Category Archives: Research

Tribal Internet Networks Census Update tracks networks in MN and beyond

Posted on by
Reply

The Institute for Local Self Reliance (Community Networks) has launched their new Tribal Internet Networks Census Update. Here’s what they report on a high level…

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s research suggests that there are nearly 90 active Tribal Internet networks es appear to be prospective – they are considering or pursuing opportunities to get into Internet access.

Here’s what that looks like in Minnesota:

Black (Active Networks):

Yellow (Expected Network: Building and/or Funded):

  • Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe 
    Expected: Building and/or Funded network

Green (Prospective Network)

  • Lower Sioux Indian Community 
    Prospective network

There’s a lot to take in from the report from an historical and current perspective. If you haven’t read much or spoken to people about Broadband Sovereignty that is a piece that is interesting especially in context of issues emerging today with technologies such as AI.

National Skills Coalition asks small manufacturers about their use of AI and technology

Posted on by
Reply

National Skills Coalition reports…

Over the past year, National Skills Coalition has spoken with nearly 100 small and mid-sized businesses on topics related to skills and credentials. (Some of our findings are detailed in Big Insights from Small and Mid-Sized Businesses.)

Many of those businesses are manufacturing companies that are on the frontlines of digital adoption. They shared examples of how they are adopting new technologies ranging from robotics to precision machining to AI and more. These businesses offer an important ground-level perspective on a broader national challenge: how to ensure workers and local businesses have the skills, support, and flexibility needed to adapt to technological change and share in its gains.

Insights from these businesses can help policymakers and advocates design flexible policies that equip workers and their employers to respond to the ongoing technological shifts in the US economy. Below, we describe key insights and policy implications associated with them.

I’m abbreviating the list to include only the insights, not the ways in which policy can help…

Leading businesses know how digital skill-building relates to capital expenditures

General digital resilience is just as important as particular skills

Interpersonal skills can amplify (or undercut) digital skills

Hands-on, experiential learning matters for digital skills too

AI can help to expand existing internal talent development resources

Jobseekers and educators can do more to communicate the relevance of tech credentials

How does you MN County rank for broadband adoption?

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier today I wrote about BroadbandClusters.org, it tracks broadband adoption by state, zip and county. Actually, it tracks a number of socioeconomic factors as well, which is helpful but looking at their drivers for broadband adoption, I found that there were two factors that were more technology based:

  • No access to a device
  • Percentage of large screen device

So, I have tracked three things from the research – to make for easy ranking and to help counties figure out what they might be able to change:

  • Weighted broadband Adoption
  • Weighted Large Screen Availability
  • Weighted without Computer/Device

Below the ranking is based on broadband adoption, but I’ve kept the other factors as well. (You can access the spreadsheet.) It’s worth nothing that this is different than broadband access, which I track at the end of the year. These numbers look at how many subscribe to the service.

county rank of broadband adoption Weighted BB Adoption weighted Large Screen Availability Weighted without compute Device
Dakota 1 83.6 92.8 2.6
Washington 2 83.2 93.3 2.3
Anoka 3 83.1 90.8 3.03
Cook 4 83.1 91 1.8
Hennepin 5 82.1 91.4 3.1
Scott 6 81.3 93.2 2.5
Carver 7 81 93.9 2.2
Sherburne 8 79.9 92.4 2.4
Olmsted 9 79.6 91.6 3.4
Winona 10 79 87.6 4.5
Ramsey 11 78.5 88.5 3.7
Big Stone 12 78.3 85.3 6.5
Rock 13 78.1 87.4 4
Beltrami 14 78 85 5.7
Grant 15 77.3 83.9 6.5
Benton 16 77 88.5 4.1
Itasca 17 77 83.5 5.7
Jackson 18 77 81.7 7.4
McLeod 19 77 84.8 6.8
Murray 20 77 88.5 4.1
Nobles 21 77 81.1 6.4
Pennington 22 77 81.8 6
Renville 23 77 80.4 8.7
Stevens 24 75.6 87.5 3
Houston 25 74.5 83.3 6.8
Clay 26 74.2 86.4 4.3
Kittson 27 74.2 82.4 7.9
Crow Wing 28 74.1 87.1 3.6
Norman 29 73.7 81.1 7.5
Lyon 30 73.6 86.5 5.2
Chisago 31 73.5 87.3 4.5
Rice 32 73.5 86.6 4.8
Blue Earth 33 73.4 89.9 3.3
Polk 34 73.4 82.8 5.6
Isanti 35 73.2 85.8 4.5
Lincoln 36 73.2 84 6.3
Red Lake 37 73.2 81.4 9.1
Wright 38 72.9 89.4 3.7
Clearwater 39 72.6 79.4 11.1
Faribault 40 72.5 81.8 7.4
Hubbard 41 72.4 84.3 6.1
Nicollet 42 72.2 86.7 7.1
Stearns 43 72.1 84.7 4.8
Brown 44 71.6 83.6 7.9
Dodge 45 71.5 87.2 5.1
Koochiching 46 71.5 80.8 6.6
Douglas 47 71.4 84.7 4.9
Roseau 48 71.2 79.3 5.8
Pope 49 70.6 85.9 5.7
Steele 50 70.4 84.6 6.7
Goodhue 51 69.6 86.2 5.6
Lac qui Parle 52 69.6 81.3 10
Otter Tail 53 69.5 83.8 6.5
Marshall 54 69.3 79.9 7.8
Cottonwood 55 69.2 81.1 7.2
Fillmore 56 69.2 82.9 9.4
St. Louis 57 69.1 83.7 5.8
Chippewa 58 68.9 79.6 6.6
Lake 59 68.7 84 8.6
Swift 60 68.7 82.2 8.2
Cass 61 68.1 83.4 5.8
Lake of the Woods 62 68 80.1 9.7
Waseca 63 67.3 86.1 6.9
Wilkin 64 67.3 81.5 8.9
Mower 65 67.1 82.6 5.5
Pipestone 66 67.1 83.1 5.8
Yellow Medicine 67 66.9 82.8 7.1
Becker 68 66.8 82 5.3
Wadena 69 66.6 75.7 7.4
Freeborn 70 66.5 81.4 8.1
Mille Lacs 71 66.4 81.8 5.8
Wabasha 72 66.2 82.7 7.4
Kandiyohi 73 65.9 83.7 4.5
Le Sueur 74 65.6 84 5.5
Meeker 75 65.6 82.7 6.7
Morrison 76 64.7 80.9 8.6
Redwood 77 64 82.8 6.8
Traverse 78 63.6 74.3 12.2
Martin 79 62.9 81.3 7.1
Sibley 80 61.4 80.3 6.6
Mahnomen 81 61.1 75.9 8.7
Watonwan 82 60.7 76.2 8.6
Aitkin 83 59.9 80.5 6.4
Carlton 84 58.6 80.9 5.4
Todd 85 53.6 73.7 10.1
Pine 86 52.8 78.8 8.1
Kanabec 87 52.3 78 9.3

 

Broadband Clusters looks at broadband adoption by state, zip and county

Posted on by
Reply

I learned about BroadbandClusters.org from the NDIA listerv. I’m going to follow up (very soon) with a look at the data by county – because I know we all want to know how we are doing locally. But for now, just the overview. Here’s the explanation shared there…

BroadbandClusters, a tool now covering 500+ metros and all 50 states that helps identify which ZIP codes have device and internet adoption gaps.

I wanted to share a few recent updates that I think will be useful to this community:

State-level explorer

I’ve heard from many in the NDIA community asking for better visibility into how rural communities and villages are affected by adoption gaps. The new State Explorer addresses this directly. You can now filter ZIP codes by concentration of seniors, Indigenous residents, veterans, children, race, and more. Set your threshold and only those communities surface, making it easy to compare how they perform against the statewide average.

Here’s the map and information for Minnesota…

I like the last graph and how is shows the correlation between various factors and broadband adoption. Many of the factors are beyond the scope of technology but the top and bottom aren’t. That seems like an area where folks could concentrate if they want to improve broadband adoption.

Continue reading →

New report on impact of broadband access on modern life

Posted on by
Reply

Public Knowledge has released a new study on the impact of digital inclusion and modern life…

This paper by Public Knowledge Broadband Policy Director Alisa Valentin, Ph.D., and UnidosUS Senior Civil Rights Policy Advisor Claudia Ruiz, reveals that affordable, reliable high-speed internet is a foundational prerequisite for participation in modern-day life. Unfortunately, millions remain on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Here are the key findings…

  • Consumers possess a sophisticated understanding of solutions needed to bridge the digital divide, but they face systemic barriers due to policies that prioritize concentrated wealth over community needs. False narratives and associated policies rooted in scarcity have diverted resources away from those who need them most.
  • The digital divide compounds every other challenge struggling households already face. Communities do not face barriers to broadband access and adoption in isolation. Instead, these obstacles intersect with challenges with housing stability, healthcare, employment, and education, which makes it imperative that these issues are addressed in concert with the closing of the digital divide.
  • Past policy approaches to closing the digital divide have failed to center community wisdom. Effective solutions meet people where they are so they are empowered to strengthen grassroots solutions, such as by embedding digital resources in frequently visited places or integrating digital navigation programs in existing areas of community support to meet their needs.
  • The Universal Service Fund must be urgently reformed to provide a robust broadband affordability benefit of approximately $40 (or more if someone is in a high-cost area or living on Tribal lands) that reflects the market costs and the reality of competing costs of household expenses.
  • Network resiliency must be strengthened by shifting high-cost program support toward operational expenses and network hardening.
  • Broadband adoption must be prioritized through sustained federal investment in digital skills, device access, and culturally responsive training and digital navigation programs.

2026 Industry Broadband Pricing Index finds faster speeds and lower prices

Posted on by
Reply

US Telecom is an association for broadband providers. They do an annual look at Broadband Pricing Index. Here are the highlights from the 2026 Index…

A bright spot in household budgets. In 2025, internet service continued to stand apart from other household costs, with prices declining for a service that runs faster than ever.
Prices decline while speeds accelerate. USTelecom’s annual Broadband Pricing Index (BPI)1 finds that year over year, real prices for the most popular internet services (100–940 Mbps) fell 6.0%, while gigabit plans declined 4.9%.2 Over the longer term, prices for the internet services most households buy today have fallen 43.6% since
2014,3 even as other mainstay consumer goods and services have risen 36%. Average download speeds, meanwhile, have surged 21.9% year over year and 145% since 2014.
The deepest savings are reaching the most price-sensitive households. For the first time, this year’s report breaks out pricing across three speed bands within the 100–940 Mbps range. Prices fell in every tier, with entry-level plans (100–249 Mbps) posting the steepest one-year decline—down 17.2% in real terms—while mid range plans (250–499 Mbps) fell 8.3% and higher-speed plans (500 940 Mbps) declined 12.6% when adjusted for inflation.
The trend of consumers choosing faster plans at lower cost likely masks steeper price declines. This report’s findings are conservative given that many households are taking advantage of declining prices to upgrade to faster internet plans. According to the latest FCC data, gigabit subscriptions have grown nearly fivefold since 2020.4 The BPI’s methodology does not account for consumers choosing to upgrade to faster service. As a result, the true pricing gains to consumers are likely greater than this index alone captures..
Competition and private investment are powering these gains. Fierce competition among diverse internet service providers—backed by tens of billions of dollars in private capital flowing into broadband networks each year—sustains the favorable consumer trend of declining prices and accelerating speeds.
Consumers confirm the value proposition. In a recent national poll, just 2% of likely voters selected home internet service among their top two household cost concerns. In fact, internet price concerns ranked
the lowest of any category surveyed, behind groceries (39%), health insurance (31%), housing (30%), and gas prices (25%).6 Declining prices and rising performance are showing up not just in the data, but in how Americans experience their internet service.
A healthy internet market in practice. Heated competition, strong private investment and declining prices boost household purchasing power, spur broader adoption of high-speed internet, and support a strong digital foundation for what comes next

Fiber Broadband says Precision Agriculture needs fiber

Posted on by
Reply

Fiber Broadband Association releases a report that outlines the benefits of fiber for precision agriculture…

Precision Ag depends on data and broadband networks. Farming is transforming into a highly connected, data-driven industry and this shift fundamentally changes the broadband requirements of rural America.

Current 100/20 Mbps thresholds do not reflect these realities and risk prematurely classifying agricultural communities as “served,” but a symmetrical baseline of at least 100/100 Mbps better reflects the operational demands of Precision Ag today and the technologies emerging over the next decade. Among broadband technologies, fiber remains uniquely positioned to meet these requirements due to its symmetric capacity, extremely low latency, and virtually unlimited scalability.

To ensure U.S. agriculture remains competitive and resilient, broadband policy must evolve past minimum speed thresholds and “good enough” infrastructure to reflect the realities of data-driven farming. Investing in scalable fiber infrastructure ensures that rural America and the nation’s food supply remain competitive in a rapidly evolving agricultural economy.

It makes sense that the Fiber Broadband Association would feel that way. They also list some increased needs they predict will happen as a result of AI…

Practically, technology advancements and AI integration push networks toward the following requirements:
• More upstream throughput (moving raw/processed data to models)
• Lower-latency access (interactive recommendations and control)
• More reliability (automation cannot “pause” for a flaky link or bad weather)
• Edge computing architectures (local processing plus cloud synchronization)
• Scalability (more devices and higher data rates over time)
• Security (critical operational data, ransomware risks, supply chain access)

REPORT: U.S. State of State of EdTech 2026 – cybersecurity, AI, procurement and teaching & learning

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. State of State of EdTech 2026 “provides insights into the state of K-12 education through the lens of education technology leaders—professionals who play a critical role ensuring technology is safe, reliable, and effective in supporting student learning, teaching, and district operations.” I have taught every age, from preschool to graduate school so I am always interested in what’s going on with education. When it comes to the world of education and technology it feels like so much has changes in the last 20 years and that the pace of change keep quickening. Here are the key findings from the report…

Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity continues to rank as the No. 1 priority for education technology leaders, reflecting the essential role secure digital systems play in modern education. Most districts are actively investing in monitoring, detection, identity protection, and firewall technologies to safeguard networks, data, and learning continuity.

However, nearly two-thirds (65%) identify insufficient cybersecurity staffing and the lack of a dedicated budget as the top barriers to addressing cybersecurity challenges—highlighting the potential for a gap between responsibility and readiness. With increasing cyber insurance costs putting additional strain on budgets and new forms of AI-enabled cyberattacks increasing risks, districts must navigate how to best align funding decisions to keep up with ongoing pressures in the cybersecurity landscape.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Districts are making significant progress in establishing guidance for the responsible use of AI. More than three-quarters of districts (79%) report having AI guidelines in place, compared to 57% in 2025, reflecting growing clarity around AI’s role in education. The majority of education technology leaders welcome guidance and recommendations from state education agencies (SEAs) on these AI policies. Nevertheless, the vast majority report they do not want their SEA to issue AI mandates, underscoring the value of local decision making.

In just one year, education technology leaders have become strikingly more optimistic about AI’s potential, nearly doubling their confidence in areas like productivity and personalized learning and showing especially sharp gains in student tutoring and workforce readiness. Productivity gains are seen as the area of greatest impact: a vast percentage (96%) of education technology leaders view AI as having the potential to positively affect education. More than half of districts have AI initiatives that focus on productivity, such as productivity suites for administrators and teachers as well as training in the use of those tools. Fewer districts (41%) have initiatives for instructional platforms to support teaching and learning. More districts (64%) are using AI in operations—a notable jump from the prior year’s 37%.

Procurement

Responses to procurement questions indicate that many districts have established baseline purchasing practices, particularly around product safety. A majority of districts (56%) require vendors to provide information on the safety of their products. Fewer require information on the other key education technology quality indicators—such as evidence based design, inclusivity, usability, and interoperability—pointing to an opportunity to further strengthen and standardize procurement practices.

Regulations for accessibility impact all local education systems, though only 11% of districts regard accessibility as a key priority. As the framework of the Five EdTech Quality Indicators becomes more widely known, and expectations for meeting accessibility requirements are more broadly understood, districts are well-positioned to refine adoption criteria in ways that support high-quality education technology implementation.

Teaching and Learning

Districts continue to demonstrate strong foundational capacity to support education technology. The majority of districts (66%) report adequate staffing for core technical functions such as network administration, application installation, and maintenance as access to digital learning has expanded, with 1:1 implementation at an all-time high.

At the same time, most districts (58%) report they are understaffed when it comes to supporting the technology used for teaching and learning. Strengthening instructional support presents a clear opportunity to maximize the value of education technology investments and reinforce confidence among educators and communities.

Community interest and engagement around instructional technology is high. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of districts report that their communities express moderate to high levels of concern about the technology used for teaching and learning. This finding underscores the importance of clear communication, thoughtful implementation, and ongoing professional support to ensure technology continues to advance teaching and learning goals.

Minnesota is Tops for Hospital telehealth adoption by state

Posted on by
Reply

Becker Health IT reports…

Here is the percentage of hospitals that offer telehealth in each state, according to an April analysis by Definitive Healthcare using its proprietary hospital data:

1. Minnesota: 80.8%
2. Michigan: 80.3%
3. Wisconsin: 80.2%
4. South Dakota: 79.2%
5. North Carolina: 78.7%
6. Iowa: 78%
7. Vermont: 76.5%
8. Pennsylvania: 76.4%
9. Oregon: 76.1%
10. Indiana: 73.5%
11. New York: 73.1%
12. Illinois: 72.8%
13. Ohio: 71.9%
14. District of Columbia: 71.4%
15. West Virginia: 71.1%
16. Virginia: 69.7%
17. New Jersey: 69%
18. Massachusetts: 68.7%
19. Missouri: 68.7%
20. Maryland: 67.6%
21. Connecticut: 67.3%
22. Delaware: 66.7%
23. Utah: 64.3%
24. Montana: 64.2%
25. Kentucky: 63.8%
26. Nebraska: 62.7%
27. Washington: 57.5%
28. Arizona: 57.4%
29. North Dakota: 57.1%
30. South Carolina: 55.8%
31. Rhode Island: 55.6%
32. California: 55.1%
33. Oklahoma: 55%
34. Maine: 55%
35. Tennessee: 52%
36. Alaska: 51.7%
37. New Hampshire: 51.4%
38. Texas: 51.4%
39. Idaho: 50%
40. Colorado: 48.8%
41. Mississippi: 48%
42. Florida: 47.8%
43. Georgia: 47.7%
44. Wyoming: 47.2%
45. Arkansas: 47.1%
46. Alabama: 46.5%
47. Nevada: 45.1%
48. Louisiana: 43%
49. New Mexico: 42.6%
50. Kansas: 40%
51. Hawaii: 32.3%

 

Ookla ranks MN’s access to fixed broadband (100/20) at 31

Posted on by
Reply

Ookla reports…

Ookla Speedtest Intelligence® data found that the number of states that are able to deliver fixed broadband services (fiber, cable and DSL) to the minimum standard of broadband speeds (100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload) to 60% or more of Speedtest users in their state increased from 38 states and the District of Columbia in the first half of 2025 to 45 states and the District of Columbia in the second half of 2025. Plus, 13 states are now delivering the minimum  of 100/20 Mbps fixed broadband speeds to 70% or more of Speedtest users.

Speedtest data also indicates that satellite broadband speeds improved during the second half of the year, as well. In the second half of 2025, Starlink’s ability to deliver the FCC’s minimum standard for broadband speeds of 100/20 Mbps across the U.S. improved dramatically with 50% or more of Speedtest users in five states—Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, and Nevada—experiencing speeds of 100/20 Mbps while using Starlink’s low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite service. This was an increase from 1H 2025 when South Dakota with 37.13% was the state with the highest percentage of Starlink users that could get LEO broadband speeds of 100/20 Mbps.

Here’s what they found for Minnesota:

  • Percentage of urban and rural user with access to fixed broadband at 100 Mbps down and 20 up (100/20)
  • Urban: 74.3 percent
  • Rural: 56.4 percent
  • Ranking for overall access: 31
  • Ranking for Starlink users who can access 100/20: 13 at 45.97 percent

How is social media use linked to views of democracy?

Posted on by
Reply

A recent Gallup report looks at the connection between social media and views of democracy…

Heavy users of social media are more likely than others to believe that leaders are listening to them and to view democratic participation as effective, according to a study conducted by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation and Gallup. However, they are also less likely to think democracy is the best form of government and more likely to express views that depart from widely held democratic norms about violence and political compromise.

These results are from a nationally representative study of more than 20,000 U.S. adults, conducted July 7-Aug. 25, 2025, that finds complex relationships between social media usage and views of U.S. democracy, even when controlling for age, income and other factors related to social media use.

They made a few observations:

  • Heavy Social Media Users More Likely to Feel Valued and Represented
  • Social Media Use Tied to Belief in Effectiveness of Participation
  • Social Media Users More Critical of Democracy as a Form of Government
  • Heavy Social Media Users Stray From Democratic Norms

They conclude…

These results suggest that social media may reinforce public beliefs that citizens’ voices matter and their actions can shape the nation’s direction. Heavier users, in particular, express stronger feelings of being represented in government decision-making and more confidence in the effectiveness of core civic actions, from peaceful protests to political campaigning.

Yet this greater sense of empowerment exists alongside signs that heavy social media use is associated with lessened support for foundational democratic principles and even the belief that democracy is the best form of government. Taken together, these findings suggest that social media use may play an increasingly complex role in the health of U.S. democracy.

Fiber cables help understand modern farming in a surprising way

Posted on by
Reply

For folks who like a deep dive, Grist outlines an unexpected benefit of fiber to the farm…

Fiber optic cables, of all things, have now exposed just how badly tilling messes with a farm’s ability to retain moisture. Using a technology known as distributed acoustic sensing, or DAS, scientists analyzed how seismic waves disturbed the cable as they rippled through harrowed fields compared to adjacent undisturbed plots. This created subtly distinct signals, showing that plowing obliterates the “capillaries” that carry water like tiny interconnected reservoirs.

The findings point to a serious problem with modern agriculture, to be sure, but also to solutions. “Regenerative farming practices based on principles of no-till — combined with cover crops and a diversity of crops — can basically lead to less agrochemical reliance, better soil organic matter contents, comparable yields, [and] lower diesel use,” said David Montgomery, a geomorphologist at the University of Washington and coauthor of a new paper describing the research.

REPORT:BRIDGING THE BROADBAND HEALTHGAP: How High Speed Internet Access is a ‘Super’ Social Determinant of Health

Posted on by
Reply

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society and Center for Health Law  and Policy Innovation have released a report that looks at the impact (and potential) of broadband on health care. They report…

This brief explores the ways broadband and healthcare stakeholders can work together to close the broadband health gap.

The make the case for connection between broadband and health…

The outline numerous ways broadband facilitates healthcare and the benefits. Here’s one example:

Remote Patient Monitoring
Digital devices are increasingly used to monitor patient health,12 including blood pressure cuffs, glucometers (to test blood sugar), pulse oximeters (to check blood oxygen levels), ECGs (to capture heart function), wearable activity trackers, Bluetooth thermometers, and scales.13
Remote patient monitoring can improve diabetes care, hypertension, cancer treatment, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.14 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advocates for remote patient monitoring for pregnant and postpartum women due to similar outcomes but fewer higher risk in-person visits.15
In some instances, a remote patient monitoring device is equipped with its own independent network, allowing patients without general internet access to send data from their homes to their care team in real time.16 However, this practice is rare.

There’s a nice chart on how Broadband Impacts All Other Social Determinants of Health…

The offer some high level actions and include a more detailed plan. I’ve included just the high level points – but the detailed plan is worth checking out.

Key Action 1: Screening for Broadband Access and Digital Literacy

Key Action 2: Collaboration with Community Anchor Institutions

Key Action 3: Establish a Broadband-Healthcare Working Group

And a conclusion – but the power in this report is really in the visually presented details…

High-speed internet enables a wide range of healthcare services, from telehealth to hospital at-home programs. By influencing other key social determinants of health—including housing, transportation, education, employment, and access to food—broadband serves as a ‘super’ social determinant of health. Efforts that improve access while prioritizing patients, empowering communities, strengthening the role of anchor institutions, and enabling stakeholder collaboration are winning solutions that build a stronger foundation to close the broadband health gap.

New Report: Broadband Access in Indian Country – recommendations for improvement

Posted on by
Reply

The Urban Institute has released a new report, Broadband Access in Indian Country. They set the stage…

According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as of 2024, 93 percent of all US residents had access to internet services with “advanced telecommunications capability”—that is, 100 megabits per second of download speed and 20 megabits per second of upload speed (represented as 100/20 Mbps)—compared with only 76 percent of people living on tribal lands (FCC 2024). And 76 percent may be an overestimate—FCC data have been criticized for overstating broadband access on tribal lands (GAO 2018).

And provide recommendations…

In this report, we provide an overview of the major federal programs aimed at supporting broadband infrastructure and share findings and best practices from 15 interviews conducted with individuals working to expand access to high-speed internet in Native communities. Interviewees represented tribal broadband providers, tribal governments, state governments, technical assistance providers, nonprofit and philanthropic organizations, and other advocates supporting tribal broadband access and sovereignty, defined as the right of tribes to govern their communities without interference (Klingbeil et al. 2023). Informed by these interviews and a review of federal funding opportunities, we find the following:

◼ Federal investments have significantly expanded internet access in many Native communities, but others are still left out.

◼ Some tribal governments that received these initial broadband infrastructure investments may face challenges maintaining and operating service into the future because of limited administrative, financial, or technical capacity.

◼ To overcome unfavorable relationships with private internet providers and to sustain adequate internet service in the long run, many tribal governments, tribal broadband providers, and other stakeholders are prioritizing tribal ownership of broadband infrastructure.

Based on these conversations, we identify best practices for tribal governments and tribal broadband providers seeking to access federal broadband funding, build necessary infrastructure, and maintain reliable broadband access. These include the following:

◼ When applying for federal grant opportunities, plan early, leverage technical assistance and partnerships, and prepare applications that can be adapted for other programs.

◼ Develop business, operations, and maintenance plans early in the application process to ensure the proposed broadband project will be financially, technically, and statutorily viable for the community.

◼ Invest in workforce development and build external partnerships to boost local technical capacity without compromising sovereignty.

These conversations also elevated recommendations for other stakeholders seeking to expand and maintain broadband infrastructure in Native communities:

◼ Federal agencies could refine funding opportunities to be more responsive to community needs by providing technical assistance throughout the grant application process, prioritizing tribal ownership of broadband infrastructure, and waiving matching requirements. To make investments more effective in the long run, agencies could provide technical assistance or additional financial support for infrastructure maintenance (not only for construction).

◼ State and local governments could offer more direct technical assistance and provide alternative funding sources to tribal governments and tribal broadband providers.

◼ Philanthropic organizations can increase their support by focusing investments on Capacity building, training, and technical assistance, while organizations with the financial capacity can contribute directly to infrastructure deployment and operations

New: Diversity in Early-Career Tech Policy Roles: Surveying Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities in the Field

Posted on by
Reply

Public Knowledge has new research on Diversity in Early-Career Tech Policy Roles: Surveying Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities in the Field. Here’s the executive summary…

In 2021, Public Knowledge published the first iteration of this study, led by Tsion Tesfaye, which identified structural barriers to diversity in early-career technology policy roles: reliance on narrow networks, exclusionary job descriptions, inequities in compensation, and the absence of robust demographic data collection. These findings informed Public Knowledge’s own Equity Council, partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and adjustments to hiring practices.

In 2025, amid heightened political scrutiny and dismantling of Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, this updated study expands the scope and methodology. We surveyed 13 technology policy organizations and convened 17 early-career technology policy professionals. Key insights include:

Recruitment remains narrow. Job opportunities remain largely circulated within organizational websites and established networks, with limited outreach to Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), affinity groups, or community-based organizations, which continues to restrict access for underrepresented candidates.

On-ramps are improving but remain inequitable. Paid internships are now the dominant early-career on-ramp, but few organizations offer externships or other pathways, and financial barriers still shape who can participate.

Bias-reduction is partial. Structured interviews are widely used to reduce bias, yet practices such as blind resume reviews, scoring rubrics, and diverse interview panels are inconsistently adopted across organizations.

Policies outpace practice. Most organizations report having formal inclusivity policies, but the effectiveness of these policies in improving diverse hiring is mixed, and demographic data collection remains uneven.

Retention depends on clarity. Mentorship and sponsorship programs are the most common strategies for retention, though early-career professionals emphasized the need for clear promotion pathways, stronger onboarding processes, and opportunities to build policy-writing skills.

Leadership representation lags. Diversity in leadership and decision making spaces remains limited, with many early-career professionals reporting that their lived experiences are only sometimes recognized or valued.

The external climate is chilling. Organizations report mixed effects from the external political climate, with most seeing little impact but some noting that federal and state-level legal and regulatory backlash of DEI has created hesitancy around data collection and public commitments