Rural Broadband Access
Rural Broadband Access

Rural Broadband Access
Rural communities in Virginia’s 9th District face a persistent digital divide...
...hindering economic development, educational opportunities, and full access the opportunities of the 21st Century. The 1996 Telecommunications Act aimed to expand broadband access through fiber optic infrastructure, but ultimately fell short due to corporations preferring mergers and acquisitions to competition. Universal Broadband Access(UBA) aims to rectify past failures and deliver reliable, affordable broadband to every household and business.
The Universal Broadband Access (UBA) Act
Ensure every household and business in the 9th District has access to high-speed (minimum 250 Mbps download/200 Mbps upload) broadband internet service by 2032.
Prioritize local control and foster partnerships between government, private sector, and community organizations.
Invest in infrastructure capable of supporting future technological advancements.
Guarantee affordable broadband options for low-income households through subsidies and competitive pricing models.
Grant Program: Establish a competitive grant program prioritizing projects utilizing a mix of technologies (fiber, fixed wireless, satellite) based on terrain and cost-effectiveness.
"Dig Once" Mandate: Require all new road construction and utility projects to include conduit for future broadband deployment, minimizing disruption and costs.
Fiber-First Approach: Prioritize fiber optic deployment where feasible, recognizing its long-term benefits and future-proofing capabilities.
Affordability Program: Expand existing affordability programs to ensure low-income households can access broadband services.
Digital Literacy Training: Provide digital literacy training programs to equip residents with the skills to utilize broadband effectively.
Independent Broadband Authority: Create an independent broadband authority to oversee implementation, monitor performance, and ensure accountability.
Regular Reporting: Require regular reporting on progress, challenges, and outcomes to the public and Congress.
Strong Enforcement: Getting funding will require signing performance contracts and meeting timelines
Key Difference from 1996: This policy emphasizes realistic timelines, local control, performance-based contracts, and ongoing accountability with other enforcement mechanisms to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
Addressing Past Failures:
Realistic Timelines: Implement phased deployment plans with clear milestones and accountability measures, avoiding the overly ambitious timelines of the 1996 rollout.
Local Expertise: Require grant applicants to demonstrate local knowledge and engagement with community stakeholders.
Public Option: Allow for communities to create their own local telecommunications providers, subject to the same rules as the corporations.
Performance-Based Contracts: Structure contracts with providers based on performance metrics (speed, reliability, affordability) rather than solely on construction milestones