�鶹������ý

The digital divide refers to the gap between Americans who have access to high-speed broadband—and the opportunity that comes with that connectivity—and those who do not. The digital divide is one of several metrics used by researchers and advocates to track the opportunity and privilege gap. Those with high-speed broadband access have an easier connection to education, employment, financial, information, government, healthcare, entertainment, and communication services that all primarily live online. Those without access are forced to navigate additional barriers to these services, or may be unable to access them entirely.

Research shows that , , and are overwhelmingly on the wrong side of the digital divide. In particular, the digital divide disproportionately harms communities of color, even when taking cost into account. As found in what’s arguably the most in-depth research on the racial digital divide to date, “There is still a racial/ethnic digital divide even among persons in the lowest-income quintile. Among those with annual family incomes below $20,000, 58 percent of Whites have home-internet access versus just 51 percent of Hispanics and 50 percent of Black people in the same income bracket.”

The digital divide is particularly noticeable when it comes to education. This “” refers to the divide between children with and without a high-speed broadband connection at school and/or at home. Essentially, some students are able to complete their homework, research their projects, and dive into personal interests using home or school internet, while students without access either can’t engage in those activities altogether, or are forced to seek out public internet to finish homework—sometimes in the . This homework gap affects students of color and students from low-income households at .

One program designed to address the digital divide and homework gap is the Lifeline program. Lifeline started under President Reagan, was updated under President George W. Bush, and was further updated under President Obama. Today, the program subsidizes phone and internet service for low-income Americans to help defray the high costs of high-speed internet. The program has recently come under attack through severe proposed cuts, and OTI has fought those attacks.

OTI’s Work

• OTI Event Detailing Importance of the Lifeline Program and the Harms This FCC Has Imposed
• OTI’s Comments urging FCC to reject proposed gutting of the Lifeline program
• OTI’s Reply Comments urging FCC to reject proposed gutting of the Lifeline program

Several studies have shown that the is the biggest for Americans. Despite the fact that a reliable, high-speed broadband connection is vital for accessing services related to work, education, healthcare, information, news, entertainment, finances, and communication, many Americans simply cannot afford to pay for a high-speed internet connection. OTI has conducted several studies in the past that showed that the majority of U.S. cities surveyed paid more money for slower internet access than cities abroad.

However, the FCC does not collect any data about how much ISPs charge their customers for a high-speed connection and whether consumers actually receive those advertised speeds. While some pricing information is public, ISPs often keep that information secret, despite the fact that they are the only source with comprehensive pricing information.

The absence of reliable broadband pricing data leaves the public in the dark as to how broadband pricing trends have evolved over time and geography, which is a vital piece to the puzzle in bridging the digital divide.

OTI’s Work

• The Cost of Connectivity 2013
• The Cost of Connectivity 2014

Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) should not unreasonably interfere with online traffic. is, and has long been, essential for the integrity of the internet. For instance, a neutral internet is necessary to ensure the success and viability of small businesses and to ensure they can reach their customers. A neutral internet is also key to ensuring that marginalized communities can reach audiences that more traditional forms of media —which makes net neutrality a civil rights issue. However, ISPs have the ability and incentive to undermine a neutral internet for their own gain, either by imposing tolls on downstream services to extract more money from them, or by favoring their own affiliated content at the expense of competitors.

To prevent ISPs from engaging in practices contrary to net neutrality, consumers need strong rules from the FCC that prohibit ISPs from blocking and throttling lawful content on websites, from engaging in “paid prioritization” schemes that result in slow and fast lanes for internet traffic, and from implementing other practices like interconnection abuse and anticompetitive zero rating programs.

In 2015, the FCC passed strong net neutrality rules focused on consumer protection. Those rules enjoyed broad bipartisan support. In a major win for the FCC and for consumers, the D.C. Circuit upheld that Order twice on appeal.

But in 2017, new FCC Chairman (and former Verizon attorney) Ajit Pai repealed the 2015 rules. Under the new rules, which rely exclusively on an ISP being “transparent” about its network management practices, users have to depend merely on ISPs’ promises that they will not violate net neutrality. Disclosure requirements are hardly sufficient when the broadband market is plagued with a lack of competition. What is a customer supposed to do if there is no alternative to switch to? And even if disclosure requirements were somehow sufficient to protect consumers, we’ve already seen ISPs .

Efforts to fight the net neutrality repeal have been widespread: the repeal has been challenged by a bipartisan effort in Congress (one that resulted in the eventual House passage of a bill in 2019), by public interest organizations and the tech industry in courts, and by states (in the and and ).

It is vital these rules are restored as soon as possible.

OTI’s Work

• OTI Comments urging FCC to keep Net Neutrality rules
• OTI Reply Comments urging FCC to keep Net Neutrality rules
• Small Businesses Rely on Open Internet Protections
• OTI Moves Forward with Net Neutrality Lawsuit
• The American People Broadly Support Net Neutrality
• Beyond Frustrated: The Sweeping Consumer Harms as a Result of ISP Disputes

*Updated 2:45pm on August 28, 2019. The title of this section has been changed from “key principles” to “related principles” to reflect the breadth of the principles.