18 pgs, Access to information and resources via the Internet is an increasingly vital dimension of contemporary life. However, there can be several impediments to optimal Internet utilization in the form of access, skills, and motivation. Even when access is available, several digital inequalities arise as citizens often lack the skills and motivations to pursue those vital uses through the Internet to the best of their advantage. Digital inequalities in the hills of the Appalachian area of Ohio are often manifested in terms of social, cultural and geographic divides. Not only do the hills block wireless signals and make cables expensive to install, but regional poverty also drives away telecom investment. We conducted a survey of Appalachian Ohio to explore digital inequity issues and the determinants of online participation for things that matter. Through a number of analyses, we explore how Internet access and digital skills impact online contribution to the community in terms of services and resources considered to be basic social needs: health, employment, education, and social media. These social needs, what we have called Vital Internet Use (VIU) can determine citizens’ political and civic participation, societal contribution, and overall benefit to their communities. Centered on the concepts of digital access, Internet skills, and benefit outcomes, we extend knowledge in this domain and propose a comprehensive framework of VIU.
13pgs, Sufficient access to and utilization of broadband is an ongoing concern for rural economic development. Using a rural region in Northern New York (USA), we consider the investment and operational costs of a broadband cooperative and determine service prices for which it is financially viable. Service prices need to increase 75%–131%, depending on grant restrictions, relative to existing market prices for a new broadband cooperative to become financially feasible. Put differently, the cooperative would not cash flow at market prices unless there was at least 14 potential subscribers per mile at a 62% take rate. For a cooperative, the grant restriction that providers offer a minimum level of speed at a maximum price results in a high level of subsidization by high-speed to low-speed members to support the business. Given grant funding and member equity investments, financial infeasibility has little to do with construction costs, than with annual operational and maintenance costs required to sustain the system long term. More reasonable feasibility scenarios occur for existing utility cooperatives expanding services into broadband, particularly areas with a high proportion of high-speed, year-round users and strong take rates. Consideration of public benefits of broadband arguably needs to be added to the equation, particularly surrounding access to healthcare and educational purposes, and as a prerequisite to supporting taxpayer-funded public-private partnerships to expand broadband services. Policy levers to eliminate or subsidize property taxes and pole rental costs reduce cash flow prices considerably; however, feasibility is highly sensitive to assumed take rates.
Installing fiber-optic internet in sparsely populated places like western Kansas is extremely expensive, even with government subsidies. But some smaller, local broadband providers are finding ways to make it work where the big national companies have not.
Miller, Alfred (author / Louisville Courier-Journal)
Format:
Article
Publication Date:
2019
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 124 Document Number: D11197
Notes:
Online from the ProPublica Local Reporting Network. 16 pages., Report of a troubled and costly effort to provide "high-speed internet to Kentucky''s remote corners."
5pgs, Millions of Maine’s fiber dollars is going to a mix of government entities, regional internet service providers, and large, out-of-state companies. Some worry these national companies have not worked well with communities in the past. Others say the investments should be evaluated on what they deliver, not who gets the money.
