Bill Overview
Title: Encouraging Private Investment for Better Broadband Act
Description: This bill increases the required megabit capacity of broadband projects for purposes of private activity bond financing. It also requires the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Communications Commission to jointly report to Congress on private activity bond financing of broadband projects, taking into consideration certain input provided by appointed stakeholders and representatives of internet service providers.
Sponsors: Rep. Budd, Ted [R-NC-13]
Target Audience
Population: People globally living in areas currently underserved by broadband infrastructure
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The legislation aims to encourage private investment in broadband infrastructure through private activity bonds, potentially affecting all residents in areas with improved broadband access.
- Broadband access is a significant factor in digital inclusion, affecting educational and work opportunities, healthcare access, and more, hence impacting a wide range of the population.
- Increased broadband capacity will primarily impact rural or underserved urban areas where internet access is currently insufficient, thus potentially reducing the digital divide.
- Globally, regions with limited technology infrastructure could potentially benefit if similar policies are adopted or spurred by this example, particularly in developing countries with focus on internet improvements.
Reasoning
- The target population primarily includes individuals living in rural areas and underserved urban areas lacking sufficient broadband access. These locations are likely to benefit directly from infrastructure improvements, leading to a better quality of service.
- The policy is expected to bridge the digital divide by improving educational opportunities, access to telemedicine, and remote work capabilities, impacting economic growth and wellness.
- Not everyone will be affected; urban areas with already sufficient infrastructure may not see direct impacts, but some individuals might view the societal benefits positively, hence experiencing indirect effects.
- Various stakeholders, including private investors and rural communities, would experience different levels of impact from the proposed private activity bonds financing mechanism.
- The simulated interviews include a mix of people from different geographical areas and socio-economic backgrounds to reflect the policy's diverse impacts.
Simulated Interviews
High School Teacher (Rural Nevada)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The current internet speed makes virtual teaching challenging.
- Improved broadband would benefit students' learning experiences.
- Hopes the policy implementation will bridge educational gaps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Software Developer (Urban Southern California)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My internet is already fast enough for work.
- I support improved broadband for social equality.
- The policy won't directly impact my day-to-day life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired (Rural Mississippi)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I can't stream videos or call my grandchildren without interruption.
- Better internet would definitely enhance my daily activities.
- I hope this policy passes and brings better service to my town.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Health Care Worker (Remote Alaska)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need reliable internet to conduct telehealth sessions.
- Faster broadband could save lives by connecting us more effectively.
- This policy could vastly improve our healthcare capabilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Marketing Executive (Urban New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our internet isn't an issue here, but I understand the need elsewhere.
- Supporting nationwide improvement is beneficial over time.
- I think this policy is good for balancing opportunities across the country.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Freelancer - Video Editor (Rural Ohio)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Upgrading to better broadband would be a game changer for my work.
- Delays affect my earnings and client satisfaction.
- This policy could seriously improve my livelihood.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
University Student (Urban Texas)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My campus has decent internet, but many rural students face challenges.
- Equitable internet access would benefit educational fairness.
- If this policy helps others, it's necessary and worthwhile.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A reliable connection could significantly improve farm productivity.
- Access to real-time data is crucial for modern farming techniques.
- I'm hopeful about this policy improving our internet situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Suburban Illinois)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While current speeds meet my needs, growth might require better infrastructure.
- I support this policy as it supports future scalability.
- The policy is forward-thinking for technological advancement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Teacher (Rural Alabama)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved broadband infrastructure would be great for my students.
- Virtual classes can't reach their full potential without reliable internet.
- I'm looking forward to the changes this policy promises.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 3: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 5: $240000000 (Low: $190000000, High: $290000000)
Year 10: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 100: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Key Considerations
- The rate of private investment uptake is critical to the success of the policy.
- Technology costs can vary greatly, influencing total project costs and bond financing needs.
- Local regulatory environments and incentives could affect project implementation speed.