Tag Archives: Pew

The Future of State Broadband Offices

Kathryn de Wit and Jake Varn of Pew recently wrote an article that cautioned that States Must Consider Future of Broadband Offices. They note that some states have a sunset date embedded in the enabling legislation that will mean the end of State Broadband Offices if state legislatures don’t act.

I’ve also been thinking about this lately. States have been busy in recent years overseeing broadband grants that were funded by the Capital Project Fund. Many legislatures augmented those grants with funding from ARPA for additional grant funding. Both of those programs are finished this year, other than a few waivers to extend funding until July of next year. Before these two programs, the States oversaw the use of CARES Act funding, which was used for a wide variety of purposes. A handful of legislatures also funded broadband grants out of the state coffers.

Most States are busy right now trying to get BEAD grants in place with ISPs, although a few States have only minuscule outlays for BEAD. For unknown reasons, NTIA has still not agreed to the grants for Illinois and California. BEAD grant construction is supposed to conclude in four years, and States are on the hook to verify that construction meets the BEAD specifications.

There were two other sources of federal funding that were supposed to feed through the States. The biggest source is the BEAD non-deployment funds, which is whatever is left over from the $42.5 billion grant program after funding infrastructure. This was originally a relatively small amount, and in 2024, thirteen States told NTIA that they would probably have excess funding left over after infrastructure grants. However, when NTIA implemented the Benefit of the Bargain rules, it slashed infrastructure grants, and non-deployment has ballooned to over $21 billion. There is still no assurance that this money will ever be given to States to spend. NTIA has repeatedly pushed off the date when it will disclose the use of these funds. The U.S. Treasury continues to refer to these funds as net savings, implying they won’t be spent.

The other funding that is still up in the air is the $2.75 billion in grants that were funded by the Digital Equity Act. A lot of this funding was to be administered by the States to provide computers and training to take advantage of the new infrastructure being built through federal grants. The administration abruptly canceled this grant program, supposedly because it included the word equity in the title. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) sued the administration over the end of the grant. It’s possible that this funding still has legs. The DOJ told a court last week that the government might remove its objections to the grant program if all references to race were removed. But there is probably still a long road to seeing this funding since the administration’s proposed budget for next year eliminates these funds.

I have to wonder what happens to State Broadband Offices if non-deployment or Digital Equity Grants are never funded. They will be left overseeing the invoices for BEAD. States are on the hook to measure speeds on grant programs for another decade – but will that be enough to convince legislatures to keep funding broadband offices?

Some States will fund new grant programs to bring infrastructure to the places missed by BEAD. Wisconsin has already announced a new state grant program, and there will probably be another half dozen states that issue grants to continue to close the broadband gap. But a lot of States now believe they are mostly covered with decent broadband, and there won’t be any incentive for those States to continue to pay for a broadband office.

Pew suggests activities that broadband offices should pursue after BEAD. This includes setting broadband goals, collecting and mapping broadband data, and providing technical assistance to communities and stakeholders. I would extend that list to suggest that States focus on digital inclusion and affordability efforts to make sure that everybody can actually use the broadband networks that have been built.

But I have to wonder how much traction these goals will generate in States that are looking at meager and tight overall budgets in the foreseeable future. Is broadband going to remain enough of a priority at State legislatures to attract funding when so many other important functions are losing federal funding? Will States that think broadband has been solved care about maintaining a broadband grant office? We have to remember that, before the CARES Act many States did not have a formal broadband office. I suspect that when the sunset date hits for broadband offices, that some States will let the function lapse in favor of other priorities. I can’t see the States caring very much about NTIA requirements to measure broadband speeds for BEAD networks once those networks are funded and operational.

Is There an AI Divide?

I recently attended and spoke at an AI conference. One of the things that became clear to me is that we are probably headed for a new digital divide related to AI. What do I mean by that?

In that short period of time, AI has touched a large majority of computer users. A survey from Pew in September 2025 showed that 95% of adults had heard of AI. At the time of the survey, 47% of people had heard a lot about AI, up from 26% measured in a 2022 survey. That’s bound to be a higher number in the summer of 2026. As you might expect, people with a high awareness of AI tend to be younger and better educated. For example, 62% of adults under 30 had heard a lot about AI, compared to 32% of those 65 and older. 60% of adults with post-graduate degrees had heard a lot about AI, versus 38% of those with a high school diploma or less.

Only about 3% of U.S. households pay for a consumer AI subscription. There is a lot of expectation that AI companies will be forced to greatly increase the costs of monthly access, which will undoubtedly lower the percentage of folks who are comfortable working directly with AI. Most people who use AI today interface through some tool like virtual assistants, GPS navigation apps, streaming algorithms, or weather forecasts. According to a survey from Quinnipiac University from March 2026, 51% of respondents say they use an AI tool, up from 37% a year earlier.

Another Pew poll showed that 46% of Americans hold a negative view of AI, while only 26% view it favorably. 57% believe the risks outweigh the benefits, and 41% actively distrust AI systems.

All of these statistics point to a possible AI-divide, separating those who believe in and use AI, from those who don’t trust AI and refuse to use it. This divide already exists, and the future question that will  have to be answered is if those who distrust AI will eventually be won over. It’s easy to forget that AI has only been available to the public since the end of 2022, which, for a new technology, is still in the infancy stages.

There will be consequences if there is a permanent gap between those who use AI and those who don’t or won’t. If AI brings measurable advantages to those who use it, then, over time, non-users will be at a disadvantage in many ways. There is also the possibility that those who distrust AI will be able to thwart its expansion. There are already numerous communities creating barriers to new data centers.

It’s easy to conclude that using AI is a choice, and that anybody who doesn’t use AI has to live with that decision. But consider a few statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). It reports that 21% of adults are functionally illiterate, meaning they cannot complete basic reading tasks, such as filling out job applications, reading medicine instructions, or helping with children’s homework. 54% of adults have reading skills below a sixth-grade reading level. Less than half of adults demonstrate strong reading comprehension skills.

These statistics are relevant when talking about using and benefitting from AI, which is ultimately a language model. Literacy is far less of an issue when talking about the use of broadband, because it doesn’t require advanced reading skills to watch videos and engage in other forms of online entertainment and social media.

It’s way too early in the life of AI to draw any conclusions about a possible divide, but it’s not hard to foresee a likely divide between those who benefit from AI and those who can’t or won’t. In a decade, this might become the most important digital dividing line, more so than the digital skills divide we talk about today.