California’s Middle Mile Network Must Close the Digital Gap, Not Strengthen It

When California SB 156 passed unanimously in 2021, we have embarked on a multi-year, multi-billion dollar effort to bring affordable 21st century fiber to every Californian. Done right, this nearly $7 billion investment—supplemented by an additional $1.8 billion in federal funding—will help close the digital divide in California. We are on track to squander this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Last month, without public comment or notice, the California Department of Technology changed the map outlining which communities have “middle mile” infrastructure, which we will explain in detail. more below. The department has reduced its planned 10,000 miles of fiber optic cable to 8,300 miles. In many cases, this completely cuts off many of the communities with the greatest need for access. These ill-conceived cuts to critical infrastructure will significantly increase the cost of building high-speed, high-capacity internet in underserved and underserved neighborhoods. It also jeopardizes the money these communities need to build these networks. These changes go against the purpose of SB 156 and any attempt to bridge the digital divide.

The importance of the Middle Mile

What is the middle mile? To understand, it is helpful to think of broadband infrastructure like a public road system. Local roads connect residential areas with main streets and highways. These major streets and highways, built with greater speed and capacity, connect people, goods, and services together over long distances.

In broadband, those major streets and highways are considered the “middle mile”. Local roads that connect individual homes and businesses are the “last mile.”

Being far from your local main road or highway is an inconvenience for travel and commuting. However, in general, it is expected that some local residential road will connect you to a larger road to get you where you need to go. But for broadband, the lack of connectivity in the nearby middle often means there is no suitable last mile to connect the community to the broader internet infrastructure. It’s the equivalent of having no road, or a road so old and poorly maintained, it may no longer be a road.

As we noted beforeproprietary national internet service providers (ISPs) have Time proven And one more time that they are unwilling to build into low-income communities. Their investment strategy, which prioritizes quick returns in 3-5 years over long-term investments, argues that these sectors are too expensive. So while these ISPs build their own middle- and last-mile fiber infrastructure to serve higher-income communities, at least one ISP will would rather declare bankruptcy rather than deploying fibers in poor rural communities. The same is true for the accessibility of low-income people in urban communities.

Seeing this, The legislature passed SB 156 to build the mid-mile network in consultation with the community. Then, with close access to the middle mile network, the communities themselves can develop and build the last mile to suit their locality.

New Middle Mile map maintains digital divide

The California Department of Technology’s new average mile map goes directly against those goals. It bypasses much of the path that was previously promised to build through low-income communities. Now, communities that don’t already have the mainstream internet needed to build the final roads are once again off the digital map.

The department has said it has cut the middle mile network because Inflation has increased construction costs. This may very well be true. However, it does not explain where their decision-making was regarding the cuts.

(Graphic screenshot from California Community Foundation, taken from the California Department of Technology’s Statewide Middle Mile Network Map)

Consider the above comparison of the Department of Technology’s middle mile network map in Los Angeles before and after the change. Initially, the middle mile network will be built for historically low-income communities and low-income communities of color in South LA and Southeast LA. In the new map, those sections were cut to make room for a new section running through Beverly Hills.

This type of decision-making is replicated statewide in urban and rural communities alike. For those working in the communities with the highest needs, these maps look less like painful cuts made out of economic necessity and more like modern reproduction.

Supporters of the new map note that many communities in need remain within 5 miles of the middle mile and therefore can still build and serve their communities. But when the biggest cost of connecting people is infrastructure, every mile counts. The country’s major ISPs have built much of the infrastructure to wealthier communities but not for low-income communities. Without a push from the state, it is difficult for anyone to spend money to serve these communities.

These maps are a waste of public time and government money

There’s another reason the map changes are pointless: the state has sent money to communities that aren’t currently on the map.SB 156 earmarks $50 million for Local Agency Technical Assistance (LATA) Grant for local entities to conduct research and planning on where to build their last mile based on the Department of Technology’s middle mile map. Those funds were disbursed more than a year ago and local units, based on the ministry’s previous map also released more than a year ago, have spent the last year building their plans accordingly. .

With their understanding of the middle mile map—and thus their plans—drawn from underneath, many communities were also no longer able to submit applications. 2 billion USD fund to build their own last-mile infrastructure. However, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) continues to accept applications for that funding and adhere to their self-imposed deadline of September 2023 despite the fact that many community plans do not still feasible. Combined with the CPUC’s current unwillingness to change the deadline, these communities will not even have time to amend any part of their plans that remains viable. If these entities cannot register, funds that should go to communities with the greatest need will not reach them, leaving them behind.

The department’s abrupt new map derailed many plans created by organizations representing low-income communities of color who have suffered the most from redlining. Most obviously, this is a waste of government money. It is also a waste of the time and energy of a community that was built on the words and original maps of the government that it is now withdrawing from.

Intergenerational consequences of bad maps

The map is not accurate Have been hindered for a long time deploy equitable broadband. But with the funding on the horizon, the California Department of Technology’s middle mile map could threaten to turn its inaccuracy into intergenerational discrimination.

And these maps don’t just affect this funding source. These communities will be left even more behind when California receives the promised $1.8 billion from the federal government. Broadband Equity Access and Development (BEAD) Program expense. This funding will be determined in part by the location of the middle mile. If communities with the highest needs are left too far behind, they will be less likely to receive additional funding. And even if they get the money, those dollars won’t go as far as they would like.

We have the funding to essentially eliminate the digital divide in California. With the right planning and coordination, we can do it. The California Department of Technology’s sudden release of new average mile maps not only goes against the provisions of SB 156 and the Biden Administration’s BEAD program, but also risks wasting billions of dollars and a unique opportunity. once in a lifetime to shut down the digital system. divide. It is unclear when communities will have the opportunity to receive this level of funding from California and the federal government in the future. Not spending money now to close the gap will only fuel inequality for decades to come.

We call on the California Department of Technology to work with those on the ground to create equitable maps that close rather than widen the digital divide.