Mapping Where Broadband Is—and Is Not—Available in the U.S.,
Federal Communications Commission, June 30, 2022, available at https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/notes/2022/06/30/
status-update-mapping-where-broadband-and-not-available-us.
14 For more background and information about broadband data and mapping, see CRS Report R45962, Broadband
Data and Mapping: Background and Issues for the 117th Congress, by Colby Leigh Rachfal.
15 According to the FCC, “Census blocks are the smallest unit of geography defined by the Census Bureau ... but are
diverse in size. While the largest block is over 8,500 square miles (it’s in Alaska), half the blocks are smaller than a
tenth of a square mile (6.4 acres).” See Federal Communications Commission, More About Census Blocks, October 27,
2020, available at https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/Geo/more_about_census_blocks.pdf. Population does not delineate
census blocks; many census blocks have no population. See U. S. Census Bureau, “What Are Census Blocks?,” July
2011, available at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2011/07/what-are-census-blocks.html.
Census blocks are grouped into block groups, which are “generally defined to contain between 600 and 3,000 people.”
See U. S. Census Bureau, “Glossary,” April 11, 2022, available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/
geography/about/glossary.html.
16 For more information, see CRS Report R46501, Rural Digital Opportunity Fund: Requirements and Selected Policy
Issues, by Colby Leigh Rachfal.
17 For example, see Wyden, Barrasso and 12 Bipartisan Senators Urge FCC to Ensure Rural, Tribal Communities
Receive Fair Share of Federal Broadband Grants, March 22, 2023, available at https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/
press-releases/wyden-barrasso-and-12-bipartisan-senators-urge-fcc-to-ensure-rural-tribal-communities-receive-fair-
Congressional Research Service

3

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

In March 2020, Congress enacted the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological
Availability Act (Broadband DATA Act; P.L. 116-130). This law required the FCC to change how
broadband data is collected, verified, and reported. For example, the law requires specific
location-level information about broadband services available throughout the country and
implementation of a public challenge process in which consumers, state, local, and tribal
governments, and other stakeholders (e.g., internet service providers) can submit challenges to the
FCC if they believe the map required under the act—referred to as the National Broadband
Map—contains inaccurate data (e.g., overstated availability of broadband service).
The pre-production version of the National Broadband Map debuted on November 18, 2022, to
mixed reviews. Some stakeholders acknowledge that, although some issues persist, the map is an
improvement from the previous version, and they have applauded the FCC for its efforts.18 Some
Members of Congress have expressed concerns. For example, on December 21, 2022, multiple
Senators wrote a letter to Chairwoman Rosenworcel, stating,
We have heard from constituents, state and local governments, and service providers alike
of continuing concerns about the accuracy of the map, ranging from persistent issues with
missing or incorrect serviceable locations to potentially overstated claims of coverage by
providers.19
Additionally, news outlets have reported that some providers may have submitted false broadband
availability data to the FCC.20 The digital divide will be difficult to close unless areas unserved
with broadband are accurately identified. Congress may consider additional legislative actions,
such as enhancing accountability protocols for data submitted by providers, penalizing providers
that provide false or inaccurate data, or increasing the frequency of updates to the National
Broadband Map.21
To assist with improving the accuracy of the map, state and local governments have been
encouraging residents to check their address on the National Broadband Map and challenge
incorrect information.22 The map is to be updated at least twice a year with the resolution of
consumer challenges, along with updated service provider data on availability.23 Although the

share-of-federal-broadband-grants, and Rep. Allen Leads Bipartisan Georgia Delegation Letter to FCC on Broadband
Map, July 12, 2021, available at https://allen.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4762.
18 Kristi Eaton, “New FCC Broadband Map of the U.S. Is ‘A Step in the Right Direction,’” The Daily Yonder,
December 12, 2022, available at https://dailyyonder.com/new-fcc-broadband-map-of-the-u-s-is-a-step-in-the-right-
direction/2022/12/12/.
19 Letter from Senators Shelley Moore Capito, Jacky Rosen, Roger Wicker, John Thune, Tammy Baldwin, John
Barrasso, Michael F. Bennet, Sherrod Brown, Benjamin L. Cardin, Catherine Cortez Masto, Mike Crapo, Tammy
Duckworth, Dick Durbin, Joni Ernst, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Grassley, Cynthia Lummis, Roger Marshall, Jerry
Moran, Kyrsten Sinema, Dan Sullivan, Joe Manchin, Robert Menendez, Deb Fischer, Jon Tester, and Todd Young to
the Honorable Jessica Rosenworcel, Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman, December 21, 2022, available
at https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7/3/739aa0e3-bfa9-4601-a7c8-f3dc3f08dcbe/
177487E8F5C7D6FF8794BB957E97B483.12-21-2022-final-signed-capito-rosen-broadband-accuracy-and-
accountability-letter1.pdf.
20 Jon Brodkin, “Starlink, Verizon, and T-Mobile Made Shaky Claims on FCC Coverage Map,” arsTechnica, February
13, 2023, available at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/starlink-verizon-and-t-mobile-made-shaky-claims-
on-fcc-coverage-map/.
21 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF12298, FCC’s National Broadband Map: Implications for the Broadband
Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, coordinated by Colby Leigh Rachfal.
22 Guy McCarthy, “Tuolumne County Urges Residents to Provide Input on FCC National Broadband Map,” The Union
Democrat, December 8, 2022, available at https://www.uniondemocrat.com/news/article_782e921a-767e-11ed-be09-
23496a9e614a.html.
23 According to a March 23, 2023, Notes from the FCC post by Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, “In the past four
Congressional Research Service

4

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

challenge process may result in more accurate data, it remains to be seen whether national
mapping of where broadband is and is not available will continue to pose a challenge. This issue
has been a particular focus of congressional interest in light of the $42.45 billion BEAD program,
which is required by law to use the National Broadband Map to determine how much BEAD
funding a state is to receive based on the state’s share of unserved locations.
State Variability and Cost to Deploy
Areas of the United States vary dramatically in terms of landform, climate, and settlement
patterns. There are mountains in the West, semi-arid grasslands in the Great Plains, and
wilderness in Alaska. Such variations can present challenges in deploying broadband. Climatic
variations, for example, may allow the deployment of buried cables all year in some places (e.g.,
some parts of California), while others may have ground that is frozen for long periods (e.g.,
Michigan) and may therefore have to pause deployment efforts at certain times of year. In the
118th Congress, the Rural Broadband Window of Opportunity Act (H.R. 43) would require the
FCC to prioritize the processing of applications for certain rural broadband expansion projects
that are located in areas with the shortest construction seasons (generally areas with long winters
and heavy snowfall).
Of the technologies used to deliver broadband, fiber is typically preferred by both consumers and
providers due to its reliability (fiber cables are typically buried underground) and scalability (i.e.,
flexibility to accommodate higher speeds in the future).24 Additionally, fiber can provide
symmetrical speeds of up to 1,000 Mbps and lower latency (i.e., lag time) than other
technologies.25 However, geography can make laying fiber challenging as, in many cases,
deploying fiber requires subsurface digging to bury conduit and physically connecting each
household.
Returns on investment typically drive broadband deployment decisions. Areas in which it is
difficult and expensive to deploy broadband (e.g., mountains) often make little economic sense
for providers.26 According to Pew Charitable Trusts, “cost is one obstacle to extending broadband
internet to everyone who wants it. The companies providing the services need adequate returns to
justify their investment in the necessary fiber, towers, and cables.”27

months, our mapping team has processed challenges to availability data for over 4 million locations. In other words, on
average, we are addressing availability challenges to tens of thousands of locations every single day. Every two weeks,
our public map is updated to reflect all availability challenges that have been resolved.” See Chairwoman Jessica
Rosenworcel, The National Broadband Map—Getting Better All the Time, Federal Communications Commission,
March 23, 2023, available at https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/notes/2023/03/23/national-broadband-map-getting-
better-all-time.
24 Fiber Broadband Association, Fiber Broadband Association Releases Broadband Experience Index, October 21,
2019, available at https://www.fiberbroadband.org/blog/fiber-broadband-association-releases-broadband-experience-
index.
25 Tyler Cooper, “DSL vs. Cable vs. Fiber: Which Internet Option Is the Best?,” BroadbandNow, May 6, 2022,
available at https://broadbandnow.com/guides/dsl-vs-cable-vs-fiber. Broadband speed is symmetrical if upload speed
and download speed are the same.
26 Anna Read, How Can the United States Address Broadband Affordability?, The Pew Charitable Trusts, April 29,
2022, available at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2022/04/29/how-can-the-united-states-
address-broadband-affordability.
27 Joyce Winslow, America’s Digital Divide, Pew Charitable Trusts, July 26, 2019, available at
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trust/archive/summer-2019/americas-digital-divide.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10 The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

Cost estimates of fiber deployment can range from less than $20,000 per mile to more than
$300,000 per mile, depending on location.28 To deploy fiber, technicians lay conduit underground
or between poles, splice and join conduit, and connect conduit to network equipment such as
routers and end-use modems. According to Forbes, “about every 40 to 60 miles, the [fiber]
connection must be re-amplified29 at an in-line amplification (ILA) shelter…. ILAs can be costly
to build and maintain. This issue is one of the reasons why fiber is not available everywhere.”30
Fiber also requires middle mile infrastructure, which “is the physical mid-section of the
infrastructure required to enable [last mile] internet connectivity for homes, businesses, and
community institutions.”31 In rural or remote areas, it can be “more difficult for providers to
deploy service, increasing capital expenditure costs (e.g., construction equipment, labor) and the
likelihood of needing to build longer middle mile infrastructure to reach the internet core
[network].”32
Figure 1 depicts the role of middle mile infrastructure in enabling last mile connectivity.

28 Vantage Point Solutions, Cost of Bringing Broadband to All, August 1, 2022, p. 7, available at https://www.fcc.gov/
ecfs/document/108012327916993/2.
29 “Amplification boosts the signal in the optical fiber … (i.e. it increases the distance over which the data between two
sites can be transmitted).” See Smartoptics, Managing Amplification and Dispersion in the Optical Network, available
at https://www.smartoptics.com/article/managing-amplification-dispersion-network/.
30 Raymond Nelson, “The Future of Fiber,” Forbes, April 18, 2018, available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/
forbestechcouncil/2018/04/18/the-future-of-fiber/?sh=201e5ffb2bc9.
31 California Department of Technology, Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative FAQ, available at https://cdt.ca.gov/middle-
mile-advisory-committee/middle-mile-faq/.
32 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Economics of Broadband Networks, available at
https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/
Economics%20of%20Broadband%20Networks%20PDF.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

6

Figure 1. Core Network, Middle Mile, and Last Mile Infrastructure

Source: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Introduction to Broadband and High Speed Internet, Fall 2022, p. 17, available at
https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/Introduction_to_Broadband_and_High_Speed_Internet_FINAL_0.pdf.
Notes: This figure is included for il ustrative purposes.
CRS-7

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

According to Fierce Telecom, “middle mile access is a huge issue that drives up the cost of rural
fiber deployments.”33 Further, much of the middle mile infrastructure needed across the United
States for last mile connectivity does not currently exist. According to Matthew Rantanen,
technology and telecommunications co-chairman of the National Congress of American Indians,
The middle-mile fiber is missing. We did the math, got maps from carriers and tribes,
worked with the GIS [geographic information system] folks and anchor institutions—
there’s about 8,000 missing miles in the Lower 48 states, 1,800 just in California. That’s a
billion-dollar problem on its own just in the Lower 48.34
A consideration for Congress is whether the government might consider funding middle mile
infrastructure that would be too costly for private providers without subsidies. While Congress
provided $1 billion in funding for middle mile infrastructure in the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58)—which is being administered by the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA)35—whether that funding resolves the lack of middle mile
infrastructure, or whether additional funding might be needed remains to be seen.
Fiber is not the only broadband technology that may be costly to deploy. Many providers,
including winners from the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) auctions, are using a
technology called fixed wireless access (FWA), which “is a way of providing wireless
connectivity through radio links between two fixed points.”36 According to Fierce Telecom,
“while FWA deployments are generally cheaper than fiber … in a place like Alaska, even getting
a tower built is going to be much more expensive given the rural nature of the roads, lack of rural
electricity at a tower site, and mountain topography.”37
In places where fiber or FWA may not be feasible to deploy—due to cost or geography—other
technologies may be able to step in and help fill the gap. For example, broadband provided by
satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) may hold promise, especially in remote or rural areas. LEO
satellites, which are positioned at a much lower altitude than geostationary (GEO) satellites, have
the potential to deliver broadband speeds closer to those that can be achieved with fiber, as well
as lower lag times or latency. However, there are many unknowns—for example, whether LEO
satellites can consistently provide the anticipated lower latency and higher speeds.38 Although
fiber may be the preferred technology by consumers and providers, other technologies may be
best suited for particular areas (e.g., LEO satellites in remote areas) and each community has
different challenges a particular technology might be able to address. An additional consideration
for Congress could be whether some states (e.g., ones that have challenging terrain) may require
uniquely tailored plans to close the digital divide.

33 Diana Goovaerts, “FBA CEO Says ‘No One Too Expensive to Reach’ with Fiber,” Fierce Telecom, September 28,
2022, available at https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/fba-ceo-says-no-one-too-expensive-reach-fiber.
34 Robert Chaney, “Broadband Funding for Native Communities Could Finally Connect Some of America’s Most
Isolated Places,” MIT Technology Review, September 21, 2022, available at https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/
09/21/1059682/pandemic-broadband-funding-native-communities-blackfeet-internet-access/.
35 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure
Program, available at https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/enabling-middle-mile-broadband-infrastructure-program.
36 everythingRF, “What Is Fixed Wireless Access?,” May 28, 2020, available at https://www.everythingrf.com/
community/what-is-fixed-wireless-access.
37 Diana Goovaerts, “The Cost of Running Fiber in Rural America: $200,000 per Passing,” Fierce Telecom, September
27, 2022, available at https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/cost-running-fiber-rural-america-200000-passing.
38 For more information see CRS Report R46896, Low Earth Orbit Satellites: Potential to Address the Broadband
Digital Divide, by Colby Leigh Rachfal.
Congressional Research Service

8

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

Network Construction Time and Other Potential Delays
Many policymakers see closing the digital divide as urgent, but the time it takes to deploy
broadband infrastructure may pose a challenge in providing an immediate solution. According to
Dgtl Infra Real Estate 2.0,
As a general rule, fiber construction takes 6 to 10 months for a network to become
operational, after the beginning of a build-out. However, the construction timeline for a
new fiber optic network varies depending upon the number of route miles to be constructed,
the number of homes or premises targeted for connection to the network, and the general
deployment of the network.39
Broadband can take even longer to deploy if an entity is receiving federal funding to construct a
network. For example, the FCC’s RDOF was announced in January 2020, with a reverse auction40
held in December 2020. Following the auction, the FCC began reviewing long-form
applications41 from winning bidders. It did not begin approving disbursement of support until July
2021. Approvals are still ongoing as of the publication of this report. Similarly, a January 24,
2023, Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that announcement of awards for
NTIA’s Broadband Infrastructure and Tribal Broadband Connectivity Programs took longer than
anticipated. For example, award announcements for the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program
were expected in November 2021, but as of September 2022, awards were still being announced
on a rolling basis.42 Further, because of construction milestones—typically measured in years—
communities may have to wait years after an award is announced before they actually receive
broadband service. For example, funding recipients under RDOF have eight years to serve all
locations (i.e., homes and businesses).43
Factors other than construction and administrative delays can also slow deployment. For example,
workforce challenges—such as labor shortages—may contribute to the length of time to construct
a network. Stakeholders have differing perspectives on whether broadband workforce shortages
will pose a challenge to closing the digital divide. A December 15, 2022, GAO report “found that
thousands more skilled workers will be needed to deploy broadband and 5G funded by recent
federal programs.... We found mixed evidence on whether there’s a shortage of these workers.”44
Congress may consider whether to direct federal agencies to collect additional data on the
broadband workforce to help determine whether a workforce shortage exists, and, if so, how that
might negatively affect efforts to close the digital divide. Additionally, Congress could consider
directing the FCC, NTIA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to collect information
from grant recipients on any difficulties experienced in securing skilled technicians for

39 Jonathan Kim, Fiber Optic Network Construction: Process and Build Costs, Dgtl Infra, July 28, 2022, available at
https://dgtlinfra.com/fiber-optic-network-construction-process-costs/.
40 In a reverse auction, the lowest bidder wins.
41 According to the FCC, “winning bidders must provide in their long-form applications additional information about
qualifications, funding, and the network that they intend to use to meet their obligations.” See Federal Communications
Commission, Auction 904: Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, available at https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/factsheet.
42 Government Accountability Office, Broadband Funding: Stronger Management of Performance and Fraud Risk
Needed for Tribal and Public-Private Partnership Grants, January 24, 2023, available at https://www.gao.gov/
products/gao-23-105426.
43 Federal Communications Commission, Auction 904: Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, available at
https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/factsheet.
44 Government Accountability Office, Telecommunications Workforce: Additional Workers Will Be Needed to Deploy
Broadband, but Concerns Exist About Availability, December 15, 2022, available at https://www.gao.gov/products/
gao-23-105626.
Congressional Research Service

9

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

deployment projects as part of reporting requirements.45 If Congress determines there is a
workforce shortage, potential options to address the issue may include federal funding for training
programs to produce more workers with the needed broadband skills or incentivizing companies
to provide higher pay to attract the needed workers (for example, prioritizing federal funding
applications for companies that meet or exceed a certain pay threshold). Initiatives such as these
may take years to develop, which can make it challenging to address workforce shortages in a
timely manner (e.g., if it takes time to set up a training program and train a useful number of
workers, the shortage may have resolved itself by the time the training is completed).
Broadband providers may continue to face shortages in the supply chain (e.g., fiber optic cable,
electronic equipment) which can add time to deployment.46 For example, in 2021, AT&T stated
that it had planned to build fiber to 3 million homes, but would only actually build to around 2.5
million, mainly due to supply chain issues.47 Supply chain issues could delay Vermont’s plan to
bring fiber optic service to every home on the electric grid within five years, as wait times for
some materials are now one year.48 Supply chain issues can be attributed to multiple factors. For
example, the COVID-19 pandemic increased demand for broadband with the shift to telework
and distance learning activities. At the same time, production was stalled “as factories were
forced to limit shifts or close.”49 Further, with the influx of federal funding for broadband—
particularly in the IIJA—many providers are competing for materials at the same time.50 Some
Members of Congress introduced legislation in the 117th Congress seeking to address supply
chain issues. For example, the Network Equipment Transparency Act (S. 3692) would have
required the FCC to determine (every two years) whether the lack of network equipment
significantly impacted the deployment of broadband. That legislation has been reintroduced as S.
690 in the 118th Congress.
Policy Issues for Congress
In addition to the oversight issues already discussed, Congress may seek to address a number of
other topics:
 the adequacy of funding provided to date, and potential needs for additional
funds;

45 For more information see CRS In Focus IF12111, Bridging the Digital Divide: Broadband Workforce
Considerations for the 118th Congress, by Colby Leigh Rachfal.
46 Cathy Cash, “Down to the Wire: A Perfect Storm of Shortages Threatens to Douse Rural Broadband Progress,”
Rural Electric Magazine, August 1, 2021, available at https://www.cooperative.com/remagazine/articles/pages/kinks-
in-the-chain-a-perfect-storm-of-shortages-threatens-to-douse-rural-broadband-progress.aspx.
47 Deborah Kish, “The Vicious Cycle of the Supply Chain in Fiber Broadband—Is an End in Sight?,” Broadband
Communities Magazine, November 2021, available at https://www.bbcmag.com/community-broadband/the-vicious-
cycle-of-the-supply-chain-in-fiber-broadband-is-an-end-in-sight.
48 Fred Thys, “Supply Issues Drive Vermont Broadband Timeline,” Valley News, April 24, 2022, available at
https://www.vnews.com/broadband-rollout-may-take-longer-than-helped-46069936.
49 Cathy Cash, “Down to the Wire: A Perfect Storm of Shortages Threatens to Douse Rural Broadband Progress,”
Rural Electric Magazine, August 1, 2021, available at https://www.erative.com/remagazine/articles/pages/kinks-in-the-
chain-a-perfect-storm-of-shortages-threatens-to-douse-rural-broadband-progress.aspx.
50 Alex Goldman, Supply Chain Will Challenge US Fiber, Fixed Wireless Rural Broadband Rollouts, Fiber Broadband
Association, December 10, 2021, available at https://optics.fiberbroadband.org/Full-Article/supply-chain-will-
challenge-us-fiber-fixed-wireless-rural-broadband-rollouts-1.
Congressional Research Service

10

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

 the numerous federal entities and programs involved in the broadband landscape
and whether to reduce or combine programs, or move programs under a single
federal agency;
 the FCC’s minimum broadband speed benchmark—and determining whether
raising the benchmark could create a “new” digital divide, including the dilemma
of whether to prioritize federal funding solely for unserved areas; and
 the potential application of rural electrification efforts to rural broadband
connectivity and limitations on cooperatives and municipalities.
Each of these issues is discussed in greater detail below.
Potential Funding
Congress has provided billions of dollars to close the digital divide—most recently, the $65
billion broadband investment in the IIJA (P.L. 117-58). However, it remains to be seen whether
the funding allocated in the IIJA for broadband will close the digital divide. In 2017, the FCC’s
Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis estimated that it would cost approximately $80
billion to connect every U.S. household to fiber—with the cost to connect the last 2% of
households (mostly in remote areas) estimated at approximately $40 billion.51
Some critics do not believe the $65 billion allocated by the IIJA will be enough to close the
digital divide. Estimates vary with respect to how much additional funding would be needed.
According to a Tufts University study, “at least $240 billion is needed to close the digital
divide—$175 billion more than the $65 billion allocated.”52 A study conducted by America’s
Communications Association Connects (ACA Connects) estimates that it could take between $20
billion and $198 billion to connect all homes and businesses to broadband service—with higher
broadband speeds involving higher costs.53 Another study by Vantage Point Solutions (VPS)
found the cost could exceed $400 billion.54
An article by Techdirt states, “an analysis of broadband deployment by the [Wall Street] Journal
found, unsurprisingly, that funding has been thrown numerous times at the same regions that are
still … somehow waiting for modern-era broadband to arrive.”55 Mapping broadband availability
may help; however, according to the VPS report, “even if the number of locations that need
upgrades to receive broadband were known precisely, it remains a difficult task to determine the
cost to construct broadband networks throughout the United States.”56 The report further states,
“underground fiber construction may cost less than $20,000 per mile in some areas, but be more

51 Paul de Sa, Improving the Nation’s Digital Infrastructure, Federal Communications Commission, January 17, 2017,
p. 2, available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-343135A1.pdf.
52 Bhaskar Chakravorti, “How to Close the Digital Divide in the U.S.,” Harvard Business Review, July 20, 2021,
available at https://hbr.org/2021/07/how-to-close-the-digital-divide-in-the-u-s.
53 Cartesian, Addressing Gaps in Broadband Infrastructure Availability and Service Adoption, June 2021, p. 11,
available at https://acaconnects.org/index.php?checkfileaccess=/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Addressing-Gaps-in-
Broadband-Infrastructure-Availability-and-Service-Adoption-ACA-Connects-and-Cartesian-June2021.pdf.
54 Vantage Point Solutions, Cost of Bringing Broadband to All, August 1, 2022, p. 3, available at https://www.fcc.gov/
ecfs/document/108012327916993/2.
55 Karl Bode, “We Just Keep Throwing Billions at Telecom Monopolies in Exchange for Half-Completed, Shitty
Broadband Networks,” Techdirt, June 17, 2022, available at https://www.techdirt.com/2022/06/17/we-just-keep-
throwing-billions-at-telecom-monopolies-in-exchange-for-half-completed-shitty-broadband-networks/.
56 Vantage Point Solutions, Cost of Bringing Broadband to All, August 1, 2022, p. 7, available at https://www.fcc.gov/
ecfs/document/108012327916993/2.
Congressional Research Service

11

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

than $300,000 per mile in other areas. Not only do these factors make estimating construction
costs in a given region difficult, but they also change over time.”57 Determining how much
funding might be needed to close the digital divide is a dynamic issue and may be a continuing
debate for the 118th Congress.
Federal Agencies and Programs
The primary agencies providing federal support for broadband deployment are the FCC, NTIA,
and USDA. Other federal agencies may also provide funding for broadband deployment. For
example, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Capital Projects Fund allows the use of its funding
for broadband infrastructure projects, among many other eligible uses. The number of federal
entities involved in broadband deployment efforts has been an issue of concern among some
Members of Congress.58 A May 2022 GAO report found that “federal broadband efforts are
fragmented and overlapping, with more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies.”59
According to NTIA’s BroadbandUSA federal funding site, 63 of these programs are for
broadband deployment purposes.60
The number of these programs may make coordinating among agencies challenging. For
example, although NTIA, FCC, and USDA have an interagency agreement to coordinate
broadband deployment federal funding, there is no coordinated map or effort to track where the
funding from all possible agencies and programs is going to build out broadband.61 This could
lead to a potentially unclear picture of where the digital divide is being addressed—and by what
federal programs—and where it is not. A result could be duplication of efforts—leaving some
areas well served with broadband, while others remain unserved or underserved. Congress might
consider requiring broadband service providers to include data on broadband buildout using
federal funding as part of FCC reporting requirements for incorporation as a layer into the
National Broadband Map. Congress could also require entities to report this information to the
FCC for incorporation into the National Broadband Map as part of conditions of accepting a
broadband grant.
The telecommunications industry has weighed in on the multitude of programs that fund
broadband infrastructure (and other broadband activities). According to a January 6, 2023,
industry association response to a December 6, 2022, letter from Senator John Thune,
part of the reason that so many broadband programs exist is precisely because Congress
has far too often in the past sought to create new programs from whole cloth rather than
examining which programs have worked best in the past and seeking to leverage and build
upon those initiatives instead.62

57 Ibid., p. 7.
58 Template letter from Senator John Thune, December 6, 2022, available at https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/
_cache/files/0d7fef2d-7031-4224-be1f-d92ff4bc26a7/5A4B462A12E9BA0612544839342F2BF1.12.6.22-broadband-
oversight-letter.pdf.
59 Government Accountability Office, Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce
Digital Divide, May 31, 2022, available at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104611.
60 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Federal Funding, available at
https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/resources/federal/federal-funding.
61 U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, FCC, and NTIA Announce Interagency Agreement to Coordinate Broadband
Funding Deployment, June 25, 2021, available at https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/06/25/usda-fcc-and-
ntia-announce-interagency-agreement-coordinate.
62 Shirley Bloomfield, Letter to Senator John Thune, NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association, June 6, 2023,
available at https://www.ntca.org/sites/default/files/documents/2023-01/ThuneReply.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

12

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

A consideration for Congress might be whether to assess the success of federal broadband
programs—for example, maintaining programs that have been successful and potentially
eliminating or consolidating programs that have been less successful. One approach could be to
establish criteria for program success, e.g., a minimum percentage of unserved locations a
program must connect to broadband service to be considered successful. Another option could be
combining existing programs that may fund similar purposes. This idea had been proposed in the
117th Congress for two programs at the USDA—the Broadband Internet Connections for Rural
America Act (H.R. 4374) and the Broadband for Rural America Act (H.R. 3369). Both bills
would have combined the ReConnect Program and the Rural Broadband Access Program into one
program called the ReConnect Rural Broadband Program. Consolidating programs across
agencies may also present challenges. According to a May 2022 GAO report,
Programmatic differences, whether from changes over time or the development of new
programs, have limited agencies’ ability to align programs to address broadband needs in
a complementary way, according to agency officials. Programs have their own definitions,
eligibility criteria, and other requirements—which may be established in statute or through
agency administrative processes.63
Further, the report states that, “The federal government has used a variety of mechanisms for
coordination, but no current national strategy exists to provide clear roles, goals, objectives, and
accountability to agencies or synchronize the numerous interagency coordination efforts.”64 To
reduce the number of federal agencies involved, Congress may weigh whether all programs that
provide funding for broadband could be consolidated under a single federal agency—for example
the FCC, NTIA, or USDA. This would potentially eliminate the need for federal agency
coordination and reduce the possibility of duplicative efforts. Consolidating broadband efforts
under a single agency might also provide an avenue for a single national strategy in closing the
digital divide. On the other hand, consolidation could be challenging because different agencies
have different missions and priorities and may fall under different authorizing committees and
appropriations subcommittees.
A potential counterpoint to consolidation is that a single agency may not have the staff or
resources to handle the already-existing large number of broadband initiatives and Congress may
need to provide the selected agency with additional appropriations for this purpose. This also may
require Congress to make legislative changes to aid in aligning broadband efforts under a single
agency, for example, codifying a single definition for “rural” or “unserved” for usage across all
programs. This could also aid in the creation of a common application process for entities
applying to broadband programs, which may streamline the application process across programs
and encourage more entities to apply for funding. According to GAO,
We’ve also noticed that many potential recipients of broadband funding in underserved
areas struggle to identify which of the many federal programs meets their needs, and have
difficulty navigating the programs’ complex application processes. These issues may all
be hampering the federal government’s ability to increase broadband access in these
areas.65
Congress could also choose to leave federal broadband programs in place within their current
agencies.

63 Government Accountability Office, National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide,
May 2022, p. 21, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104611.pdf.
64 Ibid., p. 31.
65 Government Accountability Office, Closing the Digital Divide for the Millions of Americans Without Broadband,
February 1, 2023, available at https://www.gao.gov/blog/closing-digital-divide-millions-americans-without-broadband.
Congressional Research Service

13

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

FCC Minimum Broadband Speed Benchmark and Prioritization of
Unserved Versus Served Areas
Section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) directs the FCC to
determine whether broadband is deployed to all Americans on a reasonable and timely basis. As
part of this effort, the FCC sets a minimum broadband speed benchmark to define what it
considers broadband service. In 2015, the FCC set that benchmark speed to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps,
which remains in place today.
The definition of what constitutes broadband service can have implications for federal policies
targeted toward closing the digital divide. For example, on July 15, 2022, Chairwoman
Rosenworcel proposed increasing the minimum broadband benchmark speed to 100 Mbps/20
Mbps.66 According to the FCC’s Fourteenth Broadband Deployment Report, approximately 14.5
million Americans do not have access to broadband at speeds of 25/3 Mbps—meaning these areas
are considered as unserved.67 If the FCC were to raise the broadband speed benchmark, any areas
that have 25/3 Mbps, but are not served with the new minimum speed benchmark, would be
considered unserved with broadband. This could exacerbate the digital divide, as federal funds
intended to provide service to areas without 25/3 Mbps service might be redirected to upgrade
speeds in areas that already have 25/3 Mbps service but do not meet the new faster benchmark.
On the other hand, raising the FCC’s minimum speed benchmark might make it more likely that
the FCC would find that broadband deployment is not occurring in a reasonable and timely
fashion. This could cause the FCC to take further action in the form of new broadband programs
or initiatives to speed deployment, or regulatory action—such as streamlining infrastructure
deployment rules.68
In many cases, federal broadband programs outside the FCC have set other speed thresholds for
networks built using federal funds. For example, while the Treasury Department uses a 100/100
Mbps standard for capital projects funded through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L.
117-2),69 the NTIA’s BEAD program requires grant recipients to build to a minimum of 100/20
Mbps.70 Different agencies setting varying speed thresholds may cause inconsistencies in closing
the digital divide. Congress might consider specifying a single benchmark as the standard for all
federal agencies administering broadband programs, or directing all agencies to use the FCC
benchmark.
Some policymakers believe that those who currently lack broadband entirely should be prioritized
to prevent duplication in areas that already have some level of broadband access. For example, on
February 4, 2022, some Members of Congress wrote to NTIA, urging the agency to prioritize

66 Federal Communications Commission, Chairwoman Rosenworcel Proposes to Increase Minimum Broadband
Speeds, July 15, 2022, available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairwoman-rosenworcel-proposes-increase-
minimum-broadband-speeds.
67 Federal Communications Commission, Fourteenth Broadband Deployment Report, January 19, 2021, p. 2, available
at https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/fourteenth-broadband-deployment-report.
68 For more information see CRS In Focus IF11875, Raising the Minimum Fixed Broadband Speed Benchmark:
Background and Selected Issues, by Colby Leigh Rachfal.
69 U.S. Department of Treasury, Guidance for the Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund for States, Territories & Freely
Associated States, September 2021, p. 3, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Capital-Projects-Fund-
Guidance-States-Territories-and-Freely-Associated-States.pdf.
70 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment
Program, Notice of Funding Opportunity, pp. 64-65, available at https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/
2022-05/BEAD%20NOFO.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

14

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

projects targeted at unserved areas.71 In response to the proposed RDOF, in 2019, the
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission urged the FCC to prioritize unserved areas.72 A
provision to connect areas unserved by broadband was proposed in the 117th Congress in the
Connect Unserved Americans Act of 2022 (S. 3587/H.R. 7060). Among other things, the bill
would have increased the percentage (from 50% to 80%) of rural households that a project must
serve to receive a grant or loan through the Rural Utilities Service’s Distance Learning,
Telemedicine, and Broadband program.
Congress may weigh which aspect/definition of the digital divide it wishes to prioritize—whether
to prioritize funding for areas without 25/3 Mbps broadband ahead of funding upgrades of
existing 25/3 Mbps networks to faster speeds. Congress may also take population density and
number of connections into account—for example, should Congress prioritize federal funds that
might connect thousands of households in an area versus hundreds of households in an area.
Applying Tools from Rural Electrification and Limitations on
Cooperatives and Municipalities
How to connect rural areas to services has faced the United States in the past in the context of
electricity. According to the USDA, “in 1936, nearly 90% of farms lacked electric power because
the costs to get electricity to rural areas were prohibitive.”73 Similar to broadband deployment,
“running wires into the countryside where there might be only a few people per square mile
seemed uneconomical for either investors or taxpayers.”74 In response, the Rural Electrification
Act of 1936 (REA; P.L. 74-605) was enacted, which allowed the federal government to make
low-cost loans to non-profit cooperatives.75 The REA helped bring electricity to rural areas, as by
1950, nearly 80% of U.S. farms had electric service.76
Some policymakers have drawn parallels between rural electrification and rural broadband
deployment, arguing “that something similar [to rural electrification] needs to happen to create
widespread changes to the issue of rural internet availability.”77 For example, according to a 2018
statement by FCC Chairwoman (then Commissioner) Rosenworcel, “We were able to get

71 Letter from Senators Steve Daines, Charles E. Grassley, Thom Tillis, John Barrasso, Marco Rubio, Mike Braun,
James Lankford, Cynthia M. Lummis, James E. Risch, Lindsey O. Graham, Tommy Tuberville, John Kennedy, Mike
Crapo, Ted Cruz, John Boozman, Richard Burr, John Cornyn, James M. Inhofe, and Roger Marshall to Assistant
Secretary Alan Davidson, February 4, 2022, available at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
grassley_et_al.tontiabroadbandfunding.pdf.
72 Pennsylvania Business Report, PUC Urges Federal Communications Commission to Prioritize Unserved Areas in
Broadband Access Expansion Efforts, October 16, 2019, available at https://pennbizreport.com/news/14442-puc-urges-
federal-communications-commission-to-prioritize-unserved-areas-in-broadband-access-expansion-efforts/.
73 Brandon McBride, Celebrating the 80th Anniversary of the Rural Electrification Administration, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, February 21, 2017, available at https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/05/20/celebrating-80th-
anniversary-rural-electrification-administration.
74 Harold D. Wallace Jr., Power from the People: Rural Electrification Brought More Than Lights, National Museum
of American History, February 12, 2016, available at https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/rural-electrification.
75 National Park Service, Rural Electrification Act, August 8, 2021, available at https://www.nps.gov/home/learn/
historyculture/ruralelect.htm.
76 Brandon McBride, Celebrating the 80th Anniversary of the Rural Electrification Administration, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, February 21, 2017, available at https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/05/20/celebrating-80th-
anniversary-rural-electrification-administration.
77 Sky Lebron, “Rural Broadband Remains Scarce Across North Central Florida. Here’s What That Means for People
Without It,” WUFT, January 5, 2022, available at https://www.wuft.org/news/2022/01/05/rural-broadband-remains-
scarce-across-north-central-florida-heres-what-that-means-for-people-without-it/.
Congressional Research Service

15

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

electrification to happen in rural, hard-to-reach parts of this nation … we need to be able to do the
same with broadband.”78 A July 2021 White House fact sheet stated, “broadband internet is the
new electricity. It is necessary for Americans to do their jobs, to accelerate precision agriculture,
to participate equally in school learning and health care, and to stay connected.”79
Cooperatives80 played the main role in rural electrification. Similar to broadband, “power
companies thought rural America too spacious and sparsely populated to provide the necessary
returns on investment.”81 Similarly, “there has been a growing trend among electric cooperatives,
which electrified these same rural parts of the country in the 1930s and 1940s, to do it again for
broadband.”82 According to Pew Charitable Trusts, “A key challenge for electric cooperatives
seeking to provide broadband services is securing funding or financing for deployment. Because
they do not have as much capital as traditional internet service providers, cooperatives often turn
to state and federal programs for additional funding for these projects.”83
Cooperatives may have difficulties in accessing federal funding for broadband. According to
NTIA’s BroadbandUSA federal funding site, out of over 90 programs, cooperatives may
potentially be eligible for 15 funding opportunities. Among these is the USDA’s ReConnect
program, which offers loans, grants, and loan-grant combinations for broadband deployment in
rural areas.84 A consideration for Congress may be whether to expand eligibility criteria for
cooperatives for other federal broadband programs or whether to create a new broadband program
that prioritizes cooperatives as eligible recipients.
Municipal broadband is another avenue Congress could potentially look to in filling rural
broadband gaps. Some public entities, such as municipal governments, have stepped in to provide
broadband services to areas unserved by private sector providers. A patchwork of state laws on
municipal broadband exist, with 28 states allowing municipalities to deploy broadband and 22
states either explicitly prohibiting it or having regulations that could make establishing municipal
broadband networks challenging. As one of many various options, Congress could weigh granting
the FCC explicit authority to preempt state laws to remove potential barriers to municipal

78 Marguerite Reardon, “FCC Leaders Say We Need a ‘National Mission’ to Fix Rural Broadband,” CNET, October
24, 2018, available at https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/fcc-leaders-say-we-need-a-national-mission-to-
fix-rural-broadband/.
79 The White House, FACT SHEET: Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework Creates Economic Opportunities for Rural
America, July 8, 2021, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/08/fact-
sheet-bipartisan-infrastructure-framework-creates-economic-opportunities-for-rural-america/.
80 According to The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Electrical cooperatives are private, nonprofit organizations that provide
electricity to customers in their service areas. They are customer-owned and operate on a cost-of-service basis,
returning extra profits as dividends to members or to be invested in infrastructure.” See Lily Gong and Anna Read,
States Considering Range of Options to Bring Broadband to Rural America, The Pew Charitable Trusts, March 29,
2022, available at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2022/03/29/states-considering-range-of-
options-to-bring-broadband-to-rural-america.
81 Christopher Ali, The Legacy of the Rural Electrification Act and the Promise of Rural Broadband, LPE Project, July
12, 2021, available at https://lpeproject.org/blog/the-legacy-of-the-rural-electrification-act-and-the-promise-of-rural-
broadband/.
82 Marguerite Reardon, “Electric Cooperatives Could Be the Key to Solving the Rural Digital Divide,” CNET,
February 9, 2020, available at https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/electric-cooperatives-could-be-the-key-to-solving-
the-rural-digital-divide/.
83 Lily Gong and Anna Read, States Considering Range of Options to Bring Broadband to Rural America, The Pew
Charitable Trusts, March 29, 2022, available at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2022/03/
29/states-considering-range-of-options-to-bring-broadband-to-rural-america.
84 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Program Overview, available at https://www.usda.gov/reconnect/program-
overview.
Congressional Research Service

16

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

broadband investment in unserved areas.85 Additionally, legislation has been introduced in the
118th Congress (H.R. 2252) that would amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-
104) to allow State and local governments, public-private partnerships, and cooperatives to
provide broadband services.
Arguments can be made both for and against broadband provided by cooperatives (and municipal
networks, discussed further below). According to an analyst at the Rockefeller Institute of
Government of the State University of New York:
Though municipal broadband and cooperatives have been growing in popularity, they have
also been a topic of heated debate. Proponents argue that these models are more
democratically accountable and will lead to increased competition as well as higher-
quality, more affordable, and wider-reaching service than that provided by their private-
sector counterparts. Conversely, detractors say these models may not be financially
sustainable and could potentially crowd out private investment. Additionally, some argue
that lack of expertise makes governments ill-suited to take on the tasks of operating and
maintaining commercial broadband networks and that failure comes at the expense of
taxpayers.86
Both federal and state efforts have tried to replicate aspects of—or expand on—the REA for rural
broadband efforts. For example, the New Deal Rural Broadband Act of 2017 (H.R. 800, 115th
Congress) would have amended the REA to establish a rural broadband office within the USDA
and also authorize new grants and loans for developing broadband in rural, underserved, and
tribal areas. On the state level, in 2021, the Vermont legislature passed H. 360, which has been
referred to as Vermont’s “rural electrification project” for broadband.87 H. 360 focuses on
“bringing regional, community-minded solutions to address a problem where the marketplace has
failed” and “requiring connectivity solutions to serve all, not just the most profitable
neighborhoods.”88 This effort includes Vermont’s communications union districts—“a type of
municipality where multiple towns could partner together to develop coordinated, regional
solutions for broadband connectivity.”89
Concluding Observations
The primary means the United States has for encouraging broadband deployment by broadband
service providers is subsidizing them to serve areas that they would otherwise find uneconomical
to serve. Funding is a key factor in the digital divide and debates continue about how much
funding would potentially help close it. In addition, providing additional funding on top of what
has already been allocated may not alone close the divide, as it encompasses additional complex

85 For more information see CRS Report R47225, Expanding Broadband: Potential Role of Municipal Networks to
Address the Digital Divide, by Colby Leigh Rachfal.
86 By Kevin Schwartzbach, Should States Fund Municipal Broadband and Cooperatives?, Rockefeller Institute of
Government , March 24, 2022, available at https://rockinst.org/blog/should-states-fund-municipal-broadband-and-
cooperatives/.
87 Tim Briglin and Laura Sibilia, Briglin & Sibilia: Vermont’s Rural Electrification Project for Broadband, VTDigger,
April 4, 2021, available at https://vtdigger.org/2021/04/04/briglin-sibilia-vermonts-rural-electrification-project-for-
broadband/.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 22 The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

policy issues. In this regard, Congress may investigate whether existing regulatory policies are
helping or hindering broadband deployment in unserved areas.90
In addition to funding, Congress may weigh other proposals intended to address the persistence of
the digital divide, such as whether to reduce or combine any of the multitude of federal entities
and programs involved in the broadband landscape, or to move programs under a single federal
entity. Additionally, Congress could examine whether prioritizing federal funding solely for areas
completely unserved with broadband might close the existing gap more quickly than devoting
some funds to upgrades in areas that already have some service. Congress also may examine
whether raising the FCC’s minimum broadband speed benchmark could exacerbate the existing
digital divide by increasing the number of households that are considered unserved. Congress
could also consider whether the application of some aspects of past rural electrification efforts,
such as encouraging deployment cooperatives or municipalities in rural areas, could be applicable
to rural broadband connectivity.
If the 118th Congress chooses to consider solutions to the persistence of the digital divide, it has a
variety of potential options to weigh. Examples of proposals related to broadband deployment in
legislation currently before Congress include
 prioritizing the processing of applications for certain rural broadband expansion
projects that are located in areas with the shortest construction seasons;
 amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain broadband
grants from gross income; and
 amending the REA (P.L. 74-605) to provide requirements on the use of assistance
for broadband deployment.
The Appendix contains a summary of legislation introduced in the 118th Congress.

90 U.S. House of Representatives, 118th Congress, Authorization and Oversight Plan of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, February 2023, p. 11, available at https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/
E_and_C_Authorization_and_Oversight_Plan_118_FINAL_e858cde3ea.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

18

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

Appendix. Legislation in the 118th Congress
At the time of publication, 16 bills have been introduced in the 118th Congress that relate to the
deployment of broadband in some capacity, with 10 originating in the House and 6 in the
Senate.91
Introduced in the House
H.R. 43. As introduced on January 9, 2023, the Rural Broadband Window of Opportunity Act
would require the Federal Communications Commission to prioritize the processing of
applications for certain rural broadband expansion projects that are located in areas with the
shortest construction seasons (e.g., areas with long winters and heavy snowfall). Referred to the
House Energy and Commerce Committee.
H.R. 827. As introduced on February 2, 2023, the Home Internet Accessibility Act, among other
things, would require the Comptroller General to submit to Congress a report on the capacity of
federally assisted housing to support broadband service.
H.R. 889. As introduced on February 9, 2023, the Broadband Grant Tax Treatment Act would
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain broadband grants from gross
income. Referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. Companion bill to S. 341.
H.R. 922. As introduced on February 9, 2023, the RURAL Broadband Act of 2023, among other
things, would amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to provide requirements on the use of
assistance for broadband deployment. Referred to the House Agriculture Committee and the
House Energy and Commerce Committee.
H.R. 1178. As introduced on February 24, 2023, the Broadband Stock Acquisition in Local
Exchanges Act, among other things, would allow an investment tax credit for 30% of
expenditures to purchase, maintain, or improve property to provide voice telephone service or
broadband internet access in rural empowerment zones.
H.R. 1241. As introduced on February 28, 2023, the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act
would establish a competitive grant program at the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration to assist local governments in providing efficient review and approval of zoning
and permitting applications that facilitate the deployment of broadband infrastructure. Referred to
the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
H.R. 1752. As introduced on March 23, 2023, the E-BRIDGE Act would amend the Public Works
and Economic Development Act of 1965 to provide for a high-speed broadband deployment
initiative.
H.R. 1812. As introduced on March 27, 2023, the Reforming Broadband Connectivity Act of
2023, among other things, would require the Federal Communications Commission to complete a
rulemaking to reform the contribution system of the Universal Service Fund, including by
expanding the contribution base of the Universal Service Fund. Companion bill to S. 975.
H.R. 2285. As introduced on March 29, 2023, the bill would provide for a limitation on
availability of funds for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Distance
Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program for fiscal year 2024.

91 On April 13, 2023, CRS conducted a search of legislation in the Congress.gov database to identify legislation
introduced in the 118th Congress that relates to deployment of broadband. CRS used search term “broadband,” selected
the 118th Congress (2023-2024), and selected bills (H.R. or S.).
Congressional Research Service

19

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

H.R. 2252. As introduced on April 10, 2023, the bill would amend the Telecommunications Act of
1996 to preserve and protect the ability of state and local governments, public-private
partnerships, and cooperatives to provide broadband services.
Introduced in the Senate
S. 275. As introduced on February 7, 2023, the Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2023 would
require the Federal Communications Commission to establish a process to vet applicants seeking
funding under the high-cost universal service programs. Applicants would be required to provide
a proposal for deploying a broadband network, containing enough detail and documentation for
the Federal Communications Commission to ascertain whether the applicant has the technical
capabilities to deploy the proposed network and deliver services. Referred to the Senate
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
S. 341. As introduced on February 9, 2023, the Broadband Grant Tax Treatment Act would amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain broadband grants from gross income.
Referred to the Senate Finance Committee. Companion bill to H.R. 889.
S. 690. As introduced on March 7, 2023, the Network Equipment Transparency Act would require
the Federal Communications Commission to determine (subject to available data) whether the
lack of network equipment significantly impacted the deployment of broadband and other
advanced telecommunications capability. The bill would also require the FCC to include this
determination in its biennial report on the state of the communications marketplace.
S. 856. As introduced on March 16, 2023, the Funding Affordable Internet with Reliable
Contributions Act would require the Federal Communications Commission to study and report on
the feasibility of funding the Universal Service Fund through contributions from edge providers
(i.e., providers of online content or services, such as search engines).
S. 975. As introduced on March 27, 2023, the Reforming Broadband Connectivity Act of 2023,
among other things, would require the Federal Communications Commission to complete a
rulemaking to reform the contribution system of the Universal Service Fund, including by
expanding the contribution base of the Universal Service Fund. Companion bill to H.R. 1812.
S. 1162. As introduced on March 30, 2023, the bill would ensure that broadband maps are
accurate before funds are allocated under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment
Program based on those maps.

Author Information

Colby Leigh Rachfal

Analyst in Telecommunications Policy

Congressional Research Service

20

The Persistent Broadband Digital Divide: Selected Deployment Issues and Considerations

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47506 · VERSION 1 · NEW
21