Document 2568229

BROADBANDANDTHEEMPIRESTATE:
TOWARDUNIVERSALCONNECTIVITYINNEWYORK
CHARLESM.DAVIDSON*
MICHAELJ.SANTORELLI**
TheAdvancedCommunicationsLaw&PolicyInstitute
NewYorkLawSchool
SEPTEMBER2012
*Director,ACLPatNewYorkLawSchool.
**Director,ACLPatNewYorkLawSchool.Theviewsexpressedhereinarethoseoftheauthorsonlyanddo
notnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofNewYorkLawSchool.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
TABLEOFCONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY…..………………………………………………………………………………… i
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 PaperOverview………………………………………………………………………………..3
THEIMPORTANCEOFBROADBANDCONNECTIVITYTONEWYORK…………………………... 3
2.1 Communities…………………………………………………………………………………....4
2.1.1 RuralResidents……………………………………………………………………..4
2.1.2 Low‐IncomeHouseholds………………………………………………………. 5
2.1.3 SeniorCitizens……………………………………………………………………… 6
2.1.4 PeoplewithDisabilities………………………………………………………….7
2.1.5 MinorityCommunities……………………………………………………………8
2.2 Sectors……………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
2.2.1 Education………………………………………………………………………...........9
2.2.2 Energy…………………………………………………………………………………..10
2.2.3 Healthcare……………………………………………………………………………..11
2.2.4 HighTech……………………………………………………………………………...12
2.2.5 SmallBusiness……………………………………………………………………….12
2.3 Government……………………………………………………………………………………..13
THESTATUSOFBROADBANDCONNECTIVITYINNEWYORK………………………………………14
3.1 Availability……………………………………………………………………………………….15
3.2 Adoption………………………………………………………………………………………….18
3.3 DigitalLiteracy&MeaningfulUse……………………………………………………..22
APUBLIC‐PRIVATEMODELFORACHIEVINGUNIVERSALBROADBANDCONNECTIVITYIN
NEWYORK…………………………………………………………………………………………………....23
4.1 APublic‐PrivateApproachtoEnhancingBroadbandAvailabilityin
NewYork………………………………………………………………………………………....25
4.1.1 TheAdvantagesofUsingPublic‐PrivatePartnershipsto
BolsterBroadbandAvailability…………………………………………….....25
4.1.2 StructuringEffectivePublic‐PrivatePartnershipstoBolster
BroadbandAvailability…………………………………………………………...27
4.2 APublic‐PrivateApproachtoIncreasingBroadbandAdoptionand
PromotingMeaningfulUsesinNewYork…………………………………………..29
4.2.1 TheAdvantagesofUsingPublic‐PrivatePartnershipsto
BolsterBroadbandAdoptionandPromoteMeaningfulUses……29
4.2.2 StructuringEffectivePublic‐PrivatePartnershipstoBolster
BroadbandAdoptionandPromoteMeaningfulUses………………..30
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………….32
ENDNOTES…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
TABLES
Table1–ComparisonofBroadbandAdoptionData:NewYorkvs.U.S……………………..19
Table2–SummaryofMajorBarriersImpedingBroadbandAdoptionin
CommunitiesandSectorsacrossNewYork……………………………………………. 21
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Broadband Internet connectivity is an increasingly essential part of modern life for New
York residents, businesses, and institutions. It has been recognized by Governor Cuomo,
the Legislature, and officials at the county and municipal levels as an engine for job
creation, a vehicle for economic development, and a platform for innovation and
transformingentiresectorsoftheeconomy.Throughoutthestate,innovatorsinthepublic,
private and nonprofit sectors are using broadband and the universe of services that it
enables to make government more open and transparent, modernize the electric grid,
bolsterhealthcareservices,andimproveeducationalopportunitiesforstudentsofallages.
Inrecognitionofthegrowingimportanceofthistechnologytothestate,policymakershave
workedwiththeircounterpartsintheprivateandnonprofitsectorstobolstereveryaspect
ofbroadbandconnectivity.Asdiscussedinthisreport,sustainedprivateinvestmentofrisk
capital in network infrastructure has resulted in widespread deployment of robust high‐
speed broadband throughout New York. Currently, less than five percent of New York
residentsdonothaveaccesstoawiredbroadbandconnection,whilelessthanonepercent
remain without access to wireless broadband. Coupled with the development of an
interconnectedecosystemofinnovation,theemergenceofavibrantsocialinfrastructureto
deliver training services, and narrowly tailored public support, this significant private
investment has fostered intermodal competition between service providers, near‐
ubiquitous availability, and high levels of informed use across the general population. In
sum,thestateofbroadbandconnectivityinNewYorkisstrong.
Despite these efforts, however, pockets of the state, many of which are in rural areas
upstate, remain without access to broadband. In addition, broadband adoption rates and
digitalliteracyskillsinkeycommunities,includingseniorcitizens,peoplewithdisabilities,
andlow‐incomehouseholds,lagbehindstatewideandnationalaverages.Withthecostof
digital exclusion rising inexorably as this technology continues to transform sectors like
healthcare and education, New York must focus on enhancing broadband availability,
adoption,andmeaningfuluseacrosseverycommunityinthestate.
A key aspect of state involvement in addressing these issues will be the use of public‐
private partnerships (PPPs) to enhance each element of broadband connectivity. These
partnerships, which pair public resources with private expertise, have proven to be the
best vehicles for reducing investment risk, enhancing returns on investments, and
deliveringbroadbandservicesandtrainingprogramsinatimelyandcost‐efficientmanner.
In New York, Governor Cuomo’s vision for and success in using PPPs to jumpstart economic
development and collaborate with experts in the private and nonprofit sectors provide a
templateforassuringuniversalbroadbandconnectivityinNewYorkState.
StructuringEffectivePublic‐PrivatePartnerships
Thisreportofferspolicymakersguidingprinciplesforuseastheycollaboratewithexperts
intheprivateandnonprofitsectorstoaddressdisparitiesinbroadbandconnectivity.These
principlesarederivedfromanalysesofnumerousbroadband‐focusedprograms,initiatives,
Pagei
andmodelsthathavebeenlaunchedinothertowns,cities,and statesacrossthecountry,
and they build upon tenets central to Governor Cuomo’s approach to structuring and
deployingPPPsinanumberofothercontexts.
Withregardtoenhancingbroadbandavailability,theguidingprinciplesenumeratedbelow
urgepolicymakerstorecognizethat:
 Taxpayer funds should only be used to fund broadband deployment to
areasthatremainunservedinanefforttomaximizethenumberofhomes
and businesses these new networks reach while also reducing private
andpublicsectorinvestmentrisk.Pastexperienceswithfundingnetwork
deploymenttoruralareasdemonstratethat,intheabsenceofsafeguards,
clearselectioncriteriaandcarefullystructuredPPPs,thereisariskthat
taxpayer funds will be used to construct duplicative network
infrastructure. The practical impacts of this outcome are a waste of
taxpayer funds, missed opportunities to advance deployment goals, and
thecreationofdisincentivesforserviceproviderstocontinueinvestingin
theseareas.

The optimal role for local and state governments vis‐à‐vis enhancing
broadband connectivity are as hubs for channeling funding and forging
PPPswithexpertsintheprivateandnonprofitsectors.

The most cost‐effective way to bridge broadband availability gaps is to
positionsubstantialprivateinvestmentsoftime,capital,andexpertiseas
coreanimatingfeaturesofanyPPPfocusedonnetworkexpansion.

Allocations of state funding in support of PPPs should be flexible and
structured around realizing broad public policy goals, i.e., bringing
networkinfrastructuretounservedareasofthestate.

Studying unserved areas and assuring that sufficient levels of demand
exist to support new networks should be a prerequisite for any PPP
aimedatextendingbroadbandnetworkstounservedareas.

Agreements at the heart of these PPPs, along with any related
policymakingactivities,workbestwhentheyaccommodateandfacilitate
rather than hinder business model experimentation and the
implementationofnetworkexpertiseonthepartofserviceproviders.
Intermsofincreasingbroadbandadoptionandbolsteringdigitalliteracyskillsamongnon‐
adopters,policymakersareurgedtodevelopPPPsaroundthefollowingguidingprinciples:
 Stimulatingandaggregatingdemandforbroadbandisacriticalaspectof
reducingtheriskinherentindeployingnewnetworkstounservedareas.

It is essential to leverage the core competencies of policymakers and
governmentinstitutionsatthefederal,state,andlocallevels.
Pageii

Whenever possible, devolve outreach and training efforts to the local
levelinordertoassuremoretargetedprogramming.

Appreciatethateffectiveprogrammaticresponsestounder‐adoptionwill
differ from state to state, from city to city, and oftentimes from
neighborhood to neighborhood, and that programs should be designed
accordingly.

RecognizethatlocalsocialinfrastructuresareessentialinputstoanyPPP
developedforthepurposeofimprovingadoptionandinformeduse.

Tying outreach and training initiatives to social service delivery can
result in clearer, more compelling value propositions and, eventually,
moremeaningfulusesofthetechnology.
Insum,forgingPPPsandfuelingthemwithcarefullytargetedpublicresourcesrepresents
themostviablemeansofyieldingneartermgainsinbroadbandavailabilityandadoption
that will persist over the long term. As such, policymakers should embrace this
collaborative approach as they consider how best to address lingering disparities in
broadbandconnectivityinNewYorkState.
Pageiii
1.
INTRODUCTION
Broadband Internet connectivity is an increasingly essential part of modern life for New
York residents, businesses, and institutions. It has been recognized by the Governor, the
Legislature,andofficialsatthecountyandmunicipallevelsasanengineforjobcreation,a
vehicleforeconomicdevelopment,andaplatformforinnovationandtransformingentire
sectors of the economy.1 Throughout the state, innovators in the public, private and
nonprofitsectorsareusingbroadbandandtheuniverseofservicesthatitenablestomake
governmentmoreopenandtransparent,2modernizetheelectricgrid,3bolsterhealthcare
services,4 and improve educational opportunities for students of all ages.5 Most
importantly,broadbandisatoolthat,ifproperlywielded,provideseveryuserwithequal
opportunitytobenefitfromthispowerfultechnology.
In furtherance of realizing the transformative potential of broadband, New York officials
haveundertakenamyriadofinitiativestobolsterconnectivityandmeaningfuluseofthis
technologyacrosseveryusercommunityinthestate.Recenteffortshaveincluded:
 The establishment of a statewide Broadband Program Office, which is
taskedwithcoordinatingstrategicinvestmentsinnetworkbuild‐outand
adoption;6

The development of a comprehensive universal broadband access and
connectivitystrategy;7

The application for and subsequent acquisition of tens of millions of
dollarsinfederalstimulusfundstosupportarangeofinfrastructureand
adoption‐focusedactivities;8

Thedevelopmentofaninteractivemaptoassistinidentifyingpocketsof
unavailabilityandlowratesofusage;9

Via Regional Economic Development Council Grants and other sources,
theallocationofseveralmillionsofdollarsinfundingtosupportpublic‐
privatepartnershipsfocusedonbolsteringbroadbandinfrastructureand
informedusageindiscretecommunitiesacrossthestate;10and

The allocation of $25 million to support additional public‐private
partnershipsthatarefocusedonfurtherbroadbandnetworkdeployment
tounservedpartsofthestate.11
Together,theseeffortsseektoaddressthreecorecomponentsofbroadbandconnectivity
inNewYorkState.
First,abroadbandconnection–eitherviaawire(e.g.,cablemodem,DSL,orfibernetwork)or
wirelessly – must be available in order for a household or institution to adopt it.12 In New
York State, less than five percent of the population lives in an area without access to a
terrestrial broadband connection.13 However, despite robust investment by wireline and
wireless service providers to deploy advanced network infrastructure across the state,14
Page1
some remote areas remain “uneconomic” and thus beyond the reach of many broadband
serviceproviders.15
Second, when broadband is available, users must elect to adopt it, which requires a
commitmentoftimeandmoneytousethisservice.Severalfactorsinfluencethesedecisions,
including whether there is a compelling value proposition offered to a non‐user and
whethertheperceivedbenefitsoftheserviceoutweightheactualcostsofusingitforthe
new adopter.16 The mechanics of broadband adoption decision‐making vary from user
group to user group, a dynamic that is reflected in disparate rates of connectivity across
differentdemographics.17InNewYorkState,theoverallbroadbandadoptionratewas67
percentinearly2011.18However,adoptionrates“var[ied]insignificantwaysacrossracial,
economic,andeducationallevels,aswellasbyageandemploymentstatus.”19Thesedata
mirror national broadband adoption trends and necessitate targeted programs to close
adoptiongaps.20
Third, new users must possess the skills needed to use broadband in meaningful ways.21
Indeed, digital literacy has become a basic requirement in the Internet age.22 Without
adequate training, many new adopters will be unable to put their connections to life‐
enhancing uses, which range from filling out job applications to benefiting from in‐home
telemedicine services.23 Even though the benefits of informed broadband use accrue to
differentusergroupsindifferentways,24possessingabasicsetofdigitalliteracyskillshas
becomeessentialtoassuringthatNewYorkisabletomaintainitscompetitiveedgeinthe
21stcentury.
EachcomponentofbroadbandconnectivityinNewYorkStateisrobust.Sustainedprivate
investmentinnetworkinfrastructure,coupledwiththedevelopmentofaninterconnected
ecosystem of innovation, the emergence of a vibrant social infrastructure to deliver
training services, and narrowly tailored public support, has resulted in widespread
intermodalcompetitionbetweenserviceprovidersandhighlevelsofinformeduseacross
thegeneralpopulation.However,pocketsofthestatearestillunserved,andnearlyathird
of the population, including large numbers of including senior citizens, people with
disabilities,andlow‐incomehouseholds,remainunconnected.
In short, with the cost of digital exclusion rising inexorably as broadband continues to
transform key sectors like healthcare and education, New York must focus on enhancing
broadbandavailabilityandconnectivityacrosseverycommunityinthestate.25Akeyaspect
of state involvement in addressing these issues will be the use of public‐private
partnerships to enhance each element of broadband connectivity. These partnerships,
whichpairpublicresourceswithprivateexpertise,haveconsistentlyproventobethebest
vehiclesforreducinginvestmentrisk,enhancingreturnsoninvestments,anddeliveringto
residentsbroadbandservicesandtrainingprogramsinatimelyandcost‐efficientmanner.
These and their many other virtues underscore the critical role that public‐private
partnershipswillplayinassuringuniversalbroadbandconnectivityinNewYorkState.
Page2
1.1 PaperOverview
Section2providesanoverviewoftheimportanceofbroadbandconnectivitytoNewYork
and discusses how broadband impacts key communities, sectors, and government
institutions.Theprimarytakeawayofthissectionisthatbroadbandhasrapidlyemergedas
avitalplatformforeveryresident,business,andinstitutioninthestate.
Section3assessesthestateofbroadbandconnectivityinNewYork.Morespecifically,this
sectionexaminescurrentlevelsofbroadbandavailability,adoption,anddigitalliteracy.In
general, each component of the connectivity equation is healthy: broadband is widely
available across the state and residents are adopting and using it in growing numbers.
However, pockets of unserved areas remain, especially in rural parts of New York. In
addition, far too many residents, businesses, and institutions have chosen not to adopt
broadbanddespitehavingaccesstoaconnection.
In an effort to move the state towards universal broadband connectivity, Section 4
recommendsapublic‐privateapproachtoclosinggapsinavailability,adoption,anddigital
literacy. In particular, this section examines a variety of models and recent attempts to
address these problems and extracts guiding principles for structuring effective
approaches in New York. Foremost among these principles is that scarce taxpayer funds
shouldonlybeusedtosupportnewnetworkdeploymenttounservedareasandthatthese
efforts should be paired with comprehensive demand‐side strategies in order to further
reduceinvestmentriskbyassuring,totheextentpossible,highlevelsofdemandfornew
services.Effectivepublic‐privatepartnershipsinthiscontextwillalsoleveragelocalsocial
infrastructurestodelivermoretargetedadoption‐orientedprograms.Takentogether,such
multifacetedapproachesonboththesupply‐sideandthedemand‐sideareneededtobring
broadband to unserved areas and address lingering disparities in connectivity in
communitiesacrossthestate.
2.
THEIMPORTANCEOFBROADBANDCONNECTIVITYTONEWYORK
PolicymakersinNewYorkhaverecognizedthatnewandemergingtechnologiesarecentral
tojumpstartingeconomicactivityinthewakeoftherecentrecessionandtopreparingthe
state for major shifts in the composition of its population. Through forward‐looking
initiatives like the Regional Economic Development Councils,26 Governor Cuomo and the
Legislature recognize that economic growth and job creation will increasingly hinge on
ensuringthatcommunities,businesses,andinstitutionshaverobustaccesstocutting‐edge
resources like broadband and that they possess the skills to put those technologies to
welfare‐enhancinguses.27Widespreadbroadbandconnectivitywillalsoplayacriticalrole
in realizing many other state goals, including positioning New York as a leading hub for
high‐techinnovation,transformingthedeliveryandconsumptionofelectricity,enhancing
educationalopportunitiesforstudentsofallages,andexpandingthereachofqualityand
affordablehealthcareservices.28
InanefforttobetterunderstandthepervasiveimpactsofbroadbandconnectivityinNew
York,thissectionexamineshowbroadbandbenefits:
Page3

Communitiesofusers,includingruralresidents,low‐incomehouseholds,
seniorcitizens,peoplewithdisabilities,andminorities;

Discretesectorsoftheeconomy,includingeducation,energy,healthcare,
high‐tech,andsmallbusinesses;and

Governmentinstitutionsatthelocalandstatelevels.
2.1 Communities
Even though New York’s population growth has slowed considerably over the last few
decades,itremainsoneofthelargestandmostdiversestatesinthecountry.29Thestate’s
19.5 million residents are spread across an array of regions, each one unique in its
character, composition, and “economic strengths.”30 Within and across each of these
regions,discretecommunitiesofresidentsarepoisedtobenefitindifferentwaysfromthe
transformative power of broadband. In many instances, the realization of these benefits
will depend on the presence of strong public‐private partnerships and a robust social
infrastructuretoprovideaccessanddelivertrainingservicestonon‐adoptersandfledgling
users(seesection4fordiscussion).
Thefollowingprovidesanoverviewofhowbroadbandwillimpactruralresidents(section
2.1.1), low‐income households (section 2.1.2), senior citizens (section 2.1.3), people with
disabilities (section 2.1.4), and minority communities (section 2.1.5). Appreciating the
actualandpotentialimpactsofbroadbandonthesegroupsunderscoreshowimperativeit
is to focus resources on ensuring that every community has the ability to access and use
broadbandinmeaningfulways.
2.1.1 RuralResidents
Amongitsmanynotablefeatures,theabilityofbroadbandtoerasegeographicdisparities
isespeciallyimportantforruralresidentsinNewYork.Thetotalnumberofruralresidents
in the state has increased slightly over the last few decades. In 2011, New York’s rural
populationstoodatjustover1.5million,makingitroughlyequivalenttothestate’srural
population in 1980.31 However, as a result of population growth, the percentage of the
population deemed rural has decreasedfrom 8.6 percent in 1980 to 8 percent in 2011.32
Nonetheless,thestate’sruralpopulationremainsakeyconstituencythatstandstobenefit
frombroadbandinanumberofimportantways.
Foremost among these benefits is that broadband will enable a wider array of economic
opportunities for rural residents. These range from improving existing businesses,
especially agricultural,33 to serving as the foundation for new industries and businesses
that can be launched more easily and cheaply with high‐speed Internet connections.34
Whileitisdifficulttoquantifythefullrangeofeconomicbenefitsthatwillaccruetorural
residents in New York, there is wide agreement that these areas stand to receive a
disproportionateshare,provided,however,thatnewandexistingusershaveaccesstothe
technologyandpossesstherightsetofskillstoharnessthoseconnections.35
Page4
Broadbandalsoservesasavitallinkbetweenruralandurbancommunities,allowingrural
residentstoforgecommercial,civic,andpersonalconnectionswithdistantresidents,cities,
and institutions. Examples of these dynamics abound and include expanding markets for
locallygrownormanufacturedgoods,36facilitatingthediffusionofimportantgovernment
information, and delivering vital services like specialty healthcare and in‐home medical
services.37 In addition, broadband has the ability to connect rural residents to unique
educationalandemploymentopportunitiesthateliminatetheneedtotravellongdistances
orexpendsignificantsumsofmoneytorelocate.38
In sum, broadband represents not only an on‐ramp to the digital economy for rural
residents, but also a common thread that can help to further stitch together New York’s
manydisparateregionsandcommunities.
2.1.2 Low‐IncomeHouseholds
Inadditiontobeinggeographicallyandethnicallyheterogeneous,NewYorkisalsoavery
economically diverse state. Overall, New York’s median household income – $55,600 – is
greater than the national average of nearly $52,000.39 However, the state is home to 2.5
millionresidentswhosehouseholdincomesfallbelowthefederalpovertyline.40Moreover,
while poverty exists in every community, some counties are substantially worse off than
others.Forexample,inBronxCountythepovertyrateismorethandoublethestaterate,
whilecountieslikeChemung,Fulton,Otsego,andTompkinshaveratessubstantiallyhigher
than state and national averages.41 While not a panacea, broadband represents a vital
lifeline for those households living in poverty and those with annual incomes below
$30,000.
The actual and potential benefits of robust broadband connectivity by low‐income
households have been widely documented. Many of these revolve around the unique
economic opportunities that the technology enables. In addition to facilitating job search
and application processes, as well as allowing for telecommuting, high‐speed Internet
access also connects low‐income households with vital state and federal government
services.42Equallyasimportantisthearrayofeducationalopportunitiesavailabletolow‐
income households via broadband. Given a direct correlation between income level and
educational achievement,43 an immediate role for broadband in this community is as an
equalizer that puts every household, regardless of income, age or race, on a path toward
prosperity.44
Low‐incomehouseholdswillalsobenefitfromthemanycost‐savingsthatareexpectedto
flow from further integration of broadband and broadband‐enabled services into sectors
likehealthcareandenergy.45Forexample,usingthesetechnologiestoimprovethedelivery
andconsumptionofenergyservices–i.e.,thedevelopmentofasmarterelectricgrid–will
haveagreatereconomicimpactonlow‐incomehouseholdssincethesecustomerstendto
spend more on electricity as a percentage of their income than most other households.46
Indeed,recentstudiesindicatethatlower‐incomehouseholdsareresponsivetothetypeof
dynamicpricingenabledbythesmartgrid,which,whenusedproperlyandregularly,can
result in lower monthly utility bills.47 A similar dynamic has been observed in the
Page5
telemedicinespace,wherelow‐incomefamiliesarepoisedtoreapenormouscost‐savings
by using broadband‐enabled health tools to receive the type of preventative care that
should, over the long term, decrease medical bills by delaying or preventing the
developmentofcostlydiseasesandconditions.48
2.1.3 SeniorCitizens
In 2010, people over the age of 65 comprised approximately 13.5 percent of New York’s
total population.49 Over the course of the next three decades, the senior population is
expectedtogrowby75percent,whichmeansthat,by2040,olderadultswillaccountfor
over one‐fifth of the state’s population.50 As a result, federal and state spending on
healthcare and other senior‐focused programs and benefits (e.g., Social Security) is
expected to increase sharply in the coming decades.51 Compounding these trends is the
tendency of older adults to develop disabilities or chronic diseases as they age,
necessitating additional health expenditures, both by seniors and by caretakers, many of
whomarefamilymembers.52Coupledwithastrongdesiretoageinplace,especiallyamong
baby boomers, the current aging model is considered by many policymakers and other
expertstobeunsustainableandinneedofsubstantialreform.53
Broadbandisbeingpositionedasakeypartofeffortstoshifttheseniorcareparadigmby
facilitating more affordable and effective in‐home care.54 Chief among these services are
remotemonitoringtoolsthatallowcaregiversandfamilymemberstotrackanolderadult’s
healthmetricsfromafar.55Wirelesssensorsandothersuchtoolsareusedtogeneratedata
that are aggregated and transmitted to remotely located healthcare providers, who then
interpret the data, provide diagnoses, recalibrate care, and deliver updates to family
members as needed.56 By one estimate, widespread use of remote monitoring systems
acrossallagegroupsisprojectedtoresultinnearly$200billioninhealthcarecostsavings
overthenexttwodecades.57Seniors,especiallythoselivinginruralareas,areexpectedto
benefitmostimmediatelyfromthesetypesofservices.58
Seniorsbenefitfrombroadbandinanumberofotherways.Forexample,activebroadband
useallowsseniorstostayengagedintheircommunity,enhancingfeelingsofrelevance.59
Similarly, broadband‐enabled tools like web‐cams and social media provide older adults
with new ways of keeping in touch with family and friends. These types of activities not
only decrease isolation but also have been found to protect against some mortality risks
and improve overall mental health.60 This kind of personal empowerment via broadband
alsoresultsingreatercontroloverpersonalfinances(e.g.,managingretirementaccounts)
and facilitates additional employment opportunities, which are increasingly attractive to
younger seniors who, as a group, are working longer than members of previous
generations.61Takentogether,ithasbeenestimatedthatthecumulativecostsavingsdueto
theuseofbroadbandbyandinthecareofseniorsandpeoplewithdisabilities,aswellas
the economic impact of having more members of these groups in the workforce, could
reachashighas$800billionby2030.62
Page6
2.1.4 PeoplewithDisabilities
Broadband is the optimal tool to address the vast array of needs across New York’s
population of people with disabilities. Its flexibility and adaptability assure that every
memberofthiscommunitycanaccessandderivevaluefromthistechnology.Inaddition,
broadbandconnectsmembersofthisgrouptoadigitalworldwhereinteractivetext,audio
andvideocommunicationsservicescommingleinwaysthatcandirectlybenefitaperson
with almost any type of disability. In a state where the population of people with
disabilities is expected to grow by 30 percent over the next three decades, the
transformativepotentialofbroadbandholdssignificantpromiseforthisusergroup.63
Muchlikeruralresidentsandlow‐incomehouseholds,themostimmediateimpactofwider
broadband adoption and use by people with disabilities will be economic. As a group,
people with disabilities have a substantially lower labor force participation rate than
people without disabilities.64 In addition, people with disabilities have long had – and
continuetohave–ahigherunemploymentratethanthenationalaverage.65Asaresult,this
community, on average, earns less than people without disabilities.66 Broadband
represents a tool for leveling the playing field and providing more equal employment
opportunities by, for example, allowing for telecommuting and a range of flexible work
options for people with disabilities.67 These opportunities are further enhanced by the
myriad of educational services and tools being developed for this community.68 And
perhaps most importantly for people with disabilities, broadband encourages and
facilitates entrepreneurship, a trait that is especially prevalent within this community.
Studieshavefoundthatpeoplewithdisabilities“haveahigherrateofself‐employmentand
smallbusinessexperiencethanpeoplewithoutdisabilities.”69
Thecommunicationsaspectofbroadbandisalsoofsignificantimportancetopeoplewith
disabilities.Unlikemostotherusergroups,manypeoplewithdisabilitiesarehomebound
orunabletocommunicateviatraditionalmedialiketelephones.Advancedtoolslikevideo‐
enabledchattingandrelayserviceserasemanyofthesebarriers.70Moreover,broadband‐
enabledservicesensurethatpeoplewithdisabilitiesareabletoovercomesocialisolation
by connecting them in more robust ways to their communities and empowering them to
participate in social discourse and advocacy.71 Enhancing feelings of connectedness and
relevance oftentimes serve as a catalyst for realizing many additional benefits of
broadbandconnectivity.
Finally, broadband enables the delivery of more tailored and individualized healthcare
services for people with disabilities. That these services can be provided remotely is of
significant value to this community since many members are unable to afford
transportation costs to commute to hospitals or care centers.72 Broadband‐enabled
services like in‐home consultations with specialists or video‐enabled rehabilitation
servicesalsopresentauniverseofnewoptionsforsupportingpeoplewithdisabilities.
Page7
2.1.5 MinorityCommunities
NewYorkhaslongbeenoneofthemostdiversestatesinthenation,butseveralrecentand
ongoing trends presage a fundamental remaking of the state’s demographic makeup.
Indeed, over the last decade the minority population, in particular Hispanic and Asian
communities, has grown significantly. Between 2000 and 2010, the White, non‐Hispanic
populationshrankbyfourpercentwhiletheHispanicpopulationgrewby19percentand
theAsianpopulationincreasedbymorethanathird.73Overall,theNewYorkmetropolitan
areaisnowmajorityminority.74Equallyasimportanthasbeenthedistributionofminority
population growth across the state. For example, while the Black population shrank by
threepercentdownstatebetween2000and2010,itgrewbyalmost10percentupstate.75
Similarly,thegrowthinupstatepopulationsofAsiansandHispanicsgrewbymorethan50
percentduringthesameperiodoftime.76
Withinthecontextofexaminingthecontoursofbroadbandconnectivity,itisessentialto
understandandappreciatethedemographicmakeupofthestatebecausethistechnology
impacts–andstandstoserve–differentcommunitiesindifferentways.77Broadbandisnot
a “one size fits all” technology. Moreover, minority communities, in particular Hispanics
andBlacks,perceivebroadbandanditsabilitytodelivervaluemuchdifferentlythanmost
otherusergroups.Forexample,thereisadecidedpreferenceformobilebroadbandwithin
thesecommunities.Onerecentsurveyfoundthat38percentofBlacksandHispanicsthat
ownsmartphonesrelyonthosedevicestoaccesstheInternet,comparedto17percentof
Whites.78Inaddition,adoptiondecisionswithinthesecommunitiestendtohingeonasetof
criteria that is distinct from those in other communities, which reflects the fact that
discreteusergroupsfaceadistinctsetofbarrierstoadoption.79BlacksandHispanicsalso
usetheirconnectionsindifferentwaysthanmostothergroups.80
Data regarding recent economic and health trends within the Hispanic and Black
communitiesindicatethatthesetwogroupsstandtobenefitimmenselyandimmediately
from more robust broadband connectivity. Nationally, the unemployment rate for each
group remains much higher than the national rate.81 Broadband is seen as a vital tool to
assist in the job search and procurement processes for minorities.82 Moreover, the
broadband and high‐tech sectors themselves are viewed as viable areas for minority job
growth, provided that more Black and Hispanic students pursue studies in the science,
technology,engineeringandmathematics(STEM)fields.83
Withregardtohealthcare,broadband‐enabledtelemedicineservicesareexpectedtoplaya
key role in addressing the unique health needs of Hispanics and Blacks. In general, these
communitiesaremorelikelythanmostothergroupstodevelopcostlychronicdiseaseslike
asthma and diabetes, as well as certain types of cancers.84 In New York, minority health
outcomes tend to vary from county to county, suggesting that some local healthcare
infrastructuresmaybeinadequatetoaddressthehealthneedsofalargerandmorediffuse
minority population.85 As such, broadband‐enabled telemedicine services are well‐
positionedtodeliverqualitycaretominoritycommunitieslivingacrossthestate.Emerging
services like diabetes tracking software on smartphones and other such health‐focused
Page8
“apps”areofparticularvaluetothesecommunities,whichhaveademonstratedpreference
formobilebroadbandservices.86
2.2 Sectors
Realizingmanyofthebenefitsofbroadbandconnectivitydiscussedintheprevioussection
iscontingentuponthepacewithwhichthistechnologyisintegratedintokeysectorsofthe
economy. The President and Congress, as well as Governor Cuomo and numerous other
policymakersinNewYork,haverecognizedthateconomicstability,jobgrowth,andoverall
prosperitywillincreasinglydependupontheabilityofinnovatorsinsectorslikehealthcare
andenergytousebroadbandtotransformtheirindustriesandmakethemmoreefficient,
affordable,andeffective.87
This section provides an overview of how broadband is positioned to transform five
sectors of critical importance to New York’s economy: education (section 2.2.1), energy
(section 2.2.2), healthcare (section 2.2.3), high tech (section 2.2.4), and small businesses
(section2.2.5).
2.2.1 Education
During the 2008‐2009 school year, New York spent an average of $18,126 per pupil88 to
educatethemorethan2.7millionstudentsinthestate’spublic K‐12 schools. 89Thiswas
nearly double the national average and far more than any other state in the country.90
Despitesuchhighlevelsofspending,however,NewYorklagsbehindmostotherstatesin
termsofmeasurableoutcomes.Indeed,eventhoughgraduationrateshaveriseninrecent
years, the overall rate of 73 percent ranks just 38th in the country.91 Perhaps most
troublingly,only37percentofhighschoolgraduatesareconsidered“collegeready,”which
suggeststhatthevastmajorityofgraduateslacktheskillsneededtosucceedinthemodern
workplace.92
Acoreanimatingfeatureofmanyrecentstateandfederaleducationreforminitiativeshas
been a desire to leverage new technologies like broadband in an effort to streamline the
administration of education, modernize curricula, expand learning opportunities beyond
the classroom, and otherwise improve learning outcomes across the continuum of
education – i.e., from pre‐Kindergarten through high school and college and into
adulthood.93 In recent years, high‐speed Internet connections have proven to be viable
conduitsfordeliveringnewtypesofcontent(e.g.,games)andservices(e.g.,virtualtutors),
manyofwhichcanbecustomizedtoaddresstheindividualneedsofstudents.94Moreover,
owingtotheflexiblenatureofbroadband,thesenewtoolsarebeingaccessedinschool,at
the library, at home, and wherever else learning occurs via devices like laptops,
smartphones, and tablets.95 In sum, broadband is poised to transform the provision and
consumptionofeducationservicesinNewYorkStateandacrossthecountry.
As a result of widespread access and, in many cases, the availability of free broadband
connections,96 data indicate that many schools throughout New York have adopted
broadband in some capacity.97 However, these data also make clear that a significant
Page9
numberremainunconnected.Insomeruralareas,lackofconnectivitylikelystemsfroman
overalllackofaccesstobroadband.Inmanyothercases,though,schoolsremainwithout
broadband because of budget constraints and a perception that new technologies are
inadequate to address lingering problems like basic literacy.98 In addition, many low‐
incomeandminorityhouseholdsremainwithoutabroadbandconnection,adynamicthat
has likely slowed the development of technology‐focused learning for fear of omitting a
largenumberofstudentsfromtheseopportunities.99Manyeducatorsalsolackthetraining
needed to effectively integrate these tools into existing curricula or design new lesson
plansthatincludetechnologyasamajorcomponent.100
Schools, policymakers, nonprofits, innovators and others across New York State have
begun to work together to facilitate the integration of broadband and digital literacy
trainingintoK‐12schoolsanduniversities.101Manyofthesereformshavebeeninspired,in
part,bythefederalRacetotheTopprogram,which,amongotherthings,resultedinNew
Yorkadoptingacommonsetofnationallearningstandards,amongwhichisacommitment
toensurethatallstudentsaredigitallyliterateandabletousenewtechnologiestosucceed
in college and beyond.102 Several programs supported by federal stimulus funds are also
workingtoexpandtheuseofbroadbandinschoolsandinthehomesofstudentsfromlow‐
income households.103 Many other broadband‐related programs that have been launched
inrecentyearsincludeaprominentfocusonusingthetechnologytobolsterthelearning
opportunitiesavailabletostudentsacrossthestate.104
2.2.2 Energy
New York has a unique energy profile. It has long been a leader in hydropower and has
beenrecognizedforitsdiverseportfoliooffuelsources.105Recentdiscoveriesofextensive
naturalgasreservesintheMarcellusshaleformation,partofwhichextendsintothelower
portionofthestate,presageevenmorefueldiversityinyearstocome.106Inaddition,even
though the state’s “total energy consumption is among the highest in the United States,
energyintensityandpercapitaenergyconsumptionareamongthelowest,dueinpartto
theregion’swidelyusedmasstransportationsystems.”107However,residentialcustomers
pay very high rates for electricity relative to most other states in the country,108 and the
frailtyofthestate’selectricgridhasbeenexposedperiodically,andinspectacularfashion,
mostrecentlyduringthe2003Northeastblackout.109
In response to national discussions around the need for a “smarter” electric grid – and
energyreformingeneral–NewYorkhastakenaleadroleininvestigatingtheviabilityof
leveraging new technologies to inject intelligence across the entire system of generating,
transmitting, delivering, and consuming energy services. For example, the state’s Public
Service Commission (PSC) has opened several inquiries to address the many economic,
regulatory, and practical questions that have arisen in the smart grid context. In August
2011,thePSCissueda“SmartGridPolicyStatement”thatrecognizedtheimportanceofa
smartergridtocontinuedinnovationandoutlineda“policyframework”meantto“enable
utilitiestoavailthemselvesoftheopportunitiesavailableinthisarea,andtoaddressthe
challengesthatwillemergeduringthetransitiontoasmartgrid.”110Todate,severalofthe
Page10
state’s largest utilities, including the NYSISO and Con Ed, have launched extensive smart
gridinitiativesaimedatstreamliningandmodernizingtheiroperations.111
Withregardtotheroleofbroadbandindeployingthesmartgrid,thePSCrecognizedthat
existingcommercialnetworkswilllikelyplayanimportantroleinfacilitatingbuild‐out.112
Morespecifically,thePSCunderscoredthefactthatin‐homebroadbandconnectionswillbe
critical in “facilitate[ing] innovation, empower[ing] customer control over energy
consumption,andincreas[ing]customerchoice.”113Ingeneral,thesehome‐basedtoolsand
servicesareexpectedtoformthenucleusofasmartenergyecosystemthatwillproducea
numberofcustomer‐focusedinnovationslikesmartmeters,smartthermostats,andsmart
appliances.114 Widely adopted and properly used, these types of services are expected to
yield enormous cost‐savings for customers and generate significant efficiencies across
transmission and distribution systems.115 The broadband‐enabled smart grid will also
allow utilities to monitor and manage their systems in a more real‐time manner, which
couldpreventlarge‐scaleblackoutsandfacilitatetheintegrationofintermittentrenewable
energysourcesintothefuelsupply.116
2.2.3 Healthcare
For much of the last decade, New York State has spent well in excess of $100 billion
annually on healthcare. These expenditures have grown by about six percent each year,
risingtoover$160billionin2009.117ThesinglelargestsourceofthisspendingisMedicaid,
the national health insurance program for the poor that is co‐financed by the federal
governmentandeachindividualstate.118NewYork’sMedicaidprogramisthelargestand
mostexpensiveinthecountry:“TotalFederal,StateandlocalMedicaidspending[inNew
York] will reach $54 billion in 2012‐13.”119 And yet, despite such large expenditures, the
quality of healthcare in the state has stagnated. By one estimate, New York ranked 22nd
“amongstatesinqualityofhealthcaremeasuresand50thinavoidablehospitalization”in
2009.120Inaddition,therearelargedisparitiesinhealthcareaccess,quality,andoutcomes
between low‐income and high‐income communities.121 These trends are further
compounded by the ballooning cost of healthcare commitments for retired state
governmentworkers,whichexceeded$72billionin2011,122aswellastherisingnumber
ofseniorcitizensandpeoplewithdisabilitieslivinginthestate.
Newandemerginghealthcaretechnologiesrangingincomplexityfromupgradesinback‐
office IT systems to electronic healthcare records and broadband‐enabled in‐home
telemedicine services are at the center of many state and federal strategies to “bend the
cost curve” in this sector.123 As previously discussed, a number of existing and emerging
telemedicineserviceshavethepotentialtosubstantiallylowerhealthcarecostsbypushing
more care into the home and shifting the overall focus of medical services away from
responsivecareandtowardproactivepreventativecare.Inaddition,widespreadadoption
of broadband by rural residents, low‐income households, senior citizens, people with
disabilities, and certain minority groups could narrow the disparities in healthcare and
healthoutcomesthathavelongplaguedthesecommunitiesinNewYork.
Page11
Asinothersectors,broadbandisonlypartofthesolutioninthehealthcarespace.However,
coupledwiththemanystate‐levelhealth reform initiatives that have been launched over
thelastfewyears,124morerobustadoptionanduseofbroadband‐enabledhealthcaretools
standstohaveaprofoundimpactontheadministrationofmedicalservicesineverypartof
thestate.
2.2.4 HighTech
Among the many sectors that are expected to play a prominent role in New York’s long
term economic development, high tech looms large. The state has long been a hub for
investment in industrial research and development. Albany, for example, has become a
“world‐classcenterfornanotechnologyinnovationandthehomeofmajorsemiconductor
manufacturers.”125IBMandseveralotherleadingfirmsmaintainworldheadquartersinthe
state.AndNewYorkCityisrapidlyemergingasacompetitortoSiliconValleyforventure
capitalandtalentinthestart‐uprealm.126
Theseandothersuccessesinthehightechspacehaveresultedfromacombinationofstate
investments, public‐private partnerships, business incentives, and the availability of a
skilledworkforcegeneratedbythestate’smanyrespectedengineeringschools.Inaneffort
to replicate these successes in every region, the state has invested tens of millions of
dollarsinpilotprogramsandinitiativesmeanttoattractnewcompaniesandsectorstothe
state. For example, the state will invest $1 billion in the Buffalo area to spur economic
development,127muchofwhichisexpectedtostemfromhightech.128InSeptember2011,
several leading high tech companies, including Intel and IBM, committed to investing $4
billion in facilities to expand computer‐chip research in the state.129 More recently,
GovernorCuomoannounceda$15milliongranttosupportthedevelopmentofthestate’s
clean‐tech industry.130 In New York City, a $2 billion engineering campus will be built on
RooseveltIslandtocreateamoresubstantialanchortoitsgrowinghightechsector.131
Thecommonthreadamongmanyoftheseseeminglydisparateinvestmentsandinitiatives
is the presence of a robust and nearly ubiquitous broadband infrastructure. These data
networksareessentialtothesuccessofanyhightechendeavor,especiallythoseoperating
in the Internet ecosystem. Indeed, the mere presence of a broadband connection and an
access device allows anyone with an idea and the skills to turn that idea into an online
business to be an entrepreneur capable of creating the next Facebook or Google.132 The
manysuccessfulstart‐upsthathavebeendevelopedandlaunchedinNewYorkCityarea
testamenttotheimportanceofhavingreadyaccesstoarobustbroadbandconnection.133
As such, expanding broadband access to every corner of the state and creating an
atmospherethatisconducivetoongoingcapitalexpendituresinnetworkinfrastructureare
essentialtofosteringavibranthightechcultureinNewYork.
2.2.5 SmallBusiness
Small businesses are the engine of economic growth in New York. These firms typically
employmorethanhalfofprivatesectoremployeesinthestateandrepresent99percentof
the state’s employers.134 On average, New York’s small businesses employ about nine
Page12
peopleeach.135Asubstantialamountofrecentsmallbusinessgrowthinthestatehascome
from the high tech sector, particularly those working in the social media and “big data”
fields.136AstheFederalCommunicationsCommissionrecentlyobserved,smallbusinesses
inthehightechsector“hireroughly40[percent]ofallhightechworkers,andaccountfora
majorityofthemorethan1.2millionnewjobsgenerated[nationally]bythegrowthofthe
Internetduringthelast10‐15years.”137
Despitethemanyadvantagesofrunningasmallbusiness–flexibility,loweroverhead,less
risk,etc.–thesefirmsarealsooftentimesespeciallyvulnerabletoeconomicturbulence.In
addition to wiping out millions of small business, the recent recession also erected
substantialnewbarrierstosecuringloansandothersuchfinancing.138Thesehighercosts
have been further compounded by increases in healthcare premiums and other such
inputs.139
The role of broadband in the small business space is growing in prominence and
importance. At the most fundamental level, broadband and the many services that it
enablesprovidebusinesswithchoicesandvaluepropositionsthatdidnotexisteven10or
15 years ago. Broadband, for example, can be used to launch a small business from
anywhereaconnectionisavailable,beitathome,inadormitory,ahightechincubator,ora
Starbucks.Moregenerally,broadbandallowsfirmsofallsizestocompeteonequalfooting
by providing access software, marketing and data collection tools once available only to
larger firms. Numerous wireline companies in New York offer small business broadband
packages that are tailored to meet the unique needs of these companies. Wireless
broadbandhasbeencitedasanespeciallyvaluableresourceforsmallfirmssinceitenables
mobilityandflexibilitybyuntetheringaworkerfromafixedlocation.140
Perhapsthebestindicatoroftheimportanceofbroadbandtosmallbusinessesistherateat
whichthesefirmshavesubscribedtothisservice.TheU.S.SmallBusinessAdministration
(SBA) reported in 2010 that, excluding those small businesses without a computer, the
adoptionratewithinthissectorwas95percent.141ButtheSBAalsonotedthat,foravariety
ofreasons,“therearesignificantdifferencesbetweenmetroandruralareaswithrespectto
theavailability,performance,andpriceofhigh‐speedbroadbandoptions.”142InNewYork,
thesedisparitiesarealsoevidentinsomeofthestate’slargesturbanareas(e.g.,NewYork
City), where high tech start‐ups and other small firms are relocating their growing
businesses beyond the reach of existing broadband networks, like former industrial
areas.143Intheseunservedareas,next‐generationwirelessbroadbandisexpectedtoplaya
criticalroleinensuringthathouseholdsandbusinessesofallsizesandcharacteristicsare
abletoconnectandbenefitfromhigh‐speedInternetaccess.
2.3 Government
The benefits of broadband connectivity extend beyond households, individual
communities,andtheprivatesectorintogovernmentateverylevel.Asaresultofanumber
of federal and state initiatives over the last few decades, government agencies and
departmentshavebeenpostingmoreandmoreinformationonlinein an effort to bolster
notions of openness and transparency.144 Over time, these efforts have expanded beyond
Page13
mere transparency to encompass programs and initiatives aimed at making a range of
governmentservicesavailableonline.145
InNewYork,significantmomentumhasbeenbuiltaroundleveragingnewtechnologiesto
increasethenumberandenhancethesophisticationofe‐governmentservicesinorderto
allow for “citizen self‐service” across a number of agencies.146 The vast majority of
governmentagenciescurrentlyofferthesetypesofservices.147Ingeneral,theseofferings
serve three primary audiences: other government agencies, which routinely interact and
requestservicesofeachother;businesses;andcitizens.148Tofurtherbolsterthesechanges,
stategovernmentisalsoembracinganarrayofsocialmediatools.149Thesehaveincluded
creating Facebook pages and Twitter accounts to more directly engage the citizenry,
businesses,andotherconstituentgroups.
At the local level, town and city governments are also experimenting with using new
broadband‐enabledtechnologiestostreamlineinternalprocesses,becomemoreopen,and
encouragemoreactivecitizenparticipationby,amongotherthings,releasingmountainsof
data for public inspection and use. For example, New York City has appointed a Chief
Digital Officer that is responsible for spurring the integration of new technologies like
social media across the entire city government.150 These types of initiatives are
strengthened by the research and insights provided by programs like the Center for
TechnologyinGovernmentattheStateUniversityatAlbany,whichregularlydisseminates
reportsonissueslike“designingsocialmediapolicyforgovernment.”151
A primary driver of many of these changes has been the growing number of broadband
subscribers in New York.152 Residents are also increasingly using their broadband
connections to become more active citizens in their communities. Indeed, with each
passing election cycle, the number of people using broadband to access political
informationorotherwiseparticipateinthepoliticalprocessincreasessubstantially.153
Morerobustadoptionanduseofbroadband‐enabledtechnologiesbygovernmentagencies
inNewYorkandelsewhereisimpededbyseveralbarriersuniquetopublicsectorentities.
Forexample,mostgovernmentshavelimitedbudgetstorealizethefullpotentialofopen
government in the broadband era. As a result, many government agency websites and e‐
servicesremainrudimentaryandnotveryuser‐friendly.154Otherbarriersincludeamyriad
of oftentimes overlapping laws and rules regarding transparency, open records, and
privacy, as well as a lack of public awareness regarding the availability of many e‐
government services.155 Once these barriers are overcome, however, broadband has
proven to be an essential tool forgovernments attempting to become more open andfor
citizens wishing to be more engaged with their elected representatives and political
institutions.
3.
THESTATUSOFBROADBANDCONNECTIVITYINNEWYORK
Broadband connectivity encompasses three separate but related components: access to
broadbandservice;adecisiontoadoptthetechnology;andtheabilitytouseaconnection
in meaningful ways. Each component is of fundamental importance to realizing the full
Page14
transformative power of broadband in the communities, sectors, and government
organizationsdescribedintheprevioussection.
This section provides an overview of the status of availability (section 3.1), adoption
(section3.2),anddigitalliteracy(section3.3)inNewYorkState.Asanoverview:
 As a result of substantial private‐sector investment and a minimalist
national regulatory approach, the state is almost universally served by
wirelineandwirelessbroadband.

Manyofthestimulus‐fundedprogramsfocusedondeployingbroadband
to rural areas have resulted in inefficient network overbuild in the
“middle‐mile,”leavingsizeablepocketsofthestateunservedandwasting
precioustaxpayerresources.

The overall rate of broadband adoption and general levels of digital
literacyinthestateappeartotrackthenationalrate.Evenso,significant
percentagesofkeycommunities–includingruralresidents,low‐income
households, senior citizens, and people with disabilities – remain
unconnected to broadband for a wide variety of reasons, while many
others lack the skills necessary to put their connections to meaningful
uses.
3.1 Availability
Broadband emerged as a viable commercial alternative to dial‐up Internet access around
the turn of the millennium. By the end of that year, there were about seven million
broadbandlinesinserviceacrosstheUnitedStates,600,000ofwhichwerelocatedinNew
York.156 By June 2011, those numbers had increased to 206 million lines in the U.S. and
13.6millionlinesinNewYork.157Theintermodalnatureofthebroadbandmarket–i.e.,the
ability to deliver service in a number of different ways (e.g., cable modem, DSL, wireless,
fiber) – has resulted in consumers having a diverse array of service options. Nationally,
over1,600differentcompaniescurrentlyprovidebroadbandInternetaccessservice,158up
from just 130 in 2000.159 New York was home to 98 different providers in 2011,160
comparedtoonly23attheendof2000.161
Theseimpressivegrowthrateshavebeenfueledbythedualforcesofinsatiableconsumer
demand for faster Internet access services and sustained investment in the physical
infrastructure of broadband networks by service providers. With regard to consumer
demand,Ciscohasobservedthat,globally,percapitaInternettrafficwas10megabytesper
monthin2000;by2011thatfigurehadgrown30timesandstoodatthreegigabytes.162A
significant driver of this growth has been the emergence of widely available wireless
broadbandnetworks.IntheU.S.,wherethetotalnumberofwirelesssubscriptionsexceeds
thetotalnumberofpeople,163mobilehigh‐speedInternetconnectionsnowrepresentmore
thanhalfofallbroadbandlinesinservice.164
Page15
In terms of bolstering broadband networks, service providers invested over $1 trillion in
broadband services between 1996 and 2010.165 In 2011 alone, service providers invested
$66 billion166 – $13 billion by cable,167 $25 billion by wireless,168 and the remainder by
wireline companies like AT&T and Verizon.169 Such high levels of sustained investment
evidencerobustcompetitioninthebroadbandmarketandhasresultedinthedeployment
of advanced wireline and wireless broadband networks across much of the country.
AccordingtotheNationalBroadbandMap,whichcompilesdatafromanumberofsources,
96 percent of housing units in the U.S. had access to at least one wireline broadband
providerinJune2011,whileallbutonepercentofhousingunitshadaccesstoawireless
broadbandprovider.170
In New York, the state’s broadband map estimates that less than two percent of housing
units are unserved by wireline broadband and less than one percent is unserved by
wireless broadband.171 Those households without access remain so because they are in
areas that have long been considered uneconomic for service providers. This means that
there is no convincing business case to invest in network deployments to these areas.
Regulatoryentitiesatthestateandfederallevels,includingtheFCC,haveagreedwiththis
assessmentandhaverecognizedthat“someareas[ofthecountry]areuneconomictoserve
absentimplicitorexplicitsupport.”172Morespecifically,somehouseholdsandtownsinthe
stateandacrossthecountryaresituatedinareaswhereitisexceedinglydifficulttobuild
out the “last mile” of broadband service – i.e., the part of the network that connects a
householdviawireorwirelesslytoanInternetserviceprovider.173Inmanyunservedparts
ofthestate,extremegeographicconditions(e.g.,denseforestormountainoustopography)
have precluded even the deployment of cellular network infrastructure in places like the
Adirondacks.174
Historically,theFCCandmanystatessoughttoplugthesegapsbydirectlysubsidizingthe
build‐outofnetworkinfrastructuretounservedareas.Morespecifically,federalandstate
universalservicefunds(USFs)weredesignedtofundthesedeploymentsbylevyingatax
on customers’ telephone bills.175 In essence, revenues derived from customers in served
areas subsidized basic access to customers in unserved areas.176 In late 2011, the FCC
began the process of revising the scope of the federal USF to support broadband
deployment rather than traditional telephone service.177 This process will unfold over
many years as support mechanisms and methodologies are recalibrated for these
purposes.178InNewYork,thestatePSChasopenedadockettoexamineanumberofissues
related to its USF, including “the future of the State’s traditional wireline telephone
providers.”179 This docket, however, does not contemplate broadband network
deployment.
Recent efforts to spur broadband network deployment to the state’s remaining unserved
areas have consisted almost entirely of programs supported by federal stimulus dollars.
Through the Broadband Technologies Opportunity (BTOP) program, administered by the
U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information
Administration(NTIA),andtheBroadbandInitiativesProgram(BIP),administeredbythe
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture’sRuralUtilitiesService(RUS),projectsaimedatbolstering
middle‐ and last‐mile broadband network deployment in New York received tens of
Page16
millions of dollars in support.180 In particular, BIP allocated over $58 million to support
eightlastmileprojectsinNewYork,181whilenearly$40millioninBTOPfundingwenttoa
middle‐mile project that seeks to “build 10 new segments of fiber‐optic, middle mile
broadband infrastructure, serving more than 70 rural communities in upstate New York
andpartsofPennsylvaniaandVermont.”182
WhilethissubstantialinjectionoffundsintotheNewYorkbroadbandsectormightsuggest
thatuniversalavailabilityisinevitableinthenear‐term,programmismanagement,coupled
with the likelihood that at least some of these projects will result in inefficient network
overbuild, has cast much doubt over the efficacy of infrastructure projects funded by BTOP
and BIP. With regard to program mismanagement, the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) in 2010 issued areport that, among other things, highlighted the possibility
thatneitherNTIAnorRUSwouldbeabletoeffectivelymonitorcompletionofeveryaspect
ofeverygrant,thusraisingthepossibilitythatsomeareaswillremainunservedafterthe
grantprogramsend.183Inaddition,theGAOraisedamorepracticalconcernregardingthe
impact of these middle‐ and last‐mile awards on private investment: “funding projects in
low‐density areas where there may already be existing providers could potentially
discouragefurtherprivateinvestmentintheareaandunderminetheviabilityofboththe
incumbents’investmentandthebroadbandstimulusproject.”184
Concernsregardingtheeconomicconsequencesofnetworkoverbuildwereechoedinand
heightenedbya2011reportthatfoundthat,“ascurrentlystructured,[theBIPprogram]is
not a cost‐effective means of extending broadband coverage to unserved households.”185
Moreover, this research found that the program creates “strong disincentives to private
broadbandinvestmentinthelongrun,aspotentialfutureinvestorswilldiscountexpected
returns for the possibility that the government may step in, ex post, to subsidize a
competitor.”186 Members of Congress have also voiced skepticism regarding theability of
theseprogramstomeetalloftheirgoals.Indeed,inamemorandumpreparedaheadofan
oversighthearinginMay2012regardingtheBTOPandBIPprograms,Congressionalstaff
listed an array of shortcomings evident in each program, including the revocation of at
least one New York‐specific BIP grant and the inability of most grant‐receiving
organizationstomakesubstantialprogresstowardrealizingtheirstatedgoals.187
Asdiscussedbelowinsection4,thistop‐downapproachtonetworkdeploymentisnotan
optimal way of spurring broadband build‐out to unserved parts of New York. Although
nominally a public‐private approach, these grants and oversight programs are generally
notstructuredinawaythatwillgeneratelastingconsumerwelfaregainsforNewYorkers.
Moreover,theeconomicconcernsraisedbystakeholdersregardingtheimpactofnetwork
overbuild and the creation of investment disincentives must be taken seriously in New
York because the overall broadband market remains vigorous and vibrantly competitive.
Destabilizingtheorganicmarketforcesthathavepushedbroadbandtonearlyeverypartof
thestatecouldnegativelyimpacteverycommunityandsector.
Page17
3.2 Adoption
In June 2000, only three percent of American adults subscribed to broadband at home,
comparedto34percentwhouseddial‐upInternetservice.188Bytheendofthatyear,half
of the adult population in the U.S. was using the Internet on a regular basis.189 As
broadbandbecamemorewidelyavailableandaspricesbegantofall,householdsbeganto
shifttofaster,morereliableandmoreaffordablebroadbandconnections.Indeed,by2005
morepeoplewereusingbroadbandthandial‐up,andby2011thebroadbandadoptionrate
waswellover60percent.190Overall,nearly80percentoftheadultpopulationintheU.S.–
and95percentofteenagers–areInternetusers,goingonlineinmanydifferentwaysfrom
avarietyoflocations.191Inindividualsectorsoftheeconomy,thereisampleevidencethat
broadbandadoptionbystakeholdersandbusinessesisgrowingrapidlyaswell.192
Despitesuchrobustgrowthinbroadbanduseatthenationallevel,thereremainnumerous
disparities in adoption rates across many user groups. Table 1 provides a breakdown of
broadbandadoptionratesacrossavarietyofdemographicgroupsatthenationalleveland
inNewYorkState.Manydisparitiesarecorrelatedwithfactorslikeeducation,incomelevel,
and age, while there is an obvious divide in home broadband adoption between Whites,
Blacks,andHispanics.193However,asdiscussedinmoredetailbelow,“differencesinsocio‐
economicattributesdonotentirelyexplainwhysomegroups[lag]inadoption.”194While
certainfactorsmaycontributetoloweradoptionratesindiscretecommunitiesandsectors,
anarrayoflegal,regulatory,andperceptionalbarriersspecifictodistinctusergroupsalso
influencesadoptiondecisionsbycommunitymembersandstakeholdersinthesectors.
InNewYork,adoptiontrendsgenerallymirrorthoseatthenationallevel(seeTable1).The
overallrateofadoptionin2011was67percent,195whichwasconsistentwiththeoverall
rate for households across the United States.196 Higher rates of adoption correlated with
higher levels of educational attainment and income; age was also a factor.197 In addition,
BlacksareadoptingbroadbandatalowerratethanWhites,butHispanicsareadoptingat
almost the same rate as Whites, a dynamic that is not evident at the national level.198
Moreover,muchlikeatthenationallevelthereisacleardivideinadoptionratesbetween
“urban” and “rural” households, although the split in New York is observed in disparate
take‐rates between “upstate” counties, which tend to be more rural, and “downstate”
counties that include the more densely populated (and affluent) counties of Nassau,
Rockland,Suffolk,andWestchester.199TheadoptionrateinNewYorkCity,at63percent,
lags behind the state’s overall rate, as well as the upstate and downstate rates, despite
nearlyuniversalavailabilitythroughoutthefiveboroughs.200
Page18
Table1–ComparisonofBroadbandAdoptionData:NewYorkvs.U.S.
Overall
ByRace
NewYork*
U.S.**
67%
68%
68.5%
71.8%
60.2%
55.5%
67.8%
56.9%
91.7%
92.6%
84.4%
87.8%
($60k‐$100k)
($75k‐100k)
White
Black
Hispanic
ByIncome
$100k+
Middle&UpperIncome
71.3%
($35k‐60k)
LowerIncome
ByAge
80.7%
($50k‐75k)
59.6%
65.8%
($20k‐35k)
($25k‐50k)
36.9%
42.9%
(Below$20k)
(Below$25k)
38.7%
45.5%
Seniors(65+)
67.6%
OlderUsers
(50‐64yearsold)
79%
72%
(45‐65yearsold)
(35‐49yearsold)
YoungerUsers
73.3%(25‐34yearsold)
81.5%(18‐24yearsold)
76.7%
(16‐44yearsold)
ByLevelofEducation
83.7%
87.2%
57.9%
56.9%
44.2%
33.1%
CollegeDegree
HighSchoolDiploma
LessthanHighSchool
* Data drawn from Broadband Internet Service Adoption and Use in New York State Households,
Prepared by the Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany‐SUNY, in
collaboration with the Center for Survey Research, Stony Brook University‐SUNY and The
RockefellerInstituteofGovernment,UniversityatAlbany‐SUNY(May2011)
** Data drawn from Exploring the Digital Nation: Computer and Internet Use at Home, National
Telecommunications&InformationAdministration,U.S.DepartmentofCommerce(Nov.2011)
Page19
Surveys of non‐adopters at the state and national levels have identified a number of
reasonswhyhouseholdsremainunconnectedtobroadband.Inmostsurveys,thepriceof
broadband is identified as a primary factor influencing non‐adoption across most user
groups.Forexample,theFCC,initsNationalBroadbandPlan,observedthatthetopreason
fornon‐adoptionacrossallnon‐userswasthetotalcostofservice,whichincludesnotonly
a recurring monthly service fee but also an upfront investment in purchasing an access
device.201Similarly,morerecentsurveyshavefoundthatmanynon‐usersstillfindthetotal
costofbroadbandconnectivitytobetooexpensivedespitethefactthatprices,ingeneral,
have declined over the past few years.202 However, a growing number of studies have
refinedtheanalysisoftheimpactofpriceonnon‐adoptersbylinkingitwithanothermajor
barriertobroadbandadoption–perceivedrelevanceofthetechnology.203Accordingtothis
framework,theissueofprice,anabsolutemeasure,becomesoneofaffordability,whichis
moresubjective.AsonesurveyofNewYorkresidentsobserved,“Affordabilityappearsto
be the most important factor [in non‐adoption], but linked to the value derived from
[I]nternetuse.”204Thenotionsofvalueandrelevancehavethusemergedastwoofthemost
importantfactorsinfluencingperceptionsofthecostofbroadbandacrosseverygroup.
Nationally,about47percentofnon‐Internetusersfeelthattheydonotneedbroadbandor
thattheywillnotbenefitfromit,comparedto24percentwhocitedcost.205InNewYork,
60 percent cited the cost of broadband as a major reason for non‐adoption, while a little
more than 50 percent cited lack of interest.206 Addressing these issues in tandem by
craftingacompellingvaluepropositionoftentimeshelpsnon‐adoptersunderstandthatthe
benefits of investing scarce dollars in a broadband connection outweigh the costs. This
approach has succeeded in numerous communities207 and echoes a key point made most
prominently by the FCC: “broadband adoption and utilization are not about owning a
specificpieceoftechnologyorsubscribingtoaservicebutaboutmakingtheInternetwork
forpeople.”208
Concerns regarding the affordability of a broadband connection, however, arejust one of
anarrayofbarriersthatpreventmorerobustbroadbandadoption.Manyofthesebarriers
areuniquetoindividualcommunitiesandsectorsoftheeconomy.209Table2providesan
overviewofmajorbarriersimpedingbroadbandconnectivityincommunitiesandsectors
acrossNewYork.210
Page20
Table2–SummaryofMajorBarriersImpedingBroadbandAdoptioninCommunities
andSectorsacrossNewYork211
SeniorCitizens
PeoplewithDisabilities
 Lowlevelsofcomputerownership
 Negativeperceptionsregardingaccessibilityof
broadbandandbroadband‐enabledservices
 Affordabilityconcerns
 Interoperabilityofassistivetechnologies
 Lackofdigitalliteracyskills
 Lackofawarenessregardingthevalueofusing
broadband
 Usabilityconcerns
 Lowrateofcomputerownership
 Securityandprivacyconcerns
 Lackofsenior‐focusedtrainingprograms
MinorityCommunities
Low‐IncomeHouseholds
 Lackofawarenessregardingthevalueofusing  Perceptionthatbroadbandisnota
broadband
worthwhileinvestmentofscarcefunds
 Lackofdigitalliteracyskills
 Lowratesofcomputerownership
 Lowratesofcomputerownership
 Affordabilityconcerns
 Affordabilityconcernstiedtobillingissues
 Underdevelopeddigitalliteracyskills
andtheneedtoprioritizedifferentserviceson
amonth‐to‐monthbasis
Education
Energy
 Implementationcosts
 Fewteacherspossesstheskillstointegrate
broadbandintocurricula
 Lackofprofessionaldevelopmentresources
 Demographicdisparitiesinhomeadoption
anddigitalliteracy
 Lackofnationalcurriculumstandardsaround
theuseofbroadband‐enabledtoolsand
services
 Outdatedregulatoryframeworkcreateslittle
incentiveforutilitiestoinnovate
 State‐by‐statepatchworkofregulation
impedesnational‐scaledeployment
 Substantialupfrontimplementationcosts
 Lackofdemandforsmarthomeservicesby
residentialcustomers
 Unresolveddatasecurityandprivacyconcerns
Healthcare
Government
 Inadequatereimbursementmechanismfor
mosttelemedicineservices
 Institutionalinertiainsomelocal,state,and
federalentities
 Lackofexperienceregardinghowto
effectivelyusebroadbandfore‐government
 Implementationandmaintenancecost
concernsinatimeoftightbudgets
 Unresolveddatasecurityandprivacyissues
 Outdatedprivacyandsecuritypolicies
 State‐by‐statepatchworkofrulesregarding
physicianlicensureandcredentialing
 Implementationcostconcerns
Overcoming these barriers requires outreach and training initiatives that are tailored to
addresstheneedsofindividualcommunities.Indeed,theabilitytocalibrateprogrammatic
responses to non‐adoption in distinct communities is essential to not only increasing
Page21
adoptionratesbutalsotoassuringthatnewuserswillbeabletousetheirconnectionsin
meaningful ways. The most effective approaches in this context are structured as public‐
privatepartnerships,whichcombinepublicresourceswiththeexpertiseofprivatefirmsor
nonprofitgroupstodeliverkeyservices(e.g.,digitalliteracytraining)tonon‐adopters(see
section 4 for further discussion). Properly structured and deployed, these partnerships
haveyieldedpromisinggainsinmanycommunitiesacrossthecountry.
Removing the barriers that are preventing further integration of broadband into sectors
likeeducation,energy,andhealthcarerequiresimilarlymultifacetedapproaches.Inmany
instances,however,majorimpedimentsstemfromstateandfederallawsandregulations
that are unsuited for the broadband era. For example, state‐level physician licensure
policiesweredevelopedatatimewhenmostdoctorsprovidedservicesonlywithinasmall
geographic area.212 Modern telemedicine systems, though, are borderless and allow
physicianstoconsultwithpatientsregardlessofgeographiclocation.213Federalandstate
policymakersarebeginningtoaddressbarriersinmanysectors.Recentexamplesinclude:
E‐Rate reform in the education space; expanding the scope of reimbursement to cover
moretelemedicineservices;opengovernmentinitiativesatthestateandfederallevels;and
effortstomodernizetheenergyregulatoryframeworktofacilitatesmartgriddeployment.
However,muchremainstobedone.
3.3. DigitalLiteracy&MeaningfulUses
Adoptingbroadbandbysubscribingtoitathomeorusingitregularlyelsewheresatisfies
onlypartoftheconnectivityequation.Anequallyimportantcomponentisdevelopmentof
thedigitalliteracyskillsneededtoputthoseconnectionstomeaningfulandlife‐enhancing
uses.Theseskillsencompassabroadrangeofbasicandintermediateskills,frombeingable
to use hardware inputs (e.g., a computer and mouse or a tablet) to safely navigating the
Internetandparticipatinginarangeofactivitieslikeemailandsocialnetworking.TheFCC
hasputforwardperhapsthemostcomprehensiveexplanationofanotherwiseamorphous
term:
“Digital literacy is an evolving concept. Though there is no standard
definition, digital literacy generally refers to a variety of skills associated
with using [information and communication technologies] to find, evaluate,
createandcommunicateinformation.Itisthesumofthetechnicalskillsand
cognitive skills people employ to use computers to retrieve information,
interpret what they find and judge the quality of that information. It also
includes the ability to communicate and collaborate using the Internet—
throughblogs,self‐publisheddocumentsandpresentationsandcollaborative
social networking platforms…Digital literacy is a necessary life skill, much
liketheabilitytoreadandwrite.”214
Beingwithoutevenrudimentarydigitalliteracyskillsisamajorbarriertoadoptionacross
everydemographicgroup.Nationally,aboutoneinfivenon‐adopterscitea“digitalliteracy‐
related factor as their main barrier.”215 In New York, nearly 25 percent of non‐Internet
users listed “don’t know how” to use the technology as a major reason for remaining
Page22
unconnected.216Asnotedabove,successfullyaddressingawidespreadlackofthese skills
requires tailored approaches since digital literacy means different things “at different
stagesofaperson’slife.”217
Enhancing digital literacy across the general population of broadband users is a widely
sharedgoalaspolicymakersandothersattempttoensurethatalladoptersareabletoput
theirconnectionstomeaningfuluses.Arangeofnationalandstate‐levelsurveysofexisting
broadband adopters consistently find that most people use their connections for
communications and entertainment.218 Whether these types of uses are meaningful
dependsupontheusersince,muchlikethedefinitionofdigitalliteracy,whatconstitutesa
“meaningfuluse”ofbroadbandvariesfromcommunitytocommunity.Forexample,while
using broadband to communicate with family and friends might be considered a low‐
valued use among younger users, such activities have been found to generate enormous
value for older users by, among other things, enhancing feelings of connectedness and
relevance,whichinturncombatthedevelopmentofconditionslikedepressionandhelpto
stimulatenewbrainfunctions.219
In New York and across the country, dozens, if not hundreds, of digital literacy training
programshavebeenlaunchedtopromoteinformeduseofbroadbandconnections.Manyof
thesehavebeensupportedbyfederalgrantsandprogramsdesignedtoestablishabaseline
setofskillsacrossmanydifferentcommunities.Andinmanyinstances,privatefirmsalso
play key roles in sponsoring various aspects of a given program. In New York City, for
example,theDepartmentofEducationhaspartneredwithnonprofitandfor‐profitentities
as part of its Connected Learning program. A BTOP‐funded initiative aimed at bolstering
broadband adoption and digital literacy among low‐income households with middle
school‐agechildren,thesuccessofthisprogramdependsonthetrainingservicesprovided
byCFY,alocalnonprofit,andthesubsidizedserviceofferingsoflocalcablecompaniesand
major software firms.220 Also in New York City, a local cable company is working with
communitygroupstoestablishtechnologylearningcentersacrossitsfootprintinaneffort
toprovidebroadbandaccessandenhancedigitalliteracyskills.221
Although these programs have the advantage of scale, some are overly inclusive and
oftentimes do not address the specific needs of certain groups (e.g., senior citizens or
peoplewithdisabilities).222Asaresult,smallerprogramsdeployedatthelocallevelshave
riseninprominenceascriticalconduitsfordeliveringmoretailoredtrainingandsupport
services.However,theseprogramsoftenbenefitfromtargetedsupportbylocalandstate
governmental entities and private firms, thus forming the nucleus of public‐private
partnerships that have succeeded in connecting thousands to broadband and increasing
thelikelihoodthatnewandfledglinguserscanusetheirconnectionsinmeaningfulways.
4.
A PUBLIC‐PRIVATE MODEL FOR ACHIEVING UNIVERSAL BROADBAND CONNECTIVITY IN NEW
YORK
The state of broadband connectivity in New York is robust and is characterized by high
levelsofavailability,adoption,andinformedusebyresidents,businesses,andinstitutions.
However, much like across the nation, small pockets of the state remain unserved by
Page23
wirelineorwirelessbroadband.Inaddition,adoptionratesanddigitalliteracyskillsinkey
communitiesandsectorslagbehindstatewideandnationalaverages.Asdiscussedinthis
section, the most efficient and effective wayto addressthesedisparities is by harnessing
existing resources and expertise in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors in order to
extend broadband network infrastructure to unserved areas and bolster adoption rates
anddigitalliteracyskillsbyexpandingeffectiveoutreachandtrainingprogramsacrossthe
state.
Suchpublic‐privatepartnerships(PPPs)haveemergedasapopularmeansofaddressinga
variety of issues and problems facing policymakers at every level of government.223 As a
general matter, PPPs seek to “apply the resources of the private‐sector in meeting the
needsofthepublic.”224Overthelastfewdecades,PPPshavebeenusedinawidearrayof
contexts,includingeffortstoenhancepublictransportationandinfrastructure,education,
andpublicsafety.225Morerecently,PPPshavebecomeapopularmeansofachievingpublic
sectorgoalsduringaperiodofshiftingbudgetpriorities.Forexample,thesepartnerships
are seen as viable vehicles for “break[ing] the log jam” on large‐scale infrastructure
projects, many of which have been deprioritized as a result of substantial cuts in public
funding.226
EventhoughveryfewPPPsarealike,theytendtoshareseveralbasicelements.MostPPPs,
forexample,areforgedinanattempttoshareriskonagivenproject.Theamountofrisk
assumedbyeachpartyvariesdependingonanumberofvariables,themostprominentof
which is the amount of capital invested by partners. As an incentive for private firms to
enter into PPPs and contribute resources at a high level, public entities typically reward
privateinvestmentwithamoretangibleownershipstakeandcontroloverhowtheproject
will be realized.227 These interests are calibrated and moderated via contracts that
delineatethescopeofrightsanddutiesforpublicandprivatepartners.228
While in theory PPPs represent an optimal approach to sharing risk and reducing the
exposure of each partner, particularly public sector entities, in a particular endeavor, in
practicemanyfailtogenerateexpectedreturns.Insomeinstances,failurecanbeattributed
to an inability – or unwillingness – on the part of public partners to defer to their
counterpartsintheprivatesectorandmarketforcestomanageandcompleteprojects.229
In other cases, the result of too much involvement by public partners can undermine or
preclude entirely the efficiency gains that often result from significant private
participation.230Butprivatepartnersarealsopronetounderperformingintheabsenceof
sufficient economic incentives or lax oversight.231 However, many of these problems are
avoidablethroughcarefuldesignofpartnershipagreements,monitoring,andenforcement
mechanisms.232
The following discussion examines how PPPs could be structured and deployed in New
York in order to enhance broadband availability (section 4.1) and increase adoption and
promotemeaningfulusesofthistechnology(section4.2).
Page24
4.1
APublic‐PrivateApproachtoEnhancingBroadbandAvailabilityinNew
York
Inthecontextofincreasingbroadbandavailability,successfulPPPsarestructuredaround
leveraging public resources and creating incentives for private firms to facilitate
deployment of new networks to unserved areas. In an effort to speed deployment of
broadbandinfrastructuretothosepartsofthestatethatremainunservedandassurethat
these new networks are properly maintained and updated over the long term, New York
shouldforgePPPstoensurethatthesenetworksarebuiltasefficientlyandexpeditiously
aspossible.
4.1.1 The Advantages of Using Public‐Private Partnerships to Bolster
BroadbandAvailability
Thereareseveralreasonswhyapublic‐privatemodelforbolsteringbroadbandavailability
is best for New York. First, market forces alone are insufficient to achieve universal
networkdeployment.Asdiscussedinsection3,pocketsofunservedareaspersistbecause
nobusinesscaseexistsforserviceproviderstoextendtheirnetworkstotheseareas.The
largest obstacle is that rural areas are generally much more sparsely populated and
geographicallyremotethanaverageserviceterritories.Indeed,theFCChasobservedthat,
nationally,the population density of unserved Census blocks was 13.8 people per square
milein2010,comparedtoanaveragepopulationdensityof153.6peoplepersquaremile
for all populated Census blocks.233 The cost of deploying and maintaining a broadband
network in an area with extremely low population density and large geographic gaps
between households is oftentimes prohibitive and uneconomic since “these areas have
ongoingcoststhatareinexcessoftheirrevenue.”234
Second, federal efforts to close the gaps in broadband coverage have not produced
promising results. Economic inefficiencies have long plagued efforts to subsidize the
deploymentofcommunicationsnetworkstoareaswithlowpopulationdensities.Themost
instructive example is the century‐long attempt to spur construction and maintenance of
rural telephone networks. While the FCC, via the USF, eventually succeeded in attaining
universal service of “plain old telephone service” (POTS), the means of achieving it were
fraughtwithwaste,fraud,andabuse.235Inaddition,theeconomicmechanisms(e.g.,cross‐
subsidies) and regulatory framework that were developed to realize universal POTS
service eventually became impediments to bringing broadband to many of these same
areas and thus necessitated a comprehensive overhaul to modernize these policies in
furtherance of new network deployments.236 The effectiveness and legality of these
reforms, however, remains uncertain,237 making it unlikely that there will be significant
gainsinthenearterm.
Similarly, as discussed in section 3.1, it remains to be seen wehther the benefits of the
middle‐andlast‐mileprojectsfundedbyBTOPandBIPwillexceedtheircostsoverthelong
term and whether they resulted in inefficient overbuild.238 Unfortunately, previous
experience suggests that this will likely be the case. RUS in particular has come under
scrutinyoverthelastdecadeforfundingcostlybroadbandoverbuilds.239Inquiriesbythe
Page25
Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding how previous RUS
broadband loan programs were administered concluded that “a significant number of
communities with some level of preexisting broadband service…received loans.”240 These
criticisms have resurfaced in the context of administering BIP and have come to the
attention of Congress, which is considering several legislative options for revising the
structureandoversightofruralbroadbandloanprograms.241
Third,stateandlocalgovernments,actingontheirown,havealsobeenunabletoplugthe
gapsinbroadbandcoverage.Overthelastdecade,dozensofcitiesacrossthecountryhave
attempted – and failed – to build proprietary networks in an effort to either assure
ubiquitous affordable broadband service or inject competition into a local market.242 In
many instances, municipalities underestimated the risks associated with building a
networkfromscratch.Initially,manyfocusedonmakingavailablefreeorverylow‐costWi‐
Fiservicebyblanketingtheircitieswithroutersandantennaetoformmeshnetworks.The
logisticsandcostsofdeployingsuchintricatenetworkinfrastructureacrossmanysquare
miles proved untenable in most instances. Moreover, in a large number of cases, these
networks failed because residents already had access to broadband service that was
oftentimesmorerobustandabettervaluethanthemunicipalserviceonoffer.243
ThemostnotablefailureofthemunicipalWi‐Fimovementinthemiddlepartofthe2010s
was Philadelphia, which partnered with a private company to deploy Wi‐Fi across the
entire city.244 After several years of negotiation over rights‐of‐way access and
experimentation withbusiness models, the project collapsed under the weight of soaring
budgetsandtepiddemand.Thewirelesstechnologyattheheartofthenetworkprovedto
beincapableofcoveringthecity’s135squaremileswithreliableservice.245Inaddition,the
initial budget of $10 million eventually tripled.246 As a result, the viability of the project
dependedonalargenumberofsubscriptionsbyresidents.Butthelowqualityofservice,
coupled with price decreases by incumbent broadband providers, resulted in less than
6,000 subscriptions, of which fewer than 1,000 were previously non‐Internet users.247
Similar problems plagued municipal Wi‐Fi projects that were launched in a number of
medium and large cities between 2005 and 2008. Examples included the city of Orlando,
which,in2005,“pulledtheplugonitsfreedowntownWi‐Fiservicebecauseonly27people
a day were accessing it.”248 Other cities that opted to cancel their wireless plans include
Chicago,Houston,SanFrancisco,andCincinnati.249
Morerecently,anumberofmostlysmallercitiesintheU.S.haveshiftedtheirfocusaway
from the Philadelphia Wi‐Fi model of municipal broadband and toward building city‐
owned and operated wireline broadband networks.250 The drivers of many of these
projects echo those that were advanced during the municipal Wi‐Fi fad: some unserved
cities have sought to bring broadband to residents on their own, while others are
attempting to inject competition into local markets.251 In both instances, however, the
resultingmunicipalwirelinenetworkshavestrainedlocalbudgetsandstruggledtodevelop
business models that allow municipalities to recoup their investments. The case of
BurlingtonTelecomprovidesacautionarytale.
Page26
In2005,Burlingtonbegantoexpandtoresidentsandbusinessesaproprietaryfiber‐optic
broadband network that had initially been deployed for the exclusive use of city
agencies.252 After securing tens of millions of dollars in financing from several private
sources, Burlington Telecom (BT), the operator, appeared to be on a path toward
sustainability in 2007.253 However, despite a positive cash flow and a slowly expanding
subscriberbase,by2008overallrevenueswereinsufficienttocoveritsdebtpayments.254
In the wake of the economic downturn, the city elected to continue financing the project
out of a general cash pool.255 By 2009, BT had amassed significant debts to private
institutions and the city. An inquiry launched by the City Council soon after these debts
weremadepublicconcludedthatBTwas“toodeeplyindebtedtobreakevengiventhesize
of its customer base.”256 After a series of negotiations and lawsuits over repayment of
private loans, as well as a comprehensive inquiry by the state’s Department of Public
Service,BTremainsmiredindebtwhilestrugglingtoexpanditsuserbase.257
Many other cities have struggled to develop viable business plans that are capable of
weathering ongoing economic turbulence and that can effectively offset and justify
significant upfront expenditures of increasingly scarce public funds.258 For example,
Seattle, citing cost concerns, recently halted plans to build a municipal broadband
network.259 Even moderately successful ventures, like fiber networks deployed in
Lafayette, LA and Chattanooga, TN, have incurred significant debt loads, much of which
havebeenfundedbytaxpayersandareunlikelytoberepaidanytimesoon.260
Inlightofthefragilityofmostmunicipalbroadbandbusinessmodelsandthelargefinancial
risksassociatedwithactuallybuildingnetworks,PPPsrepresentthemostviableapproachto
enhancingbroadbandavailabilitythroughoutthestate.
4.1.2 Structuring Effective Public‐Private Partnerships to Bolster
BroadbandAvailability
Among their many advantages, PPPs are extremely flexible and can be structured in any
numberofwaysinanefforttosharetheriskofnetworkdeploymentandensurethatthe
resulting infrastructure is managed and maintained by experienced operators. In the
broadband context, PPPs are well positioned to have the greatest near term impacts in
facilitating deployment to unserved areas in New York. Indeed, via carefully structured
PPPs,thestatecanleveragethelimitedpoolofstatefundingthatithasmadeavailableto
supporttheseinitiativestosparkadditionalinvestmentandsignificantinvolvementbythe
private sector.261Thesepartnershipswouldadvancethedeploymentgoalofreachingthe
unservedandreduceriskbyleveragingthestability,economicincentives,andresourcesof
broadbandserviceproviders.
AleadingmodelforstructuringanddeployingPPPsinthiswayistheConnectMEAuthority
in Maine. Created by legislation in 2006, the state “provides grant funds for "last mile"
infrastructure projects to provide high‐speed internet service to customers in unserved
areas of Maine.”262 More specifically, the Authority possesses significant discretion with
regardtoawardinggrantsinsupportofdeploymentprojectstounservedareasthatwould
nototherwisebeattemptedintheabsenceofsuchfunding.263Thesegrants,mostofwhich
Page27
constitute only part of a project’s overall cost, are flexible and can be used in support of
newnetworkdeployments,asmatchinggrantsorgapfunding,orfor“anyothernecessary
activities that are integral and necessary for the development, installation and use of a
broadbandormobilecommunicationssystem.”264Thesegrantshavesupportednumerous
projects that have resulted in broadband now being available to over 91 percent of
households in the state, up from 87 percent when the Authority was first formed.265
Equally as important, the broadband adoption rate has increased from 40 percent to 73
percent over that same period time, which suggests that there was significant latent
demandfortheseservicesinunservedareas.266
These PPPs, along with the failed municipal broadband projects discussed above, offer
severalguidingprinciplesforpolicymakersastheymoveforwardwithallocatingfundsin
support of broadband network expansion to unserved areas in New York. These include
recognizingthat:
 Taxpayer funds should only be used to fund broadband deployment to
areasthatremainunservedinanefforttomaximizethenumberofhomes
and businesses these new networks reach while also reducing private
andpublicsectorinvestmentrisk.Pastexperienceswithfundingnetwork
deploymenttoruralareasdemonstratethat,intheabsenceofsafeguards,
clearselectioncriteriaandcarefullystructuredPPPs,thereisariskthat
taxpayer funds will be used to construct duplicative network
infrastructure. The practical impacts of this outcome are a waste of
taxpayer funds, missed opportunities to advance deployment goals, and
thecreationofdisincentivesforserviceproviderstocontinueinvestingin
theseareas.

The optimal role for local and state governments vis‐à‐vis enhancing
broadband connectivity are as hubs for channeling funding and forging
PPPswithexpertsintheprivateandnonprofitsectors.

The most cost‐effective way to bridge broadband availability gaps is to
positionsubstantialprivateinvestmentsoftime,capital,andexpertiseas
coreanimatingfeaturesofanyPPPfocusedonnetworkexpansion.

Allocations of state funding in support of PPPs should be flexible and
structured around realizing broad public policy goals, i.e., bringing
networkinfrastructuretounservedareasofthestate.

Studying unserved areas and assuring that sufficient levels of demand
exist to support new networks should be a prerequisite for any PPP
aimedatextendingbroadbandnetworkstounservedareas.

Agreements at the heart of these PPPs, along with any related
policymakingactivities,workbestwhentheyaccommodateandfacilitate
rather than hinder business model experimentation and the
implementationofnetworkexpertiseonthepartofserviceproviders.
Page28
4.2
A Public‐Private Approach to Increasing Broadband Adoption and
PromotingMeaningfulUsesinNewYork
Efforts to improve broadband availability in any area are enhanced by pairing network
deployment with outreach and training programs that seek to raise awareness of the
benefitsofconnectivity.Indeed,thesetypesofdemandstimulationandaggregationefforts
have played a central role in successful broadband connectivity programs in states like
CaliforniaandMaine.267InunservedareasofNewYork,similareffortswillbeessentialto
assure adequate demand for and use of new broadband infrastructure. Ultimately, such
demand‐sidestrategiesassistinreducingtheriskassociatedwithstrategicinvestmentsof
taxpayerfundsinnetworkdeploymenttounservedareas.
However, since significant broadband adoption disparities exist in many other
communitiesacrossNewYork,thestatewillbenefitfromamorecomprehensiveapproach
toincreasingbroadbandadoptionandassuringmeaningfulusesofthetechnology.Tothis
end,andasdiscussedinthissection,PPPsthatleverageexistinglocalsocialinfrastructures
to raise awareness of the benefits of broadband connectivity and that provide targeted
digitalliteracytrainingrepresentmultifacetedvehiclesthatshouldbeatthecenterofany
efforttoincreaseadoptioninservedandunservedpartsofthestate.
4.2.1 The Advantages of Using Public‐Private Partnerships to Bolster
BroadbandAdoptionandPromoteMeaningfulUses
Policymakers in New York should pursue these types of PPPs for three reasons. First,
effective PPPs that focus on broadband adoption oftentimes succeed because they are
implementedatthelocalratherthanatthestateornationallevel.Localpolicymakersand
other stakeholders are uniquely positioned to “build[] on existing social programs and
partner[] with community organizations that non‐adopters already rely on as trusted
sourcesofinformation.”268Indeed,localpolicymakersoftentimeshavemoreflexibilityand
moreincentivetoworkcloselywithnonprofitgroupsandotherstakeholderstospearhead
innovativeapproachestospurdemandforandadoptionofbroadband.Theseeffortscanbe
bolsteredbypublichearingsandotherinitiativestostudythelocaldynamicsofbroadband
adoption,whichcancontributetothedevelopmentofoutreachinitiativesthataretailored
toaddresstheneedsofspecificcommunitiesandneighborhoods.269
Second,PPPsthatarebuiltaroundbroadbandadoptionanddigitalliteracytendtothrivein
areas where a robust social infrastructure is already in place. The notion of social
infrastructure (SI) is central to New York’s larger goal of creating “sustainable” and
“livable”communitiesacrossthestate.270Localsocialinfrastructurestypicallyinclude“the
activities, organizations, and facilities that support a community’s need to form and
maintain social interactions and relationships.”271 Many recent efforts around leveraging
local SIs in New York have focused on strengthening the overall social fabric of
communities by enhancing feelings of inclusiveness. In the broadband context, there is
wide agreement that the institutions at the heart of these social infrastructures are ideal
conduits for delivering outreach and training since they have succeeded in engendering
highlevelsoftrustwithresidentsandhavedemonstratedanabilitytodelivercommunity‐
Page29
specific services.272 As a result, adoption‐focused PPPs in New York should encompass
appropriate members of local SIs in order to enhance service delivery and bolster
outcomes.
Third,properlystructuredandimplemented,PPPsthatleveragelocalSIscouldevolveinto
vehicles for delivering an array of social services more efficiently and expansively. For
example, PPPs designed to bolster broadband adoption within a community of senior
citizenscouldframedigitalliteracytrainingaroundproperusesoftelemedicineorhowto
accessonlinegovernmentservices.273Intheeducationspace,agrowingnumberofgroups
are developing programs that deliver services in this way. MOUSE, a nonprofit based in
New York City, “trains students to become digital media and technology experts in their
schools, improving the use of technology to enhance learning, while also building
confidenceanddevelopingskillsfor21stcenturyinnovation.”274OneEconomy,anational
nonprofit, works in minority and low‐income communities to deliver digital literacy
programsthatarebuiltaroundworkforcedevelopment.275PerScholas,anothernonprofit
basedinNewYork,deliverssimilarworkforceandcommunitydevelopmentservices.276
This approach to forging and structuring PPPs not only enhances outreach efforts and
digital literacy training, but also assists in crafting more tangible and attractive value
propositions for under‐adopting communities. Equally as important, they represent
effective means of assuring that new adopters and fledgling users possess the skills and
willingnesstoputtheirconnectionstomeaningfuluses.
4.2.2 Structuring Effective Public‐Private Partnerships to Bolster
BroadbandAdoptionandPromoteMeaningfulUses
Over the last few years, dozens of PPPs focused on improving broadband adoption and
promoting meaningful uses have been forged at the local, state, and federal levels. Some
have floundered, but many have thrived, often as a result of careful design and
implementation. Studying representative examples provides New York stakeholders with
valuableguidingprinciplesforstructuringPPPstoachievethesegoals.
At the national level, the FCC has spearheaded numerous initiatives that seek to enhance
the activities of PPPsthat are workingto enhance connectivityanddigitalliteracyacross
thecountry.Manyofthesehavebuiltuponrecommendationsandobservationsincludedin
the National Broadband Plan and have included discrete programs focused on bolstering
theuseofbroadbandinhealthcare277andeducation,278aswellasanationaldigitalliteracy
campaign and other efforts to “drive collaboration among government and private sector
entities, including non‐profit organizations, on broadband‐related national priorities.”279
TheseprogramssupplementavarietyofinitiativeslaunchedbyNTIA,whichhaveincluded
the BTOP program and a web‐portal – DigitalLiteracy.gov – aimed at facilitating the
exchange of resources and encouraging collaboration among educators, nonprofits, and
othersworkingtodeliverdigitalliteracytraining.
Takentogether,theseeffortshighlightthecorecompetenciesoffederalorganizationslike
theFCCandNTIAinthisarena,namelytheabilityto:raiseawarenessofissues,serveasa
Page30
forumforhigh‐levelpolicydiscussions,channelfundingtoprogramsatthelocallevel,and
actasaclearinghouseforinformationandresourcesharing.Moregenerally,theyhavealso
succeeded in raising the profile of PPPs and promoting their use in the context of
improvingeveryelementofbroadbandconnectivity.Withregardtoactuallyimplementing
programs focused on outreach and training, however, programs led by private and
nonprofitfirmshaveledthewayinproducingpositiveoutcomes.280
The scope of private and nonprofit efforts in this context varies considerably and ranges
from multistate efforts to increase broadband adoption and meaningful use among low‐
income households with school‐age children281 to city‐level niche programs that address
theuniqueneedsofdiscretecommunitiesofusers.282Thecommonthreadamongeachof
these initiatives is a strong relationship with local policymakers and other stakeholders
that constitute the social infrastructure of a given town or city. For example, Comcast’s
InternetEssentials–amultistateprogramthatprovidessubsidizedbroadbandaccessand
digital literacy training to low‐income households – has thrived in cities where there has
beensignificantandenthusiasticparticipationbyeducators,administrators,policymakers,
andparents.283Similarly,smallerprograms,likeOlderAdultsTechnologyServicesinNew
YorkCity,havebeenabletoexpandtheirservicefootprintbypartneringwithcityagencies
and other governmental entities to deliver training and, increasingly, social services.284
Anchorinstitutionslikelibraries,universities,andhospitalsarealsoincreasinglyessential
partnersinPPPsthatserveasvehiclesforscalingprogramsandmaximizingthereachof
publicinvestments.
In sum, several guiding principles for structuring effective adoption‐focused PPPs can be
extractedfromthemodelsandprogramsdescribedabove.Theseinclude:
 Stimulatingandaggregatingdemandforbroadbandisacriticalaspectof
reducingtheriskinherentindeployingnewnetworkstounservedareas.

It is essential to leverage the core competencies of policymakers and
governmentinstitutionsatthefederal,state,andlocallevels.

Whenever possible, devolve outreach and training efforts to the local
levelinordertoassuremoretargetedprogramming.

Appreciatethateffectiveprogrammaticresponsestounder‐adoptionwill
differ from state to state, from city to city, and oftentimes from
neighborhood to neighborhood, and that programs should be designed
accordingly.

RecognizethatlocalsocialinfrastructuresareessentialinputstoanyPPP
developedforthepurposeofimprovingadoptionandinformeduse.

Tying outreach and training initiatives to social service delivery can
result in clearer, more compelling value propositions and, eventually,
moremeaningfulusesofthetechnology.
Page31
5.
CONCLUSION
Asaresultofhighlevelsofconnectivityacrossitsmanydiversecommunities,NewYorkis
well positioned to harness the transformative potential of broadband and use it to drive
economicgrowth,createjobs,andremakeentiresectors.However,inordertoensurethat
these gains are widespread and equally attainable by all, the state must seize the
opportunitytoleverageexpertiseintheprivateandnonprofitsectorsinanefforttoassure
universalavailabilityandadoptionofthistechnology.Forgingpublic‐privatepartnerships
andfuelingthemwithstateresourcesrepresentsthemostviablemeansofproducingnear
termgainsinavailabilityandadoptionthatwillpersistoverthelongterm.
New PPPs must be carefully structured and implemented in order to protect against
wasteful investments of precious public resources. To this end, it is essential that public
funding be targeted at supporting new network deployments to unserved areas lest the
state inadvertently subsidize the construction of duplicative – and unnecessary –
broadbandinfrastructure.Moreover,stimulatingandaggregatingdemandintheseareasis
avitalfirststeptofurtherreducingtheriskinherentinservinghistorically“uneconomic”
areas. In other communities, PPPs will play equally vital roles in bolstering broadband
connectivity and enhancing digital literacy skills among all users. Working within local
socialinfrastructuresandpartneringwithtrustedinstitutionsarekeystomaximizingthe
effectivenessofdemand‐sidePPPs.
In sum, policymakers should embrace a more collaborative approach to addressing
disparities in broadband connectivity. Combining public resources with the expertise of
entitiesintheprivateandnonprofitsectorsreducesriskandassuresthattaxpayerfunds,
whenevertheyareused,willbeinvestedasefficientlyandeffectivelyaspossible.Doingso
will ensure that residents, businesses, and institutions throughout New York are able to
reapthebenefitsofbroadbandconnectivity.
Page32
ENDNOTES
1 See, e.g., 2011‐2012 Annual Report, New York State Broadband Program Office (Aug. 2012), available at
http://www.nysbroadband.ny.gov/assets/documents/2011‐2012BroadbandAnnualReport.pdf (noting that
“Broadbandtechnologiesarefastbecomingthecornerstoneofeconomicgrowthinthe21stcentury.”Id.at8)
(hereinafter“2011‐2012BroadbandReport”).
2See,e.g.,RoadMapfortheDigitalCity:AchievingNewYorkCity’sDigitalFuture,TheCityofNewYork(2011),
available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/mome/digital/downloads/pdf/90dayreport.pdf (describing a
strategyforusingsocialmediaandothersuchtoolstoenhancegovernmentservices)(hereinafter“RoadMap
fortheDigitalCity”).
3See,e.g.,CharlesM.DavidsonandMichaelJ.Santorelli,RealizingtheSmartGridImperative:AFrameworkfor
Enhancing Collaboration Between Energy Utilities & Broadband Service Providers, Time Warner Cable
Research
Program
on
Digital
Communications
(Aug.
2011),
available
at
http://www.twcresearchprogram.com/pdf/TWC_Davidson.pdf(discussinghowbroadbandcouldbeusedto
facilitatedevelopmentanddeploymentofthesmartgrid)(hereinafter“SmartGridImperative”).
4See,e.g.,CharlesM.Davidson&MichaelJ.Santorelli,TheImpactofBroadbandonTelemedicine,Reporttothe
U.S.
Chamber
of
Commerce
(April
2009),
available
at
http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/about/0904Broadband_and_Telemedicine.pdf (noting that
“Broadband is facilitating the development of a number of cutting‐edge approaches to healthcare, many of
whichareexpectedtoleadtovastindividualandnationalcostsavingsandtoanincreaseintheavailabilityof
qualityhealthsolutions.”Id.at2)(hereinafter“Broadband&Telemedicine”).
5See,e.g.,TransformingAmericanEducation:LearningPoweredbyTechnology,U.S.Dept.ofEducation(Nov.
2010), available at http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf (discussing the importance of
advancedtechnologieslikebroadbandtoenhancingeducationalopportunitiesandoutcomesacrosstheU.S.)
(hereinafter“NationalEducationTechnologyPlan”).
6 See New York State Broadband Program Office, About, http://www.nysbroadband.ny.gov/program‐office;
2011‐2012BroadbandReportat8.
7SeeConnectingNewYorktoWorldforSustainableBroadbandAdoption:NewYorkStateUniversalBroadband
Strategic Roadmap, New York State Council for Universal Broadband, N.Y. State Office of Technology (June
2009)(hereinafter“NewYorkStateUniversalBroadbandStrategicRoadmap”).
8
See, e.g., Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, Grants Awarded: New York,
http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/new‐york.NewYorkStateappliedformorebroadbandstimulusfundingthanany
other state in the U.S. See Bernie Arnason, New York Tops All State Broadband Stimulus Applications with a
$775millionBid,Sept.9,2009,Telecompetitor.com,availableathttp://www.telecompetitor.com/new‐york‐
tops‐all‐state‐broadband‐stimulus‐applications‐with‐a‐775‐million‐bid/.
9SeeNewYorkStateBroadbandMap,http://www.broadbandmap.ny.gov.
10 See New York State Broadband Program Office, State Funding, http://www.nysbroadband.ny.gov/state‐
funding.
11SeePressRelease,GovernorCuomoHostsRegionalEconomicDevelopmentCouncilstoDiscussProgressonJob
Creating Plans, Aug. 21, 2012, Office of the Governor of the State of New York, available at
https://www.governor.ny.gov/press/08212012REDC(announcingthecreationofConnectNY,theprogram
through which grants will be made in support of bolstering broadband connectivity across the state)
(hereinafter“GovernorCuomoHosts”).
12
This is also referred to as broadband “access.” In this report, “access” and “availability” are used
interchangeably.
13
See
National
Broadband
Map,
Analyze
‐
Summarize:
New
York
State,
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/summarize/state/new‐york (data as of June 30, 2011) (finding that less
Page33
than one percent of the population was unserved) (hereinafter “New York National Broadband Data
Summary”).Thisfigurelikelyrangesfromonetofivepercentofthepopulation.Nationally,aboutfivepercent
ofthepopulationlivesinareaswithoutaccesstoaterrestrialbroadbandconnection.IntheMatterofConnect
AmericaFund,ReportandOrderandFurtherNoticeofProposedRulemaking,26FCCRcd17663,17961(Nov.
18,2011)(hereinafter“ConnectAmericaOrder”).NewYork‐specificdataanalyzedinaMay2011reportfound
that broadband was unavailable to eight percent of survey respondents. See Broadband Internet Service
AdoptionandUseinNewYorkStateHouseholds,at1,PreparedbytheCenterforTechnologyinGovernment,
University at Albany‐SUNY, in collaboration with the Center for Survey Research, Stony Brook University‐
SUNY and The Rockefeller Institute of Government, University at Albany‐SUNY (May 2011), available at
http://broadbandmap.ny.gov/documents/adoption‐study/NYS‐Broadband‐Adoption‐Study‐Color.pdf (“New
YorkStateBroadbandAdoption”).However,theFCCfoundthatbythemiddleof2011lessthanonepercentof
thepopulationinNewYorklackedaccesstoafixed(i.e.,wireline)broadbandconnection.SeeIntheMatterof
Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
ReasonableandTimelyFashion,andPossibleStepstoAccelerateSuchDeploymentPursuanttoSection706of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 8th Broadband
ProgressReport,AppendixG,GNDocketNo.11‐121(rel.Aug.21,2012)(hereinafter“8thBroadbandReport”).
14 Nationally, service providers invested $66 billion in broadband networks in 2011. See Patrick Brogan,
Updated Capital Spending Data Show Continued Significant Broadband Investment in Nation’s Information
Infrastructure,
USTelecom
Research
Brief
(April
12,
2012),
available
at
http://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/042012_Investment_2011_Research_Brief.pdf
(hereinafter“CapitalSpendingData”).
15ConnectAmericaOrderat17961.
16See,e.g.,CharlesM.Davidson,MichaelJ.Santorelli&ThomasKamber,BroadbandAdoption:WhyitMatters
&
How
it
Works,
19
Media
L.
&
Pol’y
14‐56
(2009),
available
at
http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/83/Davidson_Santorelli_Kamber%20‐
%20BB%20Adoption%20Article%20‐%20MLP%2019.1.pdf(discussingthedynamicsofbroadbandadoption
and factors that influence adoption decisions) (hereinafter “Broadband Adoption: Why it Matters & How it
Works”).
17See,e.g.,CharlesM.Davidson&MichaelJ.Santorelli,BarrierstoBroadbandAdoption:AReporttotheFCC,
Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute, New York Law School (Oct. 2009), available at
http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/83/ACLP%20Report%20to%20the%20FCC%20‐
%20Barriers%20to%20BB%20Adoption.pdf (identifying dozens of barriers impeding more robust
broadband adoption by senior citizens and people with disabilities and across the education, healthcare,
energy, and government sectors) (hereinafter “Barriers to Broadband Adoption”); Jon Gant et al., National
Minority Broadband Adoption, Joint Center for Political & Economic Studies (Feb. 2010), available at
http://www.jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/upload/research/files/MTI_BROADBAND_REPORT_WEB.pdf
(identifying barriers impeding broadband adoption by African Americans and Hispanics) (hereinafter
“National Minority Broadband Adoption”); Dharma Dailey et al., Broadband Adoption in Low Income
Communities,
Social
Science
Research
Council
(March
2010),
available
at
http://www.ssrc.org/workspace/images/crm/new_publication_3/%7B1eb76f62‐c720‐df11‐9d32‐
001cc477ec70%7D.pdf (identifying barriers to broadband adoption among low‐income households)
(hereinafter“BroadbandAdoptioninLowIncomeCommunities”).Forageneraldiscussion,seeJohnHorrigan,
Broadband Adoption and Use in America, OBI Working Paper Series No. 1, FCC (Feb. 2010), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC‐296442A1.pdf (hereinafter “Broadband Adoption
andUseinAmerica”).
18NewYorkStateBroadbandAdoptionat1.TheFCCreportsthatthestate’soverallratereached70percentby
mid‐2011.8thBroadbandReportatAppendixH.
19NewYorkStateBroadbandAdoptionat1.
Page34
20 See Exploring the Digital Nation: Computer and Internet Use at Home, National Telecommunications &
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (Nov. 2011), available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_computer_and_internet_use_at
_home_11092011.pdf(hereinafter“ExploringtheDigitalNation”).
21 For a discussion on the importance of possessing digital literacy skills, see KAREN MOSSBERGER, CAROLINE
TOLBERT&MARYSTANSBURY,VIRTUALINEQUALITY:BEYONDTHEDIGITALDIVIDE(Brookings2003).
22See,e.g.,ConnectingAmerica:TheNationalBroadbandPlan,at10,FCC(March2010)(settingasanational
goalthewideavailabilityofdigitalliteracytrainingservices)(hereinafter“NationalBroadbandPlan”).
23Foranoverviewofthesemanyusesandthewaysinwhichbroadbandispoisedtotransformkeysectors
likehealthcare,energy,andeducation,seegenerallyid.
24 See, e.g., Charles M. Davidson, Michael J. Santorelli & Thomas Kamber, Toward an Inclusive Measure of
Broadband Adoption, Int’l J. of Comm. (forthcoming 2012) (hereinafter “Toward an Inclusive Measure of
BroadbandAdoption”).
25 See, e.g., The Economic Impact of Digital Exclusion, Digital Impact Group & Econsult Corporation (2010),
availableathttp://www.econsult.com/articles/030810_costofexclusion.pdf(attemptingtoquantifythetotal
cost,indollars,ofdigitalexclusion);JohnHorrigan,BroadbandAdoptionin2012:LittleMovementSince’09&
StakeholdersCandoMoretoSpurAdoption,TechNet(March2012),availableathttp://www.technet.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2012/03/TechNet‐NBP‐Broadband‐Report‐3‐20‐2012‐FINAL1.pdf.
26 See Guidebook 2.0: Implementing a New Operating Model for NYS Government to Stimulate Real Regional
Economic Development, Regional Economic Development Councils, N.Y. State (2012), available at
http://regionalcouncils.ny.gov/assets/documents/Guidebook2.0_Final.pdf (providing an overview of the
program)(hereinafter“Guidebook2.0”).
27See,e.g.,2010AnnualReport,NewYorkStateBroadbandDevelopmentandDeploymentCouncil,N.Y.State
Office
for
Technology
(2011),
available
at
http://cio.ny.gov/assets/documents/BroadbandAnnualReport5.11.11.pdf (noting that “Access to affordable,
high‐speedInternetserviceisafundamentalcomponentforNewYork’seconomicresurgence.NewYorkis
wellpositionedtoreboundfromthenation’seconomicdownturnandhaspromotedastatewidebroadband
strategy and governance structure to strengthen essential infrastructure, including broadband and
telecommunicationsinfrastructureneededtofacilitatethestate’srecoveryandcreatejobs.”Id.at4).
28ManyofthesegoalswereoutlinedbytheGovernorinhis2012“StateoftheState”address.SeeGovernor
Andrew M. Cuomo, Building a New NY…With You, Jan. 4, 2012, available at
http://www.governor.ny.gov/assets/documents/Building‐a‐New‐New‐York‐Book.pdf (hereinafter “Building
aNewNY”).
29AccordingtotheU.S.Censusbureau,NewYork’spopulationgrewby2.1percentbetween2000and2010
compared to almost 10 percent growth of the U.S. population during that same period. See. U.S. Census
Bureau, Quick Facts: New York, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html (hereinafter “Census
QuickFacts:NewYork”).
30Guidebook2.0at3.
31 See U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, State Fact Sheets: New York,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/ny.HTM.
32Id.Interestingly,thedecreaseinthepercentageofpeoplelivinginruralpartsofNewYorkhasoccurredata
muchslowerpacethanthenationalaverage.In1980,thepercentageofpeoplelivinginruralareaswas20
percent;by2011ithaddecreasedto16.4percent.SeeU.S.Dept.ofAgriculture,EconomicResearchService,
StateFactSheets:UnitedStates,http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/us.htm.
Page35
33 See, e.g., Tom Rivers, Farm Community Presses for Broadband, More Rural Investment, May 5, 2012, The
Daily News Online, available at http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_438bec8c‐9666‐11e1‐9132‐
001a4bcf887a.html.
34 See, e.g., Guidebook 2.0 (noting that broadband access is essential to small business growth in the North
Country).
35 See, e.g., Jed Kolko, Does Broadband Boost Local Economic Development?, at 18, Public Policy Institute of
California(Jan.2010),availableathttp://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/r_110jkr.pdf.
36 See, e.g., Broadband Internet’s Value for Rural America, at 3, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, Report No. 78 (Aug. 2009), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR78/ERR78.pdf
(providing as an example “Crafts…that used to be pitched only at annual State and county fairs are now
marketedyear‐roundtowideraudiences,andtheInternethasledtotheriseofauctionsitessuchasE‐Bay
where anyone can be a buyer and seller of new and used goods and services.”) (hereinafter “Broadband
Internet’sValueforRuralAmerica”).
37 See generally Brining Broadband to Rural America: Report on a Rural Broadband Strategy, FCC (2009),
availableathttp://connectohio.org/_documents/FCCruralbb.pdf.
38See,e.g.,Id.;BroadbandInternet’sValueforRuralAmerica;NationalBroadbandPlan.
39CensusQuickFacts:NewYork.
40
See New York State Poverty Report, at 1, New York State Community Action Association (Aug. 2011),
availableathttp://www.nyscaaonline.org/PovReport/2011/2011PovReportWeb.pdf.
41Seegenerallyid.
42BroadbandAdoptioninLowIncomeCommunitiesat16,23‐24.
43See,e.g.,SabrinaTavernise,PoorDroppingFurtherBehindRichinSchool,Feb.10,2012,N.Y.Times.
44BroadbandAdoptioninLowIncomeCommunitiesat20‐22.
45Thesecost‐savingsarediscussedinmoredetailinSection2.2.
46See,e.g.,FromPoverty,Opportunity:PuttingtheMarkettoWorkforLowerIncomeFamilies,at15,Brookings
Institute (June 2006), available at http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20060718_PovOp.pdf (noting
that“food,housing,utilities,transportation,andfinancialservices….[t]ogether…accountforabout70percent
ofthespendinginatypicalAmericanhousehold.”).
47 See Ahmad Faruqui, Sanem Sergici, and Jennifer Palmer, The Impact of Dynamic Pricing on Low Income
Customers, Edison Foundation Institute for Electric Efficiency (Sept. 2010), available at
http://www.edisonfoundation.net/iee/Documents/IEE_LowIncomeDynamicPricing_0910.pdf.
48See,e.g.,Broadband&Telemedicine;NationalBroadbandPlanat191‐222.
49SeeCountyDataBook:SelectCharacteristics,at3,NewYorkStateOfficefortheAging(2011),availableat
http://www.aging.ny.gov/ReportsAndData/CountyDataBooks/01NYS.pdf(hereinafter“CountyDataBook”).
50Id.
51 See, e.g., 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and the Federal
Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Funds, Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (April 23, 2012),
available
at
http://cms.gov/Research‐Statistics‐Data‐and‐Systems/Statistics‐Trends‐and‐
Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/Downloads/TR2012.pdf.
52Byoneestimate,familycaregiversspendonaverage10percentoftheirincomeonout‐of‐pocketexpenses
whencaringforalovedone.Thisisasignificantproportionforagroupwithamedianannualincomeofonly
$43,000.SeeFamilyCaregivers–WhattheySpend,WhattheySacrifice:ThePersonalFinancialTollofCaring
Page36
for a Love One, at 7, an Evercare Study for the National Alliance for Caregiving (Nov. 2007), available at
http://www.caregiving.org/pdf/research/Evercare_NAC_CaregiverCostStudyFINAL20111907.pdf.
53SeeMatthewDaneman,BoomersSettleinsoTheyCan‘AgeinPlace,’Dec.20,2010,USAToday,availableat
http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/managingillness/2010‐12‐21‐aginginplace21_ST_N.htm.
54 See Charles M. Davidson & Michael J. Santorelli, The Impact of Broadband on Senior Citizens, at 20‐25,
Report
to
the
U.S.
Chamber
of
Commerce
(Dec.
2008),
http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/83/BroadbandandSeniors.pdf (hereinafter
Seniors”).
available
at
“Broadband &
55Id.at23‐24.
56Id.
57SeeRobertE.Litan,VitalSignsviaBroadband:RemoteHealthMonitoringTransmitsSavings,EnhancesLives,
at
2,
Better
Health
Care
Together
(Oct.
2008),
available
at
http://www.corp.att.com/healthcare/docs/litan.pdf.
58See,e.g.,AginginPlaceandtheRoleofBroadband,RuralTelecomEducationalSeries,FoundationforRural
Services
(May
2012),
available
at
http://www.ntca.org/images/stories/Documents/Press_Center/2012_Releases/aging%20in%20place%20fi
nal.pdf.
59See,e.g.,Broadband&Seniorsat14‐16.
60BarrierstoBroadbandAdoptionat8.
61See,e.g.,DeeDePass&KaraMcGuire,AnotherDayOlder,andSeniorsStillatWork,Jan.8,2012,StarTribune,
available at http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=136881018 (“Almost 7 million are working who
are65orolder,a60percentincreasesince2001.About3millionofthoseworkersare70orolder,upfrom
almost2millionadecadeago.TheGreatRecessionacceleratedthetrend.Since2006,thelastfullyearbefore
therecession,thenumberof65‐and‐olderworkersjumped22percent,or1.25millionworkers.”).
62
See Robert E. Litan, Great Expectations: Potential Economic Benefits to the Nation from Accelerated
Broadband Deployment to Older Americans and Americans with Disabilities, at 1, New Millennium Research
Council(Dec.2005),availableathttp://newmillenniumresearch.org/archive/Litan_FINAL_120805.pdf.
63CountyDataBookat3.
64SeeTableA‐6.Employmentstatusofthecivilianpopulationbysex,age,anddisabilitystatus,notseasonally
adjusted, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor (as of Aug. 2012), available at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm(findingthelaborforceparticipationratetobeunder21
percentforpeoplewithdisabilitiesandjustover69percentforpeoplewithoutadisability).
65Id.(theunemploymentrateforpeoplewithdisabilitiesinAugust2012was13.5percent,comparedto7.9
percentforpeoplewithoutadisability).
66 See 2009 Disability Status Report – United States, at 37, Employment and Disability Institute, School of
Industrial
Relations,
Cornell
University
(2011),
available
at
http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/StatusReports/2009‐PDF/2009‐
StatusReport_US.pdf?CFID=1454507&CFTOKEN=61966535&jsessionid=84305377a2c5436e851d4ee25e161
485d711.
67SeeCharlesM.Davidson&MichaelJ.Santorelli,TheImpactofBroadbandonPeoplewithDisabilities,at25‐
31,
Report
to
the
U.S.
Chamber
of
Commerce
(Dec.
2009),
http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/83/BroadbandandPeoplewithDisabilities.pdf
“Broadband&Disabilities”).
available
at
(hereinafter
68Seegenerallyid.
Page37
69
See
United
Nations,
Enable:
Fact
http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=18.
Sheet
on
Persons
with
Disabilities,
70Broadband&Disabilitiesat21‐22.
71Id.at22‐25.
72Id.at32‐34.
73SeePopulationDistributionandDiversityinNewYorkState,at3,RLSDemographics,Inc.(2011),availableat
http://www.empirecenter.org/files/PopChange‐2000‐2010.pdf (hereinafter “Population Distribution and
DiversityinNewYorkState”).
74 See William H. Frey, The New Metro Minority Map: Regional Shifts in Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks from
Census
2010,
at
1,
Brookings
Institute
(Aug.
2011),
available
at
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/8/31%20census%20race%20frey/0831_
census_race_frey.pdf.
75PopulationDistributionandDiversityinNewYorkStateat3.“Downstate”isdefinedas“NewYorkCity,and
thecountiesofNassau,Putnam,Rockland,Suffolk,andWestchester.”
76Id.
77 This has been widely documented. For one of the earliest assessments, see Paul DiMaggio et al., From
UnequalAccesstoDifferentiatedUse:ALiteratureReviewandAgendaforResearchonDigitalInequality,Report
fortheRussellSageFoundation(2004),availableathttp://www.webuse.org/webuse.org/pdf/DiMaggioEtAl‐
DigitalInequality2004.pdf.
78See,e.g.,KathrynZickuhrandAaronSmith,DigitalDifferences,at19,PewInternet&AmericanLifeProject
(April
2012),
available
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Digital_differences_041312.pdf
(hereinafter“DigitalDifferences”).
at
79See,e.g.,NationalMinorityBroadbandAdoption(providingdataandobservationsregardingthesepoints).
Adoptiondynamicsandbarriersarediscussedinmoredetailinsection3,infra.
80SeegenerallyDigitalDifferences(providinganoverviewofsurveyresultsregardingtheonlineactivitiesofa
varietyofusergroups,includingWhites,Blacks,Hispanics,andolderadults).
81SeeEmploymentSituationSummary(August2012),BureauofLaborStatistics,U.S.Dept.ofLabor,available
athttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm(notingthatinAugust2012theunemploymentratefor
Hispanics was 10.2 percent while the rate for Blacks was 14.1 percent, compared to an overall rate of 8.1
percent).
82
See, e.g., Madura Wijewardena, Chanelle Hardy & Dr. Valerie Wilson, Connecting the Dots: Linking
BroadbandAdoptiontoJobCreationandJobCompetitiveness,TimeWarnerCableResearchProgramonDigital
Communications
(winter
2012),
available
at
http://www.twcresearchprogram.com/pdf/TWC_WijewardenaReport.pdf.
83Id.at22.
84SeeFactSheet–CDCHealthDisparitiesandInequalitiesReport–U.S.,2011,CentersforDiseaseControland
Prevention(2011),availableathttp://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/reports/CHDIR11/FactSheet.pdf.
85SeegenerallyNewYorkStateMinorityHealthSurveillanceReport:CountyEdition,N.Y.StateDept.ofHealth
(Dec.
2010),
available
https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/community/minority/docs/surveillance_report_2010.pdf.
at
86 For an extended discussion of the impact of mobile broadband on minority health, see Nicol‐Turner Lee,
BrianSmedley&JosephMiller,Minorities,BroadbandandtheManagementofChronicDiseases,JointCenter
for
Political
&
Economic
Studies
(April
2012),
available
at
Page38
http://www.jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/upload/research/files/Minorities%20Mobile%20Broadband
%20and%20the%20Management%20of%20Chronic%20Diseases_0.pdf(concludingthat“Mobilebroadband
clearly offers compelling solutions for helping people with chronic illnesses manage their diseases and
offeringguidanceonhowtostaveofflifestylesandroutinesthatcontributetothem.”Id.at7).
87TheFCC’sNationalBroadbandPlanwaspreparedattherequestofCongress,whichidentifiedanumberof
“national purposes” for broadband. These included using broadband to advance “consumer welfare, civic
participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy
independenceandefficiency,education,workertraining,privatesectorinvestment,entrepreneurialactivity,
[and]jobcreationandeconomicgrowth.”NationalBroadbandPlanat3.
88 See Table 11 – States Ranked According to Per Pupil Elementary‐Secondary Public School System Finance
Amounts:2008‐09,SurveyofLocalGovernmentFinances–SchoolSystems,U.S.CensusBureau(May2011),
available at http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb11‐94_table_11.pdf (hereinafter “Per Pupil
Spending”).
89SeeTable1–ElementaryandSecondaryPublicandNonpublicSchoolEnrollmentinNewYorkState:1970‐71
to 2012‐13, Information and Reporting Services, N.Y. State Dept. of Education (Jan. 2012), available at
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/statistics/public/2012/TABLE1.pdf.Inall,therewereover3millionstudents
enrolledinK‐12publicandnonpublicschoolsin2008.
90PerPupilSpending.
91SeePressRelease,GovernorCuomoEstablishesNewNYEducationReformCommission,April30,2012,Office
of
the
Governor
of
New
York
State,
http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/4302012EducationReformCommission.
available
at
92Id.
93See,e.g.,NationalBroadbandPlanatCh.11(examiningtheimpactsofbroadbandoneducation);National
Education Technology Plan. See also generally Charles M. Davidson & Michael J. Santorelli, The Impact of
Broadband on Education, Report to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Dec. 2010), available at
http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/83/Davidson%20&%20Santorelli%20‐
%20The%20Impact%20of%20Broadband%20in%20Education%20‐
%20December%202010%20(FINAL).pdf (providing a comprehensive overview of how broadband is being
used by administrators, teachers, students, and parents across the continuum of education) (hereinafter
“Broadband&Education”).
94See,e.g.,Broadband&Education(providingdozensofexamples).
95
For an overview of how mobile broadband and wireless devices in particular play key roles in new
approaches to education, see Jennifer Nastu, Mobile Learning: Not Just Laptops Any More, eSchool News
SpecialReport(March2011),availableathttp://www.corp.att.com/edu/docs/special_report.pdf.
96
See
New
York’s
Cable
Broadband
Network,
at
5,
CTANY,
http://www.cabletvny.com/New%20Yorks%20Cable%20Broadband%20Network.pdf.
available
at
97See,e.g.,NewYorkNationalBroadbandDataSummary;U.S.Dept.ofEducation,BroadbandAvailabilityfor
U.S.Schools–NewYork,http://data.ed.gov/broadband‐availability/search?city=&state=NY.
98
Barriers to Broadband Adoption at 72‐82 (identifying numerous practical, economic, and perceptional
barrierstomorerobustbroadbandadoptionbyeducators).
99
Many recent efforts like the BTOP‐funded Connected Learning initiative in New York City, Comcast’s
Internet Essentials, and the national Connect to Compete program have been designed to address this
dynamic–i.e.,thelackofin‐homebroadbandandcomputingamonglow‐incomehouseholdswithschool‐age
children.Thesearediscussedinmoredetailsection4,infra.
100Broadband&Educationat26‐29(discussingthesetypesofbarriersamongeducators).
Page39
101 See, e.g., Regents Statewide Learning Technology Plan, N.Y. State Dept. of Education (Jan. 28, 2010),
availableathttp://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2010Meetings/February2010/0210bra3.pdf.
102SeeNewYorkStateP‐12CommonCoreLearningStandardsforEnglishLanguageArts&Literacy,at5,N.Y.
State
Dept.
of
Education
(Jan.
10,
2011),
available
at
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/common_core_standards/pdfdocs/p12_common_core_learning_standards_el
a.pdf.SeealsoTamarLewin,ManyStatesAdoptNationalStandardsfortheirSchools,July21,2010,N.Y.Times.
103
See, e.g., New York City Dept. of Education, Connected Learning: About,
http://schools.nyc.gov/community/innovation/ConnectedLearning/AboutTheProgram/default.htm.
104See,e.g.,NewYorkStateUniversalBroadbandStrategicRoadmapat8(identifyingasoneofthestate’stop
goals “Clos[ing] the digital divide and increase[ing] digital literacy levels by providing training and
educationalopportunities,inunservedandunderserved,urbanandruralcommunities”).
105 See U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Energy Profiles, New York – Analysis,
http://205.254.135.7/state/state‐energy‐profiles‐analysis.cfm?sid=NY.
106Id.
107Id.
108SeeTable5.6.A.AverageRetailPriceofElectricitytoUltimateCustomersbyEnd‐UseSector,byState,March
2012 and 2011, U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy (March 2012), available at
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/excel/epmxlfile5_6_a.xls.
109See,e.g.,SmartGridImperativeat7‐8(discussingtheblackout).
110ProceedingonMotionoftheCommissiontoConsiderRegulatoryPoliciesRegardingSmartGridSystemsand
the Modernization of the Electric Grid, Smart Grid Policy Statement, at 74, CASE 10–E–0285, N.Y. Public
Service
Commission
(rel.
Aug.
19,
2011),
available
at
http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={09E8B9B7‐A5F6‐4E1F‐BEE6‐
F59B3E1D9BB4}(hereinafter“NYPSCSmartGridPolicyStatement”).
111 See, e.g., Press Release, NYSISO Unveils $74 million Smart Grid Initiative, Breaks Ground on New Power
Control
Center,
Aug.
8,
2011,
NYSISO,
available
at
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/newsroom/press_releases/2011/NYISO_Smart_Grid_Project_and_C
ontrol_Center_Groundbreaking_08082011.pdf;
Con
Ed,
Smart
Grid
Initiative,
http://www.coned.com/publicissues/smartgrid.asp.
112NYPSCSmartGridPolicyStatementat42‐43.
113Id.
114See,e.g.,SmartGridImperativeat11‐12;NationalBroadbandPlanatCh.12.
115Id.
116Id.
117
See
Kaiser
Family
Foundation,
State
Health
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?sub=143&rgn=34&cat=5.
Facts
–
New
York,
118AsexplainedbytheKaiserFamilyFoundation:“Medicaidisfinancedjointlybythefederalgovernmentand
thestates.ThefederalgovernmentmatchesstatespendingonMedicaid.Statesareentitledtothesefederal
matching dollars and there is no cap on funding. This financing model supports the federal entitlement to
coverageandallowsfederalfundstoflowtostatesbasedonactualneed.Throughthematchingarrangement,
the federal government and the states’ share the cost of the program.” See Medicaid: A Primer, at 5, Kaiser
FamilyFoundation(2010),availableathttp://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7334‐04.pdf.
Page40
119See2012‐13ExecutiveBudgetBriefingBook–Healthcare,at34,N.Y.StateDivisionoftheBudget(2012),
available at http://publications.budget.ny.gov/eBudget1213/fy1213littlebook/HealthCare.pdf (hereinafter
“BriefingBook–Healthcare”).
120Id.at33(citingaCommonwealthStateScorecardofHealthSystemPerformancereleasedin2011).
121See2010StateSnapshots–NewYork,at7,AgencyforHealthcareResearchandQuality,U.S.Dept.ofHealth
&
Human
Services
(May
2011),
http://statesnapshots.ahrq.gov/snaps10/download/NY_2010_Snapshots.pdf.
available
at
122SeeMartinZ.Braun,NewYorkStateRetireeHealthCostsRise29%to$72Billion,May17,2012,Bloomberg
Business Week, available at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012‐05‐17/new‐york‐state‐s‐retiree‐
health‐costs‐rise‐29‐percent‐to‐72‐billion.
123 See, e.g., Bending the Health Care Cost Curve in New York State: Options for Saving Money and Improving
Care, at 5, Report by the Lewin Group to the NYS Health Foundation (July 2010), available at
http://www.lewin.com/~/media/lewin/site_sections/publications/nyshealthbendingthecurve.pdf
(estimating that widespread deployment and use of various healthcare information technology tools could
result in $1.6 billion in cost savings over 10 years by collecting better data and streamlining a number of
processes); Emily Singer, A Big Stimulus Boost for Electronic Healthcare Records, Feb. 20, 2009, Technology
Review, available at http://www.technologyreview.com/news/412137/a‐big‐stimulus‐boost‐for‐electronic‐
health/ (providing an overview of the $19 billion allocated under the federal stimulus plan to support the
adoptionofelectronichealthrecordsbyhealthcareprovidersacrossthecountry).
124See,e.g.,BriefingBook–Healthcareat33‐34(discussingrecentMedicaidreformsinNewYork).
125BuildingaNewNYat8.
126
See New Tech City, Center for an Urban Future (May 2012), available
http://www.nycfuture.org/images_pdfs/pdfs/NewTechCity.pdf(hereinafter“NewTechCity”).
at
127BuildingaNewNYat8.
128 See, e.g., Press Release, In Western New York, an Improving Climate for High‐Tech Investment, April 24,
2012,StateUniversityofNewYorkatBuffalo,availableathttp://www.buffalo.edu/news/13380.
129SeeThomasKaplan,High‐TechCompaniestoInvest$4BillioninNewYorkState,CuomoSays,Sept.27,2011,
CityRoomBlog,N.Y.Times,availableathttp://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/hi‐tech‐companies‐
to‐invest‐4‐4‐billion‐in‐new‐york‐state‐cuomo‐says/.
130SeePressRelease,GovernorCuomoAnnounces$15MillionforThree"ProofofConcept"CenterstoConnect
Energy Innovators with Business Investors, May 18, 2012, N.Y. State Energy Research and Development
Authority, available at http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Newsroom/2012‐Announcements/2012‐05‐18‐
Governor‐Cuomo‐Announces‐$15‐Million‐for‐Three‐Proof‐of‐Concept‐Centers.aspx.
131 See, e.g., Verena Dobnik, NY Plans $2 billion High‐Tech Campus, May 29, 2012, USA Today, available at
http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Business/2012‐05‐29‐BCUSNew‐YorkTech‐Hub2nd‐
LdWritethru_ST_U.htm.
132See,e.g.,NewTechCityat18.
133Id.
134 See Small Business Profile: New York, at 1, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration (Feb.
2011),availableathttp://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/ny10.pdf
135SeeThomasP.DiNapoli,N.Y.StateComptroller,TheRoleofSmallBusinessinNewYorkState’sEconomy,at
1,
Office
of
the
N.Y.
State
Comptroller
(Sept.
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/other/smallbusinessreport091510.pdf.
2010),
available
at
Page41
136 See, e.g., Judith Messina, Big Data Powers New Players, May 23, 2012, Crain’s New York, available at
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120523/SMALLBIZ/120529959.
137NationalBroadbandPlanat284(citationsomitted).
138See,e.g.,JohnTozzi,Cash‐FlowCrisisisRecession’sLegacyforSmallBiz,Feb.20,2011,BloombergBusiness
Week,availableathttp://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/feb2011/sb20110222_359563.htm.
139 For somefirms,these costsmay risefurtherasa result of recentfederal healthcare reforms.See Stacey
McMorrow,LindaJ.BlumbergandMatthewBuettgens,TheEffectsofHealthReformonSmallBusinessesand
their Employees, at 1, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation & The Urban Institute (June 2011), available at
http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/72530quickstrike201106.pdf (observing that the impact of the federal
healthcarelawwillimpactsmallbusinessesinmarkedlydifferentwaysdependingonhowmanypeoplethey
employ).
140 See, e.g., The Economic Benefits of New Spectrum for Wireless Broadband, at 9‐10, Council of Economic
Advisers,
Executive
Office
of
the
President
(Feb.
2012),
available
at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_spectrum_report_2‐21‐2012.pdf (“Low‐cost mobile
devicescanbeacost‐effectivewayforbusinessestoaccessweb‐basedservices,takingadvantageofthehigh
processing power and large data storage capabilities of remote servers. Because these “cloud‐based”
solutions do not require the high fixed costs of information technology infrastructure, they can be cost‐
effective even for small businesses…As smartphones and tablets continue to grow in popularity and as
wirelessbroadbandaccessbecomeswidespread,newbusiness‐orientedapplicationsformobiledeviceswill
likelyemerge,promotinggreaterincreasesinproductivity.”).
141SeeTheImpactofBroadbandSpeedandPriceonSmallBusiness,at1,U.S.SmallBusinessAdministration
(2010),availableathttp://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs373tot.pdf.
142Id.
143NewTechCityat39.
144
Barriers to Broadband Adoption at 85‐86 (detailing major federal initiatives and legislation regarding
opennessandtransparency).
145Foranoverviewofthisevolution,seeBETHS.NOVECK,WIKIGOVERNMENT(Brookings2009).
146 See, e.g., 2011‐2012 Broadband Report at 29; The Status of e‐Government and Social Media in the Empire
State2010:AReportontheProgressMadebyStateAgenciestoDeliverCitizenServicesOvertheInternet,N.Y.
State
Office
for
Technology
(Sept.
2010),
available
at
http://www.cio.ny.gov/assets/documents/EGovReport.pdf (hereinafter “Status of e‐Government and Social
MediaintheEmpireState2010”).
147Statusofe‐GovernmentandSocialMediaintheEmpireState2010at14.
148Id.at15‐16.
149Id.at23.
150RoadMapfortheDigitalCity.
151 For an overview of the program, see Center for Technology in Government, About,
http://www.ctg.albany.edu/about/.
152
Status of e‐Government and Social Media in the Empire State 2010 at 12 (noting that “citizens are
demandinggovernmentinformationandservicesbemadeavailableonline.Tomeetthisdemand,NewYork
State agencies are increasingly using online applications to become more transparent and to better serve
theirconstituencies.”).
Page42
153SeeAaronSmith,22%ofonlineAmericansusedsocialnetworkingorTwitterforpoliticsin2010campaign,
Pew
Internet
&
American
Life
Project
(Jan.
2011),
available
at
http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP‐Social‐Media‐and‐2010‐Election.pdf.
154See,e.g.,Statusofe‐GovernmentandSocialMediaintheEmpireState2010at18‐20.
155BarrierstoBroadbandAdoptionat89.
156SeeHigh‐SpeedServicesforInternetAccess:StatusasofDec.31,2005,atTable1and10,FCC(July2006),
availableathttp://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC‐266596A1.pdf.
157
See Internet Access Services: Status as of June 30, 2011, at 1, Table 17, FCC (June 2012), available at
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0614/DOC‐314630A1.pdf
(hereinafter
“InternetAccessServices:StatusasofJune30,2011”).
158Id.atTable14.
159SeeHigh‐SpeedServicesforInternetAccess:SubscribershipasofDec.31,2000,atTable5,FCC(Aug.2001),
available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC‐State_Link/IAD/hspd0801.pdf
(hereinafter“High‐SpeedServicesforInternetAccess:SubscribershipasofDec.31,2000”).
160InternetAccessServices:StatusasofJune30,2011atTable23.
161High‐SpeedServicesforInternetAccess:SubscribershipasofDec.31,2000atTable5.
162
See The Zettabyte Era, at 4, Cisco Visual Networking Index (May 2012), available at
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/VNI_Hyperconnectiv
ity_WP.pdf.
163
See
CTIA
–
The
Wireless
Association,
Quick
Facts,
http://www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfm/AID/10323 (reporting that, as of Dec. 2011, there were
over331millionwirelesssubscriberconnectionsintheU.S.,whichrepresentedapenetrationrateofnearly
105percent)(hereinafter“WirelessQuickFacts”).
164InternetAccessServices:StatusasofJune30,2011atTable8.
165CapitalSpendingData.
166Id.
167SeeNCTA,InvestmentsinInfrastructure,http://www.ncta.com/StatsGroup/Investments.aspx.
168SeeWirelessQuickFacts
169CapitalSpendingData.
170
See USTelecom, Broadband Data: Availability, http://www.ustelecom.org/broadband‐
industry/broadband‐industry‐stats/availability (citing National Broadband Map data). See also National
BroadbandMap,Summarize,Analyze:Nationwide,http://www.broadbandmap.gov/summarize/nationwide.
171SeeNewYorkStateBroadbandMap(dataasofApril1,2012),http://www.broadbandmap.ny.gov/map/.
172ConnectAmericaOrderat17961.
173Foradiscussionandschematicofbasicbroadbandinfrastructureconcepts,seeRobCurtis,TheSecondand
MiddleMileChallenge,Oct.8,2009,Blogband,FCC,availableathttp://blog.broadband.gov/?entryId=10657.
174 See, e.g., Michael Gormley, Cuomo Plans $25 Million Boost to Upstate Broadband Access, March 3, 2012,
PostStar.com,
available
at
http://poststar.com/news/local/article_4273422a‐6577‐11e1‐a9ba‐
001871e3ce6c.html. Other factors, notably onerous review processes by entities like the Adirondack Park
agency,haveinfluencedinfrastructuredeploymentintheseareas.
175CreationofthefederalUSFwasmandatedby47U.S.C.§254.
Page43
176
For further discussion, see JONATHAN E. NUECHTERLEIN & PHILIP J. WEISER, DIGITAL CROSSROADS: AMERICAN
TELECOMMUNICATIONSPOLICYINTHEINTERNETAGE340‐344(MIT2005).
177SeegenerallyConnectAmericaOrder.
178
The FCC’s 700+ page reform order, released in late 2011, included a Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemakingthatsoughtcommentondozensofdetailsregardingthemechanicsofimplementingitsproposed
reforms.Id.
179SeeProceedingtoExamineIssuesRelatedtoaUniversalServiceFund,NoticeEstablishingUniversalService
Proceeding,Case09‐M‐0527(rel.Aug.3,2009).
180
For an overview of the New York BTOP awards, see Broadband USA, Grants Awarded: New York,
http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/new‐york (hereinafter “BTOP New York Overview”). For an overview of the New
YorkBIPawards,seeUSDABroadbandInitiativesProgramGrantsAwarded,at62‐64,RUS(2010),availableat
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/supportdocuments/Round1and2%20Awardees.pdf (hereinafter “BIP Grants
Awarded”).
181BIPGrantsAwarded.
182SeeBroadbandUSA,GrantsAwarded,Infrastructure‐IONHoldCo.,LLCtransferredtoIONNewCoCorp,
http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/grantees/IONNewCoCorp.
183 See Further Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Oversight of Broadband Stimulus Programs, at 28, GAO‐10‐
823(Aug.2010),availableathttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10823.pdf.
184Id.at29.
185SeeJeffreyA.EisenachandKevinW.Caves,EvaluatingtheCost‐EffectivenessofRUSBroadbandSubsidies:
Three
Case
Studies,
at
6,
Navigant
Economics
(April
2011),
available
at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1809002.
186Id.
187 See Memorandum to Members of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology from Staff
Regarding Hearing on “Broadband Loans and Grants,” at 2‐3, May 14, 2012, Committee on Energy and
Commerce,
U.S.
House
of
Representatives,
available
at
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Telecom/20120516/HMTG‐112‐
HHRG‐IF16‐20120516‐SD001.pdf.
188DigitalDifferencesat8.
189Id.at4.
190Id.at8.
191Id.at4.
192See,e.g.,NationalBroadbandPlanatCh.10‐15.
193DigitalDifferencesat4.SeealsoBroadbandAdoptionandUseinAmericaat3‐7;NationalBroadbandPlanat
167‐170;ExploringtheDigitalNationatvi.
194ExploringtheDigitalNationatvi.
195NewYorkStateBroadbandAdoptionat11.NTIAestimatedthattheNewYorkadoptionratewas69percent
in2011.ExploringtheDigitalNationat19.
196ExploringtheDigitalNationatv.
197NewYorkStateBroadbandAdoptionat11‐13.
198CompareId.at13withExploringtheDigitalNationat31‐32.
Page44
199NewYorkStateBroadbandAdoptionat11.
200Id.
201NationalBroadbandPlanat168.
202See,e.g.,ExploringtheDigitalNationatvi,35(“Householdsreportingaffordabilityasthemajorbarrierto
subscribing to broadband service cited both the fixed cost of purchasing a computer and the recurring
monthly subscription costs as important factors.” Id. at vi). See also National Broadband Plan at 36‐39
(analyzingpricingtrendsinthewirelinebroadbandsector);ShaneGreensteinandRyanC.McDevitt,Evidence
ofaModestPriceDeclineinUSBroadbandServices,NBERWorkingPaperNo.16166(July2010)(observing
modestpricedeclinesintheU.S.broadbandmarketbetween2004and2009).
203See,e.g.,BroadbandAdoption:WhyitMatters&HowitWorksat19‐20.
204NewYorkStateBroadbandAdoptionat24.
205ExploringtheDigitalNationat35
206NewYorkStateBroadbandAdoptionat18.
207See,e.g.,BroadbandAdoption:WhyitMatters&HowitWorksat50‐53(describinghowthisapproachhas
workedintheseniorcommunityinNewYorkCity).
208NationalBroadbandPlanat170.
209SeegenerallyBarrierstoBroadbandAdoption.
210 Some of the communities and sectors discussed, supra, in section 2 are omitted from Table 2 because,
relativetootherusergroups,theydonotfacemultiplebarrierstobroadbandadoption.Forexample,rural
residents have been omitted because the primary barrier to adoption is a lack of access to a connection,
whichwasdiscussed,supra,insection3.1.Similarly,high‐techandsmallbusinesshavebeenomittedbecause
thereisevidencethatbroadbandadoptionratesinthesesectorsarealreadyabove‐average,andgrowing.
211Thesebarriersarederivedfromanarrayofsources,including:BarrierstoBroadbandAdoption;National
MinorityBroadbandAdoption;BroadbandAdoptioninLowIncomeCommunities;BroadbandAdoptionandUse
in America; Broadband & Seniors; Broadband & Disabilities; Broadband & Telemedicine; Broadband &
Education; Smart Grid Imperative; National BroadbandPlan; New York State Broadband Adoption; Exploring
theDigitalNation.
212See,e.g.,BarrierstoBroadbandAdoptionat42.
213Broadband&Telemedicine.
214NationalBroadbandPlanat174.
215NationalBroadbandPlanat168;DigitalDifferencesat2.
216NewYorkStateBroadbandAdoptionat18.
217NationalBroadbandPlanat174.
218See,e.g.,NewYorkStateBroadbandAdoptionat16.
219See,e.g.,GeorgeS.FordandSherryG.Ford,InternetUseandDepressionAmongtheElderly,PhoenixCenter
PolicyPaperNo.38(Oct.2009),availableathttp://www.phoenix‐center.org/pcpp/PCPP38Final.pdf;PaulJ.
Gardneretal.,GettingTurnedOn:UsingICTTrainingtoPromoteActiveAgeinginNewYorkCity,TheJournalof
CommunityInformatics,8(1),2012.
220 For more information, see New York City Dept. of Education, Connected Learning: About,
http://schools.nyc.gov/community/innovation/ConnectedLearning/AboutTheProgram/default.htm.
Page45
221
See
Time
Warner
Cable,
http://www.timewarnercable.com/nynj/about/community/learninglab.html.
Learning
Lab,
222 Conversely, programs like Connected Learning have yielded impressive results because they target the
unique needs of a specific community of non‐adopters. See, e.g., Toward an Inclusive Measure of Broadband
Adoption.
223See,e.g.,FredBeckerandValeriePatterson,Public‐PrivatePartnerships:BalancingFinancialReturns,Risks,
and Roles of the Partners, Public Performance & Management Review, 29 (2) (Dec., 2005), pp. 125‐144
(hereinafter“Public‐PrivatePartnerships:BalancingFinancialReturns,Risks,andRolesofthePartners”).
224 See For the Good of the People: Using Public‐Private Partnerships to Meet America’s Essential Needs, at 4,
National
Council
for
Public‐Private
Partnerships
(2002),
available
at
http://www.ncppp.org/presskit/ncpppwhitepaper.pdf.
225 See, e.g., Mark Perlman and Julia Pulidindi, Public‐Private Partnerships for Transportation Projects,
Municipal
Action
Guide,
National
League
of
Cities
(May
2012),
available
at
http://www.nlc.org/File%20Library/Find%20City%20Solutions/Research%20Innovation/Infrastructure/p
ublic‐private‐partnerships‐for‐transportation‐projects‐mag‐may12.pdf
(hereinafter
“Public‐Private
PartnershipsforTransportationProjects”).
226
See Emilia Istrate and Robert Puentes, Moving Forward on Public Private Partnerships: U.S. and
International Experience with PPP Units, at 1, Brookings‐Rockefeller Project on State and Metropolitan
Innovation
(Dec.
2011),
available
at
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/12/08%20transportation%20istrate%2
0puentes/1208_transportation_istrate_puentes.pdf (hereinafter “Moving Forward on Public Private
Partnerships”).
227 See, e.g., Public‐Private Partnerships: Balancing Financial Returns, Risks, and Roles of the Partners at 126
(identifying two basic parameters that should be included in any PPP: “First, a strong, positive association
shouldexistbetweenrisksandrewardsfortheprivatepartner:Higherriskassumedbytheprivatepartner
deserves the promise of higher rewards, and vice versa. Second, a strong, positive association is necessary
between risk and the degree of involvement of the private partner in development, operations, and
ownership.Ahigherdegreeofmanagerialinvolvementbytheprivatepartneriswarrantedinexchangefor
assuminghigherriskintheactivity,andviceversa.”).
228Public‐PrivatePartnershipsforTransportationProjectsat2(providingexamplesofthreetypesofbasicPPP
contractsusedinthetransportationcontext).
229 See, e.g., Marc Scribner, The Limitations of Public‐Private Partnerships, at 23, Competitive Enterprise
Institute
(Jan.
2011),
available
at
http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Marc%20Scribner%20‐
%20The%20Limitations%20of%20Public‐Private%20Partnerships.pdf.
230
Extreme examples are rent‐seeking, graft, corruption, and “collusion between political actors and
politicallypreferredfirmsandindustries.”Id.at3.
231 See, e.g., Critical Choices: The Debate over Public‐Private Partnerships and What it Means for America’s
Future, at 9, National Council for Public‐Private Partnerships (2003), available
http://www.ncppp.org/presskit/2003whitepaper.pdf(listingandrebuttingseveralcritiquesofPPPs).
at
232Examplesaboundandincludeseveralprogramsthathavebeenspearheadedatthefederallevel.Manyof
these have been launched in an attempt to enhance technological innovation and use in sectors like
healthcareandeducation.See,e.g.,BernieMonegain,Public‐PrivatePartnersLaunchEHRDemo,Nov.7,2011,
Healthcare IT News, available at http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/public‐private‐partners‐launch‐
ehr‐demo. These programs pair significant federal funding with comprehensive criteria to guide private
partnerstowardcertaindesiredoutcomes.Inthenearterm,privatepartnersbenefitfromthefunding,while
over the longer term, the hope is that private partners will be able to reap cost savings and other benefits
derivedfromthenewtechniqueortooldevelopedwithfederalsupport(e.g.,EHRsinthehealthcarespace).
Page46
Morerecently,thePPPmodelhasbeenthesourceofmuchexperimentationinanumberofothercontexts,
includingstructuringandexecutingpublicprize‐basedcompetitions.SeeRaymondTong&KarimR.Lakhani,
Public‐Private Partnerships for Organizing and Executing Prize‐Based Competitions, The Berkman Center for
Internet & Society at Harvard University, Research Publication No. 2012‐13 (June 2012), available at
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2012/public_private_partnerships_for_organizing_and_executing
_prize‐based_competitions.
233 See The Broadband Availability Gap, at 19, OBI Technical Paper No. 1, FCC (April 2010), available at
http://download.broadband.gov/plan/the‐broadband‐availability‐gap‐obi‐technical‐paper‐no‐1.pdf.
234Id.at9.
235 See, e.g., Connect America Order at para. 33 (describing “wastefularbitrage” opportunities created byan
outdatedintercarriercompensationframework).
236Seegenerallyid.
237Thisuncertaintystemsmostlyfrompendinglitigation.See,e.g.,Pa.Pub.Util.Comm’n.v.FCC,Petitionfor
Review,No.11‐4324(3rdCir.)(filedDec.5,2011)(askingtheCourtofAppealsforthe3rdCircuittoreviewthe
FCC’sConnectAmericaOrder).
238 A critical element of any evaluation of these projects should be whether they resulted in new network
deploymentstotrulyunservedareas.
239 See, e.g., Audit Report: Rural Utilities Service Broadband Loan and Loan Guarantee Program, Report No.
09601‐4‐Te, Office of Inspector General, Southwest Region, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (Sept. 2005); Audit
Report:RuralUtilitiesServiceBroadbandLoanandLoanGuaranteeProgram,ReportNo.09601‐8‐Te,Officeof
InspectorGeneral,SouthwestRegion,U.S.Dept.ofAgriculture(March2009).
240 See Lennard G. Kruger, Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service, at 14,
Congressional
Research
Service
(July
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL33816.pdf.
2012),
available
at
241Id.at22‐26.
242 For an overview of these motivations, see Michael J. Santorelli, Rationalizing the Municipal Broadband
Debate,3ISJLP43,65‐73(2007).
243See,e.g.,id.at74‐76(providingavalueanalysisofvariouskindsofbroadbandservice).
244
See Dan P. Lee, Power: Whiffing on Wi‐Fi, Sept. 24, 2008, Philadelphia Magazine, available at
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/power_whiffing_on_wi_fi.
245Id.(notingthattheWi‐Fitechnology“couldn’tpenetratethickwalls,orheights,orotherobstructions.”).
246Id.
247Id.
248SeeMarkWilliams,GoldenGateLark,TechnologyReview(Sept.2006).
249SeeJudyKeen,CitiesTurningOffPlansforWi‐Fi,Sept.20,2007,USAToday.
250See,e.g.,PubliclyOwnedBroadbandNetworks,at1,InstituteforLocalSelf‐Reliance(March2011),available
athttp://www.newrules.org/sites/newrules.org/files/cmty‐bb‐map.pdf(notingthat“54cities,bigandsmall,
owncitywidefibernetworkswhileanother79owncitywidecablenetworks.”).
251Id.
252 See Christopher Mitchell, Learning From Burlington Telecom, at 2, Institute for Local Self‐Reliance (Aug.
2011), available
learned.pdf.
at
http://www.muninetworks.org/sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/bt‐lessons‐
Page47
253Id.
254Id.
255Id.
256Id.at4.
257 See, e.g., John Briggs, Debt Takes Toll; Burlington Telecom Treads Water, May 13, 2012, Burlington Free
Press, available at http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120514/NEWS02/120513019/Debt‐
takes‐toll‐Burlington‐Telecom‐treads‐water.
258See,e.g.,ConorDougherty,State,LocalFiscalBurdensDragonEconomicRecovery,June25,2012,WallSt.
Journal(discussingrecenttrendstowardbudgetausterityatthelocalandstategovernmentlevel).
259See,e.g.,BrierDudley,SeattlePullsPlugonitsBroadbandNetwork,May6,2012,SeattleTimes,availableat
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2018149915_brier07.html.
260 See, e.g., Ellis Smith, Strong Fiber‐Optic Signups Will Speed EPB Debt Payback, Feb. 18, 2012, Times Free
Press, available at http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/feb/18/c1‐strong‐fiber‐optic‐signups‐will‐speed‐
epb‐debt/(notingthat,despitegenerallypositivecashflowsandagrowinguserbase,thefiber‐networkwill
notbeabletopayoffthebalanceofits$50+millionindebtuntilatleast2020);NicholasPersac,LUSFiber
Cash Positive, But Still Deep in Debt, June 1, 2012, The Advertiser, available at
http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120601/NEWS01/206010334/LUS‐Fiber‐cash‐positive‐still‐deep‐
debt (noting that, despite a positive cash flow, the municipal fiber system, “Between 2012 and 2032…will
havetorepayatleast$107.2millioninprincipalbondpaymentsandanother$66.5millionininterest,fora
totalofnearly$173.7million.Thosepaymentsrangefromatotalofabout$2.7millionin2012tonearly$8.6
million in 2016 and as much as a total of $42.9 million during the five years from 2017 and 2021.”). For
additionaldiscussionof the financial risks associatedwith these types ofdeployments,see Andrew Moylan
andBrentMead,MunicipalBroadband:WiredtoWaste,NationalTaxpayersUnion,PolicyPaper#129(April
2012),availableathttp://www.ntu.org/news‐and‐issues/ntu‐pp‐128‐municipal‐broadband‐wired‐to‐waste‐
1.pdf(arguingthatthecostsofmunicipalbroadbandnetworks,especiallythosethatrelyonpublicfunding,
oftentimes outweigh any benefits). Cf. Christopher Mitchell, Broadband at the Speed of Light, Institute for
Local Self‐Reliance (April 2012), available at http://www.ilsr.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/04/muni‐bb‐
speed‐light.pdf(toutingthebenefitsofseveralmunicipalfiberbroadbandnetworks).
261GovernorCuomoHosts.
262SeeConnectMEAuthority,About,http://www.maine.gov/connectme/about/index.shtml.
263
See
ConnectME
Authority
Final
Adopted
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/90/99/639/639c101.doc.
Rule,
Section
6(B),
264Id.atSection6(C).
265 See Developing Broadband in Maine: Strategic Plan, at 1, ConnectME Authority (April 2012), available at
http://www.maine.gov/connectme/arragrants/docs/ConnectMEStrategicPlanFinalDraft.pdf
“DevelopingBroadbandinMaine”).
(hereinafter
266Id.
267DevelopingBroadbandinMaine.
268NationalBroadbandPlanat171.
269See,e.g.,RationalizingtheMunicipalBroadbandDebateat79‐80(discussingseveralsuchattemptsinthe
contextofassessingwhetheragivenmunicipalityshoulddeployabroadbandnetwork);BroadbandAdoption:
Why it Matters & How it Works at 53‐55 (articulating recommendations for better understanding local
adoptiondynamics).
Page48
270
See generally Livable New York, New York State
http://www.aging.ny.gov/LivableNY/ResourceManual/Index.cfm.
(Dec.
2011),
available
at
271
See Social Infrastructure, at I.4 Livable New York Resource Manual (Dec. 2011), available at
http://www.aging.ny.gov/LivableNY/ResourceManual/DemographicAndSocialTrends/I4.pdf.
272See,e.g.,NationalBroadbandPlanat171;TowardanInclusiveMeasureofBroadbandAdoption.
273See,e.g.,Broadband&Seniorsat11(profilinganonprofitbasedinNewYorkCitythatprovidesmanyof
theseservicestoseniors).
274
See MOUSE, About, http://www.mouse.org/about‐mouse. For additional discussion, see Broadband &
Educationat49.
275SeeOneEconomy,About,http://www.one‐economy.com/about/.
276SeePerScholas,About,http://www.perscholas.org/perscholas/.
277
See, e.g., Kevin Fitchard, FCC Working with Startups, Researchers to Accelerate mHealth, June 6, 2012,
GigaOm, available at http://gigaom.com/broadband/fcc‐working‐with‐startups‐researchers‐to‐accelerate‐
mhealth/(coveringarecentmHealthsummitconvenedbytheFCCtospurinnovationinthesector).
278
See,
e.g.,
Digital
Textbook
Playbook,
FCC
(Feb.
2012),
available
at
http://transition.fcc.gov/files/Digital_Textbook_Playbook.pdf(providing“aguidetohelpK‐12educatorsand
administratorsadvancetheconversationtowardbuildingarichdigitallearningexperience.”Id.at3).
279 See Press Release, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski Announce Public‐Private Initiative toHelpDrive FCC
Broadband
Agenda,
March
7,
2012,
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC‐312843A1.pdf.
FCC,
available
at
280TheFCChasproposedaDigitalLiteracyCorpsthatwouldplacevolunteersinschoolsandlibrariestoteach
digital literacy skills. Initially included as a recommendation in the National Broadband Plan and later as a
formalproposalbytheFCCChairman,theCorpsstillremainsanidea.However,itappearsthattheCorpsmay
bedeployedaspartoftheFCC’sConnecttoCompeteinitiative.SeeChairmanJuliusGenachowski,Remarkson
Broadband
Adoption,
at
4,
Oct.
12,
2011,
FCC,
available
at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC‐310350A1.pdf (proposing the creation of the
Corps); National Broadband Plan at 174‐178 (recommending creation of the Corps); FCC & “Connect to
Compete” Tackle Barriers to Broadband Adoption – Fact Sheet, Nov. 9, 2011, FCC, available at
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0510/DOC‐310924A1.pdf (discussing the
CorpsinthecontextofConnecttoCompete)(hereinafter“ConnecttoCompeteFactSheet”).
281 The two major multistate initiatives are Connectto Compete, which is being driven by cable companies
across the country, and Internet Essentials, which has been deployed by Comcast. See Connect to Compete
FactSheet;InternetEssentials,About,http://www.internetessentials.com/about/default.aspx.
282See,e.g.,OlderAdultsTechnologyServices,About,http://www.oats.org/about.
283 See Conquering the Digital Divide: Closing the Broadband Opportunity Gap, at 17, Comcast (Jan. 2012),
availableathttp://blog.comcast.com/assets/InternetEssentialsfromComcast.pdf.
284See,e.g.,BroadbandAdoption:WhyitMatters&HowitWorksat50‐53(profilingtheprogram).
Page49