Broadband access to rural areas still lacking despite President's initiatives

Jessica Zufolo was appointed the director of the Rural Utility Service (RUS) by President Obama in 2009. In her capacity as the director of the RUS, Ms. Zufolo is charged with, among other things, bringing broadband Internet access to rural and under-served areas of the United States.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2011, Ms. Zufolo was the first speaker at the Internet Innovation Alliance's broadband symposium. Her speech centered on the importance of extending broadband Internet service to those who live in areas of the country that are not densely populated.

Most people who live in large metropolitan areas, and the suburbs that surround these areas, are accustomed to having Internet speeds at or above 25 gigabytes per second (Gbps). Yet, wide stretches of the country that are not afflicted with high population density struggle with DSL speeds that are frequently below 2 megabytes per second (Mbps).

Among the points touched on in Ms. Zufolo's speech were:

• Fixed and mobile broadband is essential to economic growth everywhere.
• Farmers - one group adversely affected by the lack of high-speed broadband - can frequently find more affordable prices online.
• Low interest loans are essential to spur rural broadband construction. 38% of farms use DSL, up from just 23% in 2009.

The above claims are true, if not ambitious. Yet, it was this claim that caught my attention. According to Ms. Zufolo, investments made in the Recovery Act (stimulus bill) will bring high speed broadband to 7 million residents, and 365,000 businesses. It will also create 30,000 jobs.

I recall President Obama making broadband accessibility to under-served areas a priority when the stimulus package was passed in 2009.

Yet just last year, Maryland's political elite stood in front of a tech center in East Baltimore to tout the awarding a $115 million stimulus grant to build out broadband capacity for schools, libraries, and emergency agencies in Central Maryland, an area that comprises more than 90% of the state's population. None of the money was to be spent on Maryland's Eastern Shore, or its Western Counties, both rural and under-served areas.

About a month later, during a conversation with an Eastern Shore utility official, I learned that Congress was to blame for what I consider a misappropriation of funds. Maryland had actually submitted a request for funds that would be used to build out rural areas. That bid was rejected at the Federal level.

The second proposal, the one mentioned above, was approved. One needs to remember that this was before the mid-term elections that gave Republicans a majority in Congress. The President's own party held the majority back in 2009, and 2010.

It is interesting to note that Ms. Zufolo stated only one in ten broadband projects for rural areas had been funded. The RUS would obviously like more funding to continue work on its stated mission, even though we know that $115 million in stimulus money targeted for rural areas was diverted in Maryland.

We do not know how many other rural projects Congress rejected during the President's big push to build out under-served areas. What we do know is how this one incident shows that Congress has a bad habit of diverting the money it is given for projects that do not meet the intended criteria. This in turn leaves agency heads with no choice but to campaign for new funds, thus driving up federal spending.

This is the real crux of the spending problem in Washington. The arguments we hear from the two political parties is just window dressing designed to win voters. Meanwhile, worthwhile projects that need monetary support fall by the wayside. But that is just politics as usual.