Lack of rural broadband access hurts American students

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic changed the way that much of the world goes to work and school, rural Americans were less likely to have access to broadband internet service. According to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Eighth Broadband Progress Report, nearly a quarter of Americans who live in rural areas–about 14.5 million people–lack access. In tribal areas, nearly one-third of the population lacks access.

The benefits of broadband access are well-established. In a webinar for the Council on Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, Federal Reserve Bank economist Alex Marre pointed out that broadband access is linked to higher wages, lower unemployment, more population growth, and higher home values. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts Broadband Initiative, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced disparities in access to the forefront and highlighted the need for universal broadband access.

But the cost associated with extending rural broadband to every American is high–about $80 billion, according to Farm and Dairy.

Lack of broadband access in rural areas particularly hurts America’s children. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts Broadband Initiative, an estimated 15 to 16 million elementary and secondary students do not have adequate internet access or digital devices at home to support online learning. At present, 12 states are seeking to alleviate this burden on families by using Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) dollars to help students purchase internet-enabled devices, wireless hotspots, or both.

According to a Common Sense Media report, issued during the summer of 2020, about 50 million children have engaged in remote learning as a result of the pandemic. Even in states with the smallest disparities, about one in four students lacked adequate internet access. In states with the largest divides, half of the students lacked access.

The incoming Biden administration will spend nearly $5 billion in annual rural telecommunications subsidies, according to Bloomberg Law. Critics of the fund say that it is needlessly complex and distributes necessary funds unevenly between and within states.