DigitalCommons@NYLS

Advanced Communications Law and Policy

Reports and Resources Institute

2-2022

State Broadband Profile - Ohio (Feb. 2022)

New York Law School

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/reports_resources

Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Internet Law Commons,
and the Technology and Innovation Commons

Recommended Citation
New York Law School, "State Broadband Profile - Ohio (Feb. 2022)" (2022). Reports and Resources. 3.
https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/reports_resources/3

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute
at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports and Resources by an authorized
administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS.
 STATE BROADBAND PROFILE: OHIO
FEBRUARY 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... i
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1
2. LEGISLATIVE & REGULATORY CONTEXT....................................................... 1
2.1 DEREGULATORY FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................2
2.2 RESPONSIVE POLICYMAKING ............................................................................................. 3
2.3 SOLUTION-FOCUSED ACTION .......................................................................................... 4
2.4 TAKEAWAYS .................................................................................................................... 6
3. THE STATE OF BROADBAND IN OHIO........................................................... 6
3.1 SUPPLY-SIDE ISSUES .........................................................................................................7
3.1.1 Broadband Availability & Competition ..............................................................7
3.1.2 Speed .................................................................................................................. 8
3.1.3 Open Issues....................................................................................................... 10
3.2 DEMAND-SIDE ISSUES ...................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Adoption ............................................................................................................ 11
3.2.2 Addressing the Digital Divide .......................................................................... 12
3.3 THE ROLE OF NON-TRADITIONAL PROVIDERS ................................................................. 12
3.3.1 Electric Cooperatives .........................................................................................13
3.3.2 GONs .................................................................................................................13
3.4 TAKEAWAYS ................................................................................................................... 16
4. LOOKING AHEAD .......................................................................................... 16
4.1 A FRAMEWORK FOR PRIORITIZING INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION ... 17
4.2 SERVING THE UNSERVED – STRATEGICALLY TARGETING FUNDING .................................... 17
4.3 SERVING THE UNSERVED – PRIORITIZING PARTNERSHIPS WITH EXPERT ISPS .................... 19
4.4 CLOSING THE ADOPTION GAP .........................................................................................20
4.4.1 Cleveland Case Study........................................................................................ 21
4.4.2 Cincinnati Case Study ...................................................................................... 23
4.4.3 Columbus Case Study ....................................................................................... 24
4.4.4 Dayton Case Study ...........................................................................................26
4.5 MAINTAINING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD ............................................................................28

______________________________________________________________________
ACLP AT NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL
185 W. Broadway, New York, NY 10013  ACLP@nyls.edu
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Broadband connectivity in Ohio is robust. According to the most recent data:

 Approximately 95.9% of households in the state can access a wireline broadband

connection of at least 25/3 Mbps. The state estimates that about 300,000 households
remain unserved by a wireline connection.
 About 99.9% of the state’s population can choose from among three providers of 4G
mobile broadband service, and 82% of Ohioans can access a 5G connection.
 Ohio’s broadband adoption rate is 85%. However, adoption rates tend to correlate
with household income: the higher the income, the higher the adoption rate.

To achieve universal broadband availability and more equitable levels of broadband

adoption in Ohio via the wise expenditure of public funds, an historic amount of which is
set to flow into the state via federal stimulus and infrastructure bills, this Profile
recommends the following actions by the state:

1. Evaluate All Infrastructure Priorities. The state and each locality should allocate
federal funds based on holistic assessments of core infrastructure needs. Even
though the state will receive some $23 billion in federal aid, it is essential that
policymakers identify real needs and invest these once-in-a-lifetime funds wisely.
2. Prioritize Unserved Areas First. To bring broadband to the remaining unserved
households in Ohio, state policymakers must strategically target available funding
to those areas first and foremost. Prioritizing unserved areas will ensure that the
state’s digital divide is closed once and for all.
3. Leverage Private ISPs. The state should forge public-private partnerships (PPPs)
with expert private ISPs as it seeks to close its digital divide. These entities have deep
expertise in building, maintaining, operating, upgrading, and securing networks,
and established track-records of success as partners in similar PPPs.
4. Focus Considerably More on Demand-Side Issues. Arguably the most pressing –
and overlooked – issue in the state is the gap between those who have adopted
broadband and those who have elected not to despite having a connection at the
ready. The state must spend significantly more time, attention, and resources on
closing these gaps, which are evident everywhere in the state but are particularly
stark in cities like Cleveland and Cincinnati. The supply of broadband is not the
issue in these areas; rather, it is a lack of focus on demand-side issues.
5. Maintain a Level Playing Field. With a sizable infusion of federal funding on its
way to the state and with a growing array of ISPs seeking a share of those funds,
Ohio must ensure that these myriad entities compete on similar terms and
conditions. Failure to address the inherent advantages of certain providers could
undermine the incentives of all ISPs to invest and compete for customers.

-i-
1. INTRODUCTION

As in many other states, the broadband story in Ohio is largely a positive one. Broadband
is widely available, with high-speed connectivity delivered via a range of innovative wireline
and wireless platforms. Well-defined pockets of unserved areas still exist, though, and
challenges also persist on the demand-side, resulting in some Ohioans being offline despite
having ready access to a broadband connection. Unlike many states, however, Ohio has
played an active role in encouraging private Internet service providers (ISPs) to invest in
their networks, fostering more innovative and tailored services to customers. The result
has been steady, consumer-friendly gains across every relevant broadband metric,
including availability, competition, speed, and price.

As discussed in this profile, Ohio has followed a template for bolstering broadband
connectivity that has worked well and that should serve as a model for states exploring how
best to do the same. Among other things, Ohio has established and maintained a mostly
market-oriented regulatory approach to broadband; consistently modernized policy
frameworks impacting broadband deployment; enhanced its mapping capabilities;
centralized strategy development in a state broadband office; and, most recently, launched
a grant program to help plug gaps in availability. Equally as important, Ohio has not sought
to tip the scales in favor of a particular broadband technology or a specific class of
providers, nor has it attempted to enter the market itself as a provider of broadband
services. This multifaceted approach reflects a recognition by policymakers in the state that
the most impactful role of government tends to be as a facilitator of broadband deployment
rather than as a competitor or hands-on industry planner.

Continuing to steer broadband policy in this direction – by prioritizing partnerships with

expert private ISPs to bring broadband to unserved areas; developing policies aimed at
maximizing investments; and focusing considerably more resources on improving take-
rates and bolstering digital literacy skills in areas where broadband is already available, a
long overlooked but critical set of issues – is essential as significant federal funding makes
its way into state and local coffers via recent COVID-related stimulus bills. Most states,
including Ohio, are grappling with how to allocate those funds in the most efficient and
impactful way possible. This profile offers guiding principles to inform how Ohio – and
states generally – might respond to this historic influx of funding for broadband.

2. LEGISLATIVE & REGULATORY CONTEXT

Over the last two decades, Ohio has implemented numerous legislative and regulatory
reforms that, taken together, create a strong foundation for continued growth of the state’s
already thriving broadband sector. A notable characteristic of these reforms is their
forward-looking nature. As discussed in this section, policymakers have proactively
updated the state’s laws, rules, and regulations to reflect current market dynamics and
trends in consumer demand across every facet of the communications marketplace. At a
time when some states are exploring how to regulate broadband or otherwise meddle in

-1-
the marketplace, it is appropriate to appreciate how successful Ohio’s approach has been
vis-à-vis fostering organic broadband growth while tactfully leveraging its resources to
address discrete issues that the market, on its own, has not been able to solve.

2.1 Deregulatory Foundations

Since the turn of the twenty-first century, Ohio has been in the vanguard of states
embracing a deregulatory approach to broadband and other advanced communications
services.

For example, Ohio was part of the first wave of states to adopt statewide video franchising
in 2oo7, a move that helped to drive investment and adoption of broadband services. 1 For
many years, the traditional local franchising model required video providers to secure
permission to offer their services from each city they wished to serve. 2 The entities that
advocated for shifting to a statewide model – mostly telephone companies looking to
compete with cable firms for broadband and video customers – noted that this more
streamlined approach would encourage investment in advanced network infrastructure
and bolster competition in the provision of bundled services (e.g., double- and triple-play
offerings that included video, broadband, and/or voice services). 3 The impact of Ohio’s
move to statewide video franchising on broadband investment was evident almost
immediately, helping to fuel more intense intermodal competition and spur greater
adoption of high-speed internet access services. 4

Since then, Ohio has continued to revisit, revise, and, where appropriate, roll back outdated
laws and regulations impacting the deployment of broadband and related advanced
services. In 2010, for example, the state modernized its oversight of basic telephone service,
removing a range of antiquated requirements and otherwise updating its approach to “plain
old telephone service” to better reflect a world where consumers were embracing next-

1
Ohio Senate Bill 117, 127th General Assembly, http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_SB_117.
See also Dana A. Scherer, Potential Effect of FCC Rules on State and Local Video Franchising Authorities, at p.
9, Congressional Research Service (Jan. 9, 2020),
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20200109_R46077_d0276c8cd298d450eabbda9fed9d43e8dccd7143.pd
f (“Potential Effect”).
2
See, e.g., Potential Effect.
3
See, e.g., Robert W. Crandall et al., Does Video Delivered over a Telephone Network Require a Cable
Franchise?, 59 Fed. Comm. L. J. 251 (2007),
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1472&context=fclj.
4
See, e.g., Telecommunications Deregulation: A Policy Progress Report, at p. 4, Digital Policy Institute at Ball
State University (March 2010),
https://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/195726/TelecommDeregulation.pdf?sequence
=1&isAllowed=y.

-2-
generation voice services, namely wireless and VoIP. 5 This legislative action helped redirect
investments from an outdated set of services – landline telephony – to broadband and other
advanced services.

In the same bill that implemented these changes, the state also explicitly deregulated IP-
enabled services like VoIP and broadband and reiterated its hands-off approach to wireless
services, signaling to service providers across the sector that the state would not meddle in
what had become an intensely competitive space. 6 Explicitly establishing such a
deregulatory posture vis-à-vis broadband and related advanced services has been found to
positively impact investment in those services, a dynamic that is evident in the continued
consumer welfare gains evident in Ohio (see section 3, below, for additional discussion). 7

2.2 Responsive Policymaking

Over the last decade, Ohio has continued to adjust its laws and rules to support further
broadband deployment. Many of these actions focused on streamlining access to key inputs
to the construction of broadband networks.

In 2014, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) acted to align its pole attachment
rules with those developed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 8 Prior to
this action, ISPs, particularly those building wireline networks (e.g., cable), expressed
frustration with the ad hoc way utility companies provided access to their poles for the
purpose of building broadband networks. ISPs argued that, without PUCO action to
rationalize the state’s pole attachment regime, network investment would suffer, negatively
impacting consumers. In response, PUCO issued a ruling that set forth clear rules of the
road, providing more predictability around access fees and other aspects of what had
become contentious negotiations between pole owners and ISPs about using those poles in
support of broadband deployment. As a result of these changes, broadband network
infrastructure continued to expand into previously unserved areas, while served areas saw
continued improvements to their broadband connections. 9

5
Ohio Senate Bill 162, 128th General Assembly,
http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_SB_162.
6
Id.
7
See, e.g., Christopher S. Yoo, Deregulation vs. Reregulation of Telecommunications: A Clash of Regulatory
Paradigms, 36 J. of Corp. L. 847 (2011),
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1410&context=faculty_scholarship.
8
In the Matter of the Adoption of Chapter 4901:1-3, Ohio Administrative Code, Concerning Access to Poles,
Ducts, Conduits, and Rights-of-Way by Public Utilities, Finding and Order, Case No. 13-579-AU-ORD (July 30,
2014), http://dis.puc.state.oh.us/TiffToPDf/A1001001A14G30B60416E87231.pdf.
9
See infra, section 3, for additional discussion.

-3-
A few years later, the legislature began the process of addressing a similar set of issues
impacting wireless deployment. An initial attempt in 2016 was found to have run afoul of
state constitutional provisions guiding the legislative process. 10 Shortly thereafter, the
legislature passed a bill that updated the state’s approach to allowing wireless carriers to
attach equipment in public rights-of-way in cities across the state. 11 Specifically, the bill
amended the procedures used at the local level to accommodate more rapid deployment
of small cells, which are critical inputs to next-generation 5G mobile broadband networks.12
As a result of these changes, Ohio has become a leader in the availability of 5G mobile
broadband. Indeed, according to one source, Ohio is the only state in the country with two
cities – Cincinnati and Columbus – in the top 10 best U.S. cities for 5G coverage. 13 Similar
gains are being made across the state vis-à-vis both 4G and 5G coverage. 14

2.3 Solution-Focused Action

State action in recent years has focused primarily on supporting broadband buildout to
Ohio’s remaining unserved areas.

As a first step, the state in 2019 commissioned Connected Nation Ohio, a nonprofit, to
develop detailed broadband coverage maps. 15 These updated maps allowed the state to
ensure that its actions going forward were not duplicative of efforts already underway by
the private sector to deploy broadband in rural areas.

Shortly thereafter, the state launched InnovateOhio, an initiative to bring broadband to

the estimated 300,000 households – or approximately one million Ohioans – that lacked
access to it. 16 As a first step, the initiative developed a broadband strategy that mapped out

10
City of Bexley v. State of Ohio, 92 N.E.3d 397 (2017), https://www.leagle.com/decision/92185870ne3d397121
(holding that the law ran afoul of the state’s “one-subject” rule, as articulated in Article II, Section 15(D) of
the Ohio constitution).
11
House Bill 478, 132nd General Assembly, https://search-
prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_132/bills/hb478/EN/05/hb478_05_EN?format=pdf.
12
See, e.g., Alissa Widman Neese, After Communities Sued, Ohio Lawmakers Reach Small Cell Compromise,
April 23, 2018, Columbus Dispatch, https://www.govtech.com/network/after-communities-sued-ohio-
lawmakers-reach-small-cell-compromise.html.
13
Brittany McGhee, 5G Capitals: Which US Cities Have the Best 5G Coverage?, May 25, 2021, WhistleOut,
https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/5g-capitals-of-the-usa.
14
See infra, section 3, for additional discussion.
15
See, e.g., Carrie Ghose, Third Frontier Grants $900k to Connect Ohio to Update State Broadband Map, Feb.
21, 2019, Columbus Business First, https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/02/21/third-frontier-
grants-900k-to-connect-ohio-to.html,
16
The Ohio Broadband Strategy, at p. 6, InnovateOhio (Dec. 2019),
https://innovateohio.gov/wps/wcm/connect/gov/bde9a8ce-5f93-4a04-b937-
102788469bdb/OhioBroadbandStrategy_121919.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=ROOT

-4-
major elements of a plan for connecting the unconnected. The strategy revolved primarily
around the following objectives:

 Creating a state broadband office to “optimize expansion efforts and leverage federal
programs to expand internet access.” 17

 Continuing to reform regulations impacting broadband deployment, with a

particular focus on streamlining how the state’s Department of Transportation
issued permits to key rights-of-way. 18

 Establishing a state grant program to close availability gaps in remaining unserved

and underserved areas. 19 Part of the focus on bringing service to unserved areas
revolved around leveraging new technologies (e.g., fixed wireless) to speed
deployment. 20

 Bolstering availability of digital literacy programs to empower all users with the
skills needed to harness the transformative power of broadband. 21

Since release of the plan, the state has made progress on many of its recommendations. For
example, in March 2020 the state established a broadband office, BroadbandOhio, to
“implement the Ohio Broadband Strategy and be the point of contact for all broadband
projects in Ohio.” 22 In 2021, the legislature, via House Bill 2 (HB2), established the Ohio
Residential Broadband Expansion Grant Program, 23 a $250 million effort to ensure that
every person in the state can access a broadband connection of at least 25/3 Mbps. 24 HB2
also included additional reforms to the state’s pole attachment regime, requiring electric

WORKSPACE.Z18_M1HGGIK0N0JO00QO9DDDDM3000-bde9a8ce-5f93-4a04-b937-102788469bdb-
mYuKib6,
17
Id. at p. 16.
18
Id. at p. 12
19
Id.
20
Id. at p. 13.
21
Id. at p. 14.
22
Press Release, Governor DeWine Creates BroadbandOhio to Support Expansion of High-Speed Internet,
March 5, 2020, Office of the Governor of Ohio,
https://governor.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/governor/media/news-and-media/creation-of-broadbandohio.
23
ORC §§ 122.40 et seq., https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-122.40.
24
See, e.g., Tyler Buchanan, Budget Includes $250M for Ohio Broadband Internet Expansion, June 29, 2021,
Ohio Capital Journal, https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/briefs/budget-includes-250m-for-ohio-broadband-
internet-expansion/.

-5-
cooperatives to provide ISPs with nondiscriminatory access to their poles under “just and
reasonable rates, terms, and conditions.” 25

The new grant program was established before federal legislative action responding to the
COVID-19 pandemic. These federal stimulus efforts directed significant additional funding
to Ohio, some of which has been used to bolster broadband availability and adoption. For
example, the state made available $50 million in funding from the CARES Act of 2020 to
“provide hotspots and internet-enabled devices to students” in support of remote
learning. 26 In 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocated a total of $11 billion to
Ohio for use on a range of economic recovery projects, including broadband deployment.
Of that $11 billion, $5.68 billion will go to the state, with the remainder going directly to
cities and counties across the state. 27 In November 2021, the Infrastructure Investment &
Jobs Act (IIJA) was signed into law, promising to steer approximately $12 billion to Ohio for
infrastructure investment, with at least $100 million of that total earmarked for
broadband. 28 Discussions are ongoing regarding how these myriad federal funding streams
might be used for broadband and how use of those funds might impact the state’s nascent
grant program (for further discussion, see section 4).

2.4 Takeaways

Ohio is in an enviable position as it ramps up efforts to close remaining digital divides in

the state. It maintains an adaptive legal and regulatory environment for advanced services
like broadband, signaling to ISPs that the state will act to maintain a level playing field and
otherwise assure a hospitable environment within which to continue investing. Where
there are obvious market failures – like in truly unserved rural areas – the state has shown
that it will marshal available resources to address those issues as quickly as possible.

3. THE STATE OF BROADBAND IN OHIO

With substantial new funding being made available for addressing broadband connectivity
issues – from the state itself, via its new grant program, and from the federal government,
via several COVID-related stimulus bills – Ohio must determine how to best allocate those

25
ORC § 4926.03, https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4926.03.
26
Press Release, $50 Million in Grant Funding Available to Help Students Gain Internet Access, Aug. 10, 2020,
Ohio Department of Education, http://education.ohio.gov/Media/Ed-Connection/Aug-10-2020/50-million-
in-grant-funding-available-to-help-stu.
27
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 – ARPA Resources for Communities, Greater Ohio Policy Center (last
updated: Aug. 6, 2021), https://www.greaterohio.org/arpa2021.
28
H.R. 3684 – Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-
bill/3684/text (“IIJA”). For state-by-state funding estimates, see Jason Warner, Bipartisan Infrastructure
Legislation Enacted – Here’s What’s Included, Nov. 9, 2021, Greater Ohio Policy Center,
https://www.greaterohio.org/blog/2021/11/8/bipartisan-infrastructure-legislation-enacted-heres-whats-
included.

-6-
dollars. To do so effectively and efficiently, Ohio’s efforts – and the efforts of states in
general – should be guided by data. To prevent funds from being used to support
duplicative buildouts – i.e., subsidizing new networks in areas that are already served – the
state must use available data to ensure that its allocations are as impactful as possible.

As discussed in this section, the data make clear that (1) broadband connectivity – i.e., the
availability and adoption of broadband service – in Ohio is generally robust, but, even so,
(2) there are well-defined challenges on both the supply-side and demand-side that are
amenable to targeted interventions. This section also examines the role and uneven track-
record of non-traditional providers – i.e., local and county governments; electric utilities –
in addressing broadband issues in the state.

3.1 Supply-Side Issues

High-speed internet connectivity delivered via an array of platforms is widely available

across Ohio. As noted above, this has been the case for many years as the state has
continuously adjusted its regulatory and legislative frameworks to encourage and
accommodate additional investment by private wireline and wireless providers. The
following provides an overview of broadband availability in the state based on the most
recent data.

3.1.1 Broadband Availability & Competition

As of June 30, 2020, approximately 95.9% of households in the state had access to a wireline
broadband connection of at least 25/3 Mbps. 29 This is up from 91.5% in 2015. 30

In terms of competition, about two-thirds of all households in the state – some 64.4% – can
choose from two or more wireline providers for service of at least 25/3 Mbps. 31 This figure
is up considerably from 2015, when only 25.8% of households had such a choice. 32 Sizeable,
consistent gains in competition have been evident for many years.

The true level of competition in the state is likely understated because the data tend to
focus only on wireline connections. At a time when consumers are increasingly choosing
to rely on wireless connections – both fixed and mobile – the real number of choices
available to consumers is likely much higher across the state. For example, including fixed
wireless in the competition analysis increases the percentage of households with the choice

29
ACLP analysis of FCC Form 477 Data (on file).
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
Id.

-7-
of at least two fixed providers (i.e., wireline or fixed wireless) of broadband to 75.4%, a
significant increase (see Figure 1). 33

Figure 1 – Households with Access to 2 or More Fixed Broadband Connections 34

100%

80%

75%
60% 67%
61%
56%
40% 47%

20% 26%

0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

In addition, consider that about 99.9% of the state’s population can choose from among
three providers of 4G mobile broadband service. 35 5G service is currently being deployed;
to date, about 82% of Ohioans can access this next-generation service. 36 Including mobile
broadband in an analysis of broadband competition is critical given (1) its outsize
popularity among users of all kinds and (2) its proven ability to consistently deliver speeds
exceeding 25/3 Mbps. 37

3.1.2 Speed

In addition to providing consumers with more options for internet access, increased
competition among wireline and wireless broadband providers has resulted in faster speeds
across every platform. Consider that in 2018 average download speeds on wireline networks

33
Id.
34
Id.
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
See, e.g., Francesco Rizzato, USA Mobile Network Experience Report – July 2021, OpenSignal,
https://www.opensignal.com/reports/2021/07/usa/mobile-network-experience.

-8-
in Ohio were approximately 32 Mbps. 38 By 2021, that figure had grown almost tenfold, rising
to 278 Mbps. 39

Similar gains have been made on the wireless front as 5G mobile broadband increasingly
competes head-on with wireline ISPs for customers. Download speeds on 4G networks
average anywhere from 14 Mbps to just over 25 Mbps. 40 5G networks promise to at least
quadruple those speeds. T-Mobile’s 5G Home Internet product offers an illustrative
example. It delivers speeds of up to 100/23 Mbps, is priced at $50/month, and does not come
with data caps, positioning it very favorably vis-à-vis wireline competitors. 41

The rapid shift to remote everything – work, learning, etc. – precipitated by COVID-19
highlighted the importance of robust upload speeds as well as download speeds.
Fortunately, upload speeds have been growing in tandem with download speeds. Indeed,
average upload speeds on wireline networks has more than doubled since 2018, rising from
32.8 Mbps to 73.9 Mbps. 42 Similarly sizeable gains in upload speeds are being made in the
mobile arena as well, driven in large part by the increased availability of 5G. Upload speeds
on 4G networks averaged around 8 Mbps; on 5G networks, they can exceed 20 Mbps. 43

By and large, consumers across the country are satisfied with their broadband connections.
A survey conducted in May 2021 found that “86% of respondents rate[d] their Internet
[service] as excellent or good,” while” 84% of respondents [were] satisfied with their
download speed.” 44 As discussed in more detail below, this clear consumer embrace of
broadband connections with higher download speeds than upload speeds contradict
assertions by some about the need for symmetrical speeds (i.e., connections where

38
See Tyler Cooper, US State with the Worst and Best Internet Coverage 2018, July 23, 2018, BroadbandNow,
https://broadbandnow.com/report/us-states-internet-coverage-speed-2018/.
39
See Tyler Cooper and Julia Tanberk, Best and Worst States for Internet Coverage, Prices and Speeds 2021,
Sept. 20, 2021, BroadbandNow, https://broadbandnow.com/research/best-states-with-internet-coverage-
and-speed.
40
See, e.g., Babu Jackson and Sabine Neschke, Difference Between 3G-4G-5G, May 4, 2021, Bipartisan Policy
Center, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/cellular-data-and-digital-divide/ (“Difference Between”); Liane
Cassavoy, How Fast is 4G LTE Wireless Service?, Feb. 11, 2021, Lifewire, https://www.lifewire.com/how-fast-is-
4g-wireless-service-577566.
41
T-Mobile Home Internet, FAQ, https://www.t-mobile.com/isp/faq.
42
See, e.g., Frank Catalano, Washington State Ranks in Top 10 in Annual Speedtest U.S. Broadband Performance
Report, Dec. 12, 2018, GeekWire, https://www.geekwire.com/2018/washington-state-ranks-top-10-annual-
speedtest-u-s-broadband-performance-report/ (reporting 2018 data released by Ookla); United States’ Mobile
and Fixed Broadband Internet Speeds – Sept. 2021, Ookla, https://www.speedtest.net/global-index/united-
states.
43
See, e.g., Difference Between.
44
Carl Weinschenk, Report Finds Strong Broadband Satisfaction, Willingness to Support Broadband Buildouts,
May 17, 2021, Telecompetitor, https://www.telecompetitor.com/report-finds-strong-broadband-satisfaction-
willingness-to-support-broadband-build-outs/.

-9-
download and upload speeds are the same). Such high levels of customer satisfaction
ultimately appear closely linked to consistent growth of both upload and download speeds,
which allows consumers to accomplish what they wish online.

3.1.3 Open Issues

As previously noted, the state has estimated that approximately 300,000 households across
Ohio lack access to a wireline broadband connection of at least 25/3 Mbps. Figure 2, below,
depicts this digital divide, with the areas shaded in red highlighting where these
households are located.

Figure 2 – Household Availability of 25/3 Mbps Connections (2020) 45

2 or More Providers 1 Provider 0 Providers of 25/3 Mbps

45
ACLP analysis of FCC Form 477 Data (on file). Only areas with one or more residential households are
shown on the map. The color coding indicates the number of ISPs providing residential 25/3 Mbps
connectivity.

-10-
When all platforms are included in the analysis of broadband availability, however, the
digital divide in Ohio – and across the country – is less dire. Even so, Ohio is rightly
committed to facilitating further deployment of broadband networks to areas that
currently lack it.

3.2 Demand-Side Issues

Broadband connectivity encompasses more than just supply-side issues like the availability
of a high-speed internet connection. Equally as important is the willingness of consumers
to subscribe to broadband and their ability to put those connections to meaningful uses.
This section analyzes broadband adoption in Ohio.

3.2.1 Adoption

Broadband adoption in Ohio is robust. As of 2019, Census data indicate that about 85% of
Ohioans had adopted broadband, up from 71% in 2013. 46 Adoption rates appear to lag most
among lower-income households. As detailed in Figure 3, broadband adoption generally
increases as income increases, a trend that is evident across the country. 47

Figure 3 – Broadband Adoption by Household Income Category – Ohio 48

100%
95
80% 90 91
85
81
75 71
60% 65 65
58
40% 45
41
20%

0%
<$10k $10k-$20k $20k-$35k $35k-$50k $50k-$75k Over $75k

2013 2019

46
ACLP Analysis of ACS Data (on file).
47
See, e.g., Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet, April 7, 2021, Pew Research Center,
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/?menuItem=480dace1-fd73-4f03-
ad88-eae66e1f4217.
48
ACLP Analysis of ACS Data (on file).

-11-
 3.2.2 Addressing the Digital Divide

Addressing pockets of under-adoption of broadband services tends to be more difficult

than bringing broadband to unserved areas. Non-adoption certainly exists in areas where
broadband is unavailable – a person cannot adopt a service that is not available to them –
but, in most instances, households without broadband are in places where a connection is
readily available. Consequently, effective interventions typically entail efforts to incentivize
or provide aid directly to non-adopters to subscribe.

Given the relationship between income and broadband adoption, the cost of a subscription
and computing device are usually major hurdles for those who remain offline, as is a
perception that broadband might not be relevant or useful. 49 Taken together, this creates
a mindset among many that broadband at almost any price is unaffordable. 50 The most
impactful responses in these situations tend to revolve around making available low-cost
plans to low-income households and supplementing those offerings with digital literacy
training for those who want and need it (see section 4 for additional discussion). 51

3.3 The Role of Non-Traditional Providers

In some instances, non-traditional providers of broadband – namely a city or county

government, or an electric utility – have been positioned as a means of addressing
broadband connectivity challenges. Specifically, electric cooperatives have sought to
deploy broadband in mostly unserved parts of the state, reasoning that their existing
electric infrastructure and fiber assets provide a natural foundation for deploying
commercial broadband services to customers. Private electric utilities are also examining
whether and how to enter the broadband space. Government-owned broadband networks
(GONs), on the other hand, have been deployed almost entirely in parts of Ohio where
broadband is already available. In both cases, the small-scale nature of these deployments
and their uneven track-record does not augur well for leveraging non-traditional
broadband providers to solve pressing connectivity issues, except perhaps in areas where
all other options for expanding broadband access have been exhausted (see section 4,
below, for additional discussion).

The track record of these providers is examined below.

49
See, e.g., Andrew Perrin, Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2021, at p. 9-10, Pew Research Center
(June 2021), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-
content/uploads/sites/9/2021/06/PI_2021.06.03_Mobile-Broadband_FINAL.pdf.
50
Id.
51
See, e.g., John B. Horrigan, Reaching the Unconnected: Benefits for Kids and Schoolwork Drive Broadband
Subscriptions, But Digital Skills Training Opens Doors to Household Internet Use for Jobs and Learning,
Technology Policy Institute (Aug. 2019), https://techpolicyinstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/08/Horrigan_Reaching-the-Unconnected.pdf.

-12-
 3.3.1 Electric Cooperatives

Ohio is home to 25 rural electric cooperatives (RECs) that, together, serve approximately
380,000 residential and business customers across the state. 52 To date, it appears that at
least three cooperatives have taken steps towards making broadband available to their
customers. Specifically, two cooperatives – Consolidated REC and Buckeye REC – have
announced plans to build FTTH networks, with Consolidated having already built out a
network to some 8,000 customers. 53 The third cooperative – Butler REC – is working with
Cincinnati Bell to facilitate deployment of the private ISP’s fiber network to 2,000
households. 54

RECs will likely continue to play a targeted role in bringing broadband to unserved areas
in the short term. A consortium of cooperatives received nearly $200,000 via the FCC’s
Rural Digital Opportunities Fund (RDOF) to bring service to approximately 1,336 unserved
locations in the state. 55 In addition, the legislature, via HB2, amended state law to allow
cooperatives to offer broadband services over existing easements, a change that could
encourage additional REC broadband initiatives. 56 As previously noted, the state also
requires RECs to make their ROW available to ISPs on a nondiscriminatory basis.

Over the long term, cooperatives’ role in the broadband space might grow since RECs are
eligible for grant funding from a variety of federal and state sources (e.g., the state’s grant
program, ARPA, and IIJA’s BEAD program). To assure a level playing field going forward,
Ohio might explore additional changes to the regulatory framework impacting the ability
of RECs to offer broadband (for further discussion, see section 4). Some of these changes
might also apply to other electric utilities – e.g., investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and
municipal utilities – exploring entrance into the broadband market.

3.3.2 GONs

Like RECs, GONs have played a limited role in bolstering broadband connectivity in Ohio.
Of Ohio’s more than 1,000 local governments, only a handful of cities and counties have
pursued a GON. 57 Some of these projects have been praised as models that might be

52
Ohio’s Electric Cooperatives, https://www.ohioec.org/ohios-cooperatives.
53
See, e.g., Consolidated, Fiber, https://consolidated.crowdfiber.com/; Co-Op Spotlight: Buckeye Rural
Electric Cooperative, May 3, 2021, Ohio’s Electric Cooperatives, https://www.ohiocoopliving.com/co-op-
spotlight-buckeye-rural-electric-cooperative.
54
Cincinnati Bell, Butler REC Partnership – FAQ, https://www.cincinnatibell.com/special-pages/brec.
55
FCC, RDOF – Assignment Winning Bidders,
https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/public/projects/auction904/reports/winning_bidders (“RDOF Winners”).
56
See section 2, above.
57
Ohio.gov, Local Government, https://ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/site/government/topic-hubs/local-
government/.

-13-
replicated elsewhere in the state and across the country. However, a closer look reveals
weaknesses that might give other cities in Ohio and elsewhere pause before following a
similar path.

 Dublin’s Dublink. 58 Dublink is a fiber transport service that the city markets to
business customers. Specifically, it is a “no-cost lateral connection to a high speed,
ultra-low latency fiber optic network.” 59 Where available, Dublink allows businesses
to connect directly to a data center; businesses can then choose from a range of data
services, including broadband access. 60 The city pursued this project to retain and
attract businesses. Whether or not Dublink has succeeded in its mission remains to
be seen, as no data has been presented evidencing a causal relationship between the
network’s presence and economic development gains.

 FairlawnGig. 61 This FTTH network serves the entire city of Fairlawn and parts of the
surrounding joint economic development district. Often described as a “huge
success,” 62 the GON in Fairlawn has yet to find its financial footing. Indeed, since
the project’s launch in 2016, the GON has yet to achieve profitability. Instead, the
Fairlawn Gig network has operated at a significant loss each year of its existence.
Operating losses totaled $207,317 in 2016; 63 $1,127,549 in 2017; 64 $861,482 in 2018; 65
$806,416 in 2019; 66 and $980,853 in 2020. 67 Because of these losses, the city has had
to prop the system up with annual transfers from its general fund. 68 The poor

58
See Dublin, Dublink Transport, https://www.econdev.dublinohiousa.gov/dublink-broadband.
59
Dublink, What is Dublink Transport, https://dublinohiousa.gov/dev/dev/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/Dublink-Transport.pdf.
60
Dublin, OH, Dublink, https://www.econdev.dublinohiousa.gov/dublink-broadband.
61
Fairlawn Gig, https://www.fairlawngig.net.
62
Transcript: Community Broadband Bits Episode 463, Aug. 18, 2021, Community Networks,
https://muninetworks.org/content/transcript-community-broadband-bits-episode-463 (quoting Fairlawn’s
Director of Public Service). See also James K. Wilcox, How Municipal Broadband Helped an Ohio Town Cope
During the Pandemic, Aug. 31, 2021, Consumer Reports, https://www.consumerreports.org/municipal-
broadband/municipal-broadband-helped-ohio-town-cope-during-pandemic-a3845246875/.
63
Regular Audit for the Year Ended December 31, 2016, at p. 3, City of Fairlawn, OH,
https://ohioauditor.gov/auditsearch/Reports/2017/City_of_Fairlawn_16-Summit.pdf.
64
Regular Audit for the Year Ended December 31, 2017, at p. 3, City of Fairlawn, OH,
https://ohioauditor.gov/auditsearch/Reports/2018/City_of_Fairlawn_2017_Summit.pdf.
65
Regular Audit for the Year Ended December 31, 2018, at p. 3, City of Fairlawn, OH,
https://ohioauditor.gov/auditsearch/Reports/2019/City_of_Fairlawn_18-Summit.pdf.
66
Regular Audit for the Year Ended December 31, 2019, at p. 3, City of Fairlawn, OH,
https://ohioauditor.gov/auditsearch/Reports/2020/City_of_Fairlawn_19-Summit.pdf (“2019 Audit”).
67
Regular Audit for the Year Ended December 31, 2020, at p. 5, City of Fairlawn, OH,
https://ohioauditor.gov/auditsearch/Reports/2021/City_of_Fairlawn_20_Summit_FINAL.pdf.
68
See, e.g., 2019 Audit at p. 44 (showing a $180,000 transfer from the General Fund to the Broadband Fund).

-14-
 financial performance of this GON is typically omitted from profiles and other less-
than-objective analyses of FairlawnGig. 69

 Hudson Velocity. 70 Hudson began exploring a citywide FTTH GON in 2015. 71 Since
then, the city has scaled back its efforts, focusing first on a phased build-out to assess
the system’s viability. The GON’s financials were poor initially, with expenses far
exceeding revenues. 72 Beginning in 2019, however, the GON began operating in the
black. 73 Even so, the network remains small, with around 400 business and
residential customers 74 in a city with a population of 22,200 and over 2,000 business
establishments. 75 In addition, the GON’s rate of subscriber and revenue growth
appears to have slowed and is well below projections included in the system’s
business plan, which is being used to benchmark Velocity’s “success,” raising
questions about its long-term viability and whether it makes sense to continue
expanding this network. 76

 Medina County Fiber Network. 77 This countywide fiber network began serving
business customers in 2013. 78 The county estimated that the network would be “self-
sustaining by 2018.” 79 By 2020, that was still not the case – the network continued to

69
See, e.g., Corian Zacher, The Ohio Case Study, Next Century Cities (July 2021),
https://nextcenturycities.org/wp-content/uploads/TheOhioCaseStudy-by-Corian-Zacher.-NCC-Release-on-
08.05.21.pdf.
70
Hudson’s Velocity network serves both residential and business customers. See Hudson Velocity, FAQ,
https://www.hudsonvelocity.com/faqs/.
71
See, e.g., Jim Mackinnon, Hudson, Ohio, to Wire Entire City with High-Speed Fiber, July 23, 2015, Akron
Beacon Journal, https://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/hudson-ohio-to-wire-entire-city-with-high-speed-
fiber.html.
72
See Velocity Broadband Enterprise Business Plan, at p. 3 (Feb. 2019),
https://hudson.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7231240&GUID=66B6F4FA-6FD3-4936-A367-
803C0E5AB158.
73
See, e.g., Hudson Velocity, FAQ, https://www.hudsonvelocity.com/faqs/. For 2020:
https://www.hudson.oh.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2308
74
See July 2021 Financial Report, at p 7, Hudson, OH (Aug. 2021),
https://www.hudson.oh.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2379.
75
Census Quick Facts, Hudson, OH,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/hudsoncityohio/PST045219.
76
See, e.g., January 2021 Financial Report, at p 7, Hudson, OH (Feb. 2021),
https://www.hudson.oh.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2338.
77
Medina County Fiber Network, https://www.medinacountyfibernetwork.com/.
78
Medina County Fiber Network, FAQ, https://www.medinacountyfibernetwork.com/the-
network/frequently-asked-questions/.
79
Id.

-15-
 operate at a loss despite expanding into the provision of last-mile via a partnership
with a private ISP. 80

Given the ongoing financial and operational uncertainty surrounding many of these
projects, the role of GONs in addressing Ohio’s broadband connectivity challenges appears
limited (for further discussion, see section 4).

3.4 Takeaways

The preceding analysis supports the following takeaways regarding broadband connectivity
in Ohio.

First, broadband availability is generally robust across the state. Most Ohioans can choose
from multiple on-ramps to the internet – cable, fiber, 4G, 5G, fixed wireless, etc. The
continued expansion of broadband networks is due to consistent investment in the
underlying infrastructure by ISPs, which in turn stems directly from the supportive and
largely deregulatory framework for advanced communications services maintained by the
state. Addressing the small pockets of unserved areas in the state will require significant
collaboration between state and local government on the one hand and ISPs on the other.
A framework for establishing productive public-private partnerships is articulated in
section 4.

Second, overall broadband adoption levels in Ohio are also robust and have climbed across
the board over the last few years. However, there are areas in the state where adoption lags
significantly behind the state average. Many of these areas are in cities where broadband is
readily available. As discussed in section 4, closing adoption gaps is complex and resource
intensive. Accordingly, additional resources are needed to help bring as many Ohioans
online as possible. Fortunately, much of the federal funding available for broadband can be
used to address such demand-side issues.

Third, the role of non-traditional providers in addressing Ohio’s broadband connectivity

issues appears to be niche in nature. Electric cooperatives are well positioned to help bring
broadband to unserved parts of their service territories, while the expensive and complex
nature of building, maintain, operating, and upgrading GONs renders them appropriate
only in those areas where all other service options have been exhausted.

4. LOOKING AHEAD

Over the next few years, Ohio, like many states, will confront connectivity-related
challenges on numerous fronts, including: (1) how to maximize the impact of state and
federal infrastructure investments; (2) bringing broadband to unserved areas; (3) bolstering

80
See Bob Finnan, Fiber Network Not Yet Turning a Profit, Feb. 15, 2020, Medina Gazette, https://medina-
gazette.com/news/202313/fiber-network-not-yet-turning-a-profit/.

-16-
adoption where broadband is already available; and (4) maintaining a level playing field
among a range of traditional and non-traditional broadband providers seeking to address
these issues. The following offers principles and recommendations that might guide these
efforts in Ohio and elsewhere.

4.1 A Framework for Prioritizing Investment in Infrastructure

Modernization

With billions in federal stimulus and infrastructure funding expected to flow into Ohio
over the next few years, the state and many of its political subdivisions will have numerous
opportunities to invest in a range of projects, including those related to broadband
expansion. Even though the federal allocations are significant, there is still a need to
prioritize and precisely target these investments.

As these funds begin to fill state and local coffers, there is growing evidence that
policymakers face a range of competing priorities, from repairing financial damage done
by the pandemic to shoring up long-overlooked basic infrastructure like water and
wastewater systems. 81 Indeed, Ohio’s public infrastructure – its bridges, dams, waterways,
roadways, and the like – received a grade of C- by the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) in its 2021 Infrastructure Report Card. 82 In its analysis, ASCE determined that
“Ohio’s infrastructure is mediocre and exhibits significant deterioration. Condition and
capacity are areas of serious concern with strong risk of failure.” 83

As state and local policymakers consider how to invest ARPA and IIJA funds, each entity
would be best served undertaking a holistic assessment of infrastructure needs and areas
where other investments are long overdue. Such an examination would likely identify a
laundry-list of needs ahead of broadband infrastructure that require immediate attention,
like bolstering broadband adoption rates; improving public health in the aftermath of the
pandemic; allocating more money to public schools; and enhancing the financial standing
of chronically underfunded public pensions. If and when officials elect to spend public
funds on broadband, they should apply the principles articulated in the next few sections.

4.2 Serving the Unserved – Strategically Targeting Funding

A torrent of broadband funding is poised to flood Ohio over the next few years. The FCC’s
RDOF will route $17 million to the state, while the state itself has committed at least $250

81
See, e.g., City Fiscal Conditions 2021, National League of Cities (Oct. 2021), https://www.nlc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/2021-City-Fiscal-Conditions-Report-2021.pdf.
82
ASCE, Ohio Report Card, https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/ohio/.
83
Report Card for Ohio’s Infrastructure – 2021, at p. 3, Ohio Section of the ASCE (July 2021),
https://infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FullReport-OH_2021_smaller.pdf.

-17-
million for its broadband grant program. 84 As previously noted, state policymakers are
considering whether and how to invest $5.68 billion in ARPA funds to address broadband
connectivity issues, while officials in dozens of counties and cities across the state are doing
the same with nearly as much in direct ARPA allocations. 85 Ohio will also receive at least
$100 million via the recently enacted IIJA for broadband.

Wisely spent, these funds can help to finally close the state’s digital divide and bring
broadband to every part of the state. Elements of a strategy for efficiently and effectively
investing these resources in broadband might include:

 Focus on unserved areas – the parameters of Ohio’s new grant program should guide
all spending on broadband regardless of the source. Such will ensure that funds go
to unserved areas first and foremost and avoid any temptation of directing resources
to subsidize ISPs in served areas. Fortunately, Ohio’s decision to prioritize unserved
areas via its grant program aligns with criteria included in the IIJA, which, among
other things, requires state broadband offices to allocate grants stemming from this
pot of money to projects in unserved areas before focusing elsewhere. 86

 Assure accountability – those doling out grants and those receiving subsidies should
be held to account for the funding they receive. Policymaker accountability should
revolve around the use of data to guide where investments are made to ensure that
funds go to where they are needed most. In addition, the challenge process included
in the state’s new grant program should become an aspect of every state-led
broadband allocation. 87 Such will help to prevent wasteful spending on overbuilding
networks in served areas. Funding recipient accountability should include regular
reporting of progress towards promised deployments – how much money has been
spent, how many new customers have been served to date, when the project might
be completed, etc. The IIJA includes a range of such provisions and will likely
influence how Ohio operationalizes these measures in its grant program.

 Adhere to a tech neutral approach – given the proven ability of both wireline and
wireless broadband platforms to deliver reliable service to users regardless of
geography, Ohio should avoid focusing on a particular technology or speed
benchmark (e.g., symmetrical gigabit speeds delivered via fiber) and instead steer
funding to ISPs of all ilk. The Ohio grant program and the rules guiding both ARPA
and IIJA expenditures already encompass such an approach, so it is reasonable to
extend this to all broadband spending in the state.

84
RDOF Winners; section 3, supra.
85
Section 3, supra.
86
IIJA § 60102(h)(1)(A) et seq.
87
ORC §§ 122.4030-4037.

-18-
 4.3 Serving the Unserved – Prioritizing Partnerships with Expert ISPs

Substantial new funding will likely entice a range of established and new ISPs to apply for
support from the state. To maximize the impact of its investments, Ohio should seek to
partner primarily or exclusively with experienced ISPs – i.e., service providers that have a
proven track-record of building out to unserved areas; of maintaining and improving those
networks over time; and of securing those systems. Smaller, less established ISPs simply do
not possess such expertise.

This same dynamic should also apply to non-traditional providers seeking to deploy new
broadband network infrastructure. As previously discussed, the most impactful role of
these entities, which include municipalities and electric utilities, is as a last resort in truly
unserved areas.

The benefits of public-private partnerships (PPPs) that involve established entities are
myriad and include:

 Less risk. A primary benefit of using a PPP to enhance broadband connectivity is

that it greatly reduces a city or state’s risk exposure. Whereas building a GON to
address connectivity needs entails significant risk – in the form of debt,
deploying a successful business model, keeping up with long-term operating
expenses, having to compete with nimbler private ISPs, etc. – a PPP allows a city
to offload much of that risk to the private partner. Experienced private partners
have significant experience shouldering and managing such risks.

 Optimized investment. Cities and states that leverage public resources to seed
PPPs are better able to ensure that those scarce dollars are put to their best uses.
Oftentimes, PPPs require significantly less capital to achieve connectivity goals
than investing in a GON or similar government-led project. PPPs are thus much
more efficient, allowing a city to use funds for other, more pressing needs (e.g.,
modernizing public infrastructure, improving schools, bolstering public safety,
shoring up pension funds, etc.).

 More quickly achieve connectivity goals. Impactful PPPs target specific areas and
deploy resources to support network expansion or the deployment of demand-
side programs. Such precision in the deployment of resources helps to achieve
connectivity goals more quickly. In contrast, building a new network from
scratch or deploying a GON takes many years, and there is no guarantee of
success given the rocky history of such networks.

 Position government as convener. The optimal role for public entities at both the
city and state level is as a convener of stakeholders. Bringing parties together
enhances planning and strategy development and ensures that whatever
solutions are ultimately deployed have buy-in from all involved. The converse –

-19-
 when a city seeks to go it alone or attempts to force ISPs to engage in certain
activities – is rarely productive.

4.4 Closing the Adoption Gap

For most Ohioans, a broadband connection is readily available. For those who choose not
to adopt despite such ready access, the state should invest considerably more in
programming aimed at helping to convince them to come online.

Addressing such demand-side issues is arguably the most important broadband issue
facing the state. It is also the least understood broadband-related issue because, among
other things, it lacks a single “solution.” Serving unserved households is relatively
straightforward by comparison and generally follows a consistent template of (1) finding
the needed level of public investment to make service in an area “economic” and (2) using
that funding as a means of forging PPPs with expert private firms to extend networks into
those areas. Addressing adoption-related issues is significantly more complex because the
barriers impeding more robust adoption tend to differ slightly from user group to user
group. For some, the cost of a connection and/or computing device might be the sole
barrier. However, others might not perceive broadband as useful, thereby making it seem
expensive at almost any price. Still others view broadband as dangerous, causing them to
remain offline to preserve their privacy.

Fortunately, numerous best practices have emerged over the last decade that can guide
these efforts across Ohio.

If the cost of a connection and/or a computing device is a major barrier to adopting

broadband, then the state, along with partners in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors,
should do more to promote the availability of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program
(ACP). The ACP makes available monthly subsidies of up to $30 and resources to offset
device costs to qualifying low-income households. 88 As of December 2021, some 481,000
Ohioans had availed themselves of the Emergency Broadband Benefit program, the ACP’s
predecessor. 89 With thousands more eligible, resources should be invested in helping
enroll even more people in this program.

In addition, Ohio – and other states – should consider supplementing the federal ACP
award with additional funds stemming from ARPA, IIJA, the state’s general revenues, or
some combination of the three. Both ARPA and IIJA allow states to use available broadband
funds for such demand-side activities. Public officials should also work with ISPs to
promote the availability of low-cost plans – like Comcast’s Internet Essentials, Charter’s

88
Federal Communications Commission, Affordable Connectivity Program, https://www.fcc.gov/acp.
89
USAC, Emergency Broadband Benefit Program Enrollments and Claims Tracker (as of Dec. 31, 2021),
https://www.usac.org/about/emergency-broadband-benefit-program/emergency-broadband-benefit-
program-enrollments-and-claims-tracker/.

-20-
Spectrum Internet Assist, and AT&T’s Access. These programs have helped bring millions
of Americans online over the last few years. 90

For those who see broadband as irrelevant, unnecessary, or potentially dangerous, the state
should invest in outreach programs tailored to respond to non-adopters’ various concerns
about using the internet. Such targeted interventions have proven to work when they are
deployed at the hyper-local level and reflect the specific needs and concerns of under-
adopting groups (e.g., senior citizens). 91 These programs should be paired with digital
literacy training to equip new users with the skills and confidence needed to fully harness
the power of broadband. Some $2.75 billion in funding expressly earmarked for these kinds
of activities is included in the IIJA, providing Ohio and every other state with a robust new
source of funds to pursue these critical activities. 92

Such a multifaceted focus on demand-side issues could help to bolster adoption and
meaningful uses of broadband in Ohio’s larger cities, where broadband is available, but
where pockets of under-adoption exist. The following case studies examine these issues in
some of Ohio’s largest cities.

4.4.1 Cleveland Case Study

Broadband adoption rates in Cleveland have plateaued at around 70% for the last few years.
In 2019, broadband adoption across the entire city was 69.3%, similar to the 70% rate in
2017 and not much higher than the 67.7% rate in 2016. 93 On the supply side, broadband has
been universally available in Cleveland since at least 2015, when FCC data showed that
99.8% of households could access a connection of at least 25/3 Mbps. 94 That figure rose to
100% of households in 2018 and has remained there ever since. 95

What is the best way to address this gap between robust availability and adoption?

Some have sought to blame ISPs for failing to deliver more competitive offerings, a claim
that defies the data. Competitive choice in Cleveland has risen steadily over the last few
years, with nearly 70% of households currently able to select from at least two wireline

90
See, e.g., Internet Essentials Progress Report, Comcast (March 2021), https://update.comcast.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/33/dlm_uploads/2021/03/IE-ProgressReport_FINAL.pdf.
91
See, e.g., Charles M. Davidson, Michael J. Santorelli & Thomas Kamber, Toward an Inclusive Measure of
Broadband Adoption, 6 International Journal of Communication 2555–2575 (2012),
http://comms.nyls.edu/ACLP/Davidson-Santorelli-Kamber-Toward-an-Inclusive-Measure-of-Broadband-
Adoption-IJOC-2012.pdf.
92
IIJA § 60301 et seq.
93
ACLP Analysis of ACS Data (on file).
94
ACLP Analysis of FCC Form 477 Data (on file).
95
Id.

-21-
providers of 25/3 Mbps service; that figure is up from less than 4% in 2015. 96 In addition, as
noted above, the availability of multiple providers of mobile broadband service – via 4G
and 5G networks – further increases the number of choices available to Clevelanders.
Ultimately, though, focusing just on the number of broadband providers in Cleveland – or
in any city – makes little sense when broadband abounds and when people are actively
choosing not to adopt. Figure 4 illustrates this dynamic.

Figure 4 – Household Broadband Availability and Adoption in Cleveland 97

Availability Adoption

1+ Providers 0 Providers 0-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-

100%
A better approach might be to focus on addressing barriers to broadband adoption. At the
top of many non-adopters’ list is likely the affordability of a connection and a computing
device. As noted above, there are several options for offsetting the cost of a broadband
connection and access device – including the ACP and via a low-cost package from an ISP.
Additional funding for demand-side activities – e.g., topping up the federal ACP – could be
steered to Cleveland and other cities in Ohio by the state via its grant program, the size of
which is poised to grow exponentially due to the arrival of ARPA and IIJA funds.
Supplementing these offerings with on-the-ground digital literacy development programs

96
ACLP Analysis of FCC Form 477 Data (on file).
97
ACLP Analysis of FCC Form 477 and ACS Data (on file).
In the availability map: broadband is defined as service at or above the FCC’s 25/3 Mbps threshold; Census
blocks with both zero residential providers and zero households are omitted; color coding indicates the
number of ISPs providing residential 25/3 Mbps connectivity.
In the adoption map, color coding indicates the proportion of households that have a broadband
subscription.

-22-
has proven to help close digital divides in cities like Cleveland and could be worthy of
continued expansion in the city and beyond. 98

4.4.2 Cincinnati Case Study

Similar dynamics are evident in Cincinnati, where every household in the city has had
access to a broadband connection for the last several years. 99 Competition has also
improved markedly: about 90% of households can choose from two or more wireline
broadband options, up from 58% in 2015. 100 With multiple options for 4G mobile
broadband available to every person in the city, and with additional 5G options quickly
coming to market, households across Cincinnati can choose from several different options
for accessing the internet.

As in Cleveland and other large cities in the state, broadband adoption rates in certain
communities continue to lag in Cincinnati. Overall, broadband adoption in Cincinnati was
86% in 2019, mirroring the state average of 85%. 101 Adoption rates tend to lag most among
lower-income households (see Figure 5).

Figure 5 – Broadband Adoption by Household Income Category – Cincinnati 102

100%
97
80% 89 92
83 82 84
73 72
60%
62
56
40%
43
20% 27

0%
<$10k $10k-$20k $20k-$35k $35k-$50k $50k-$75k Over $75k

2013 2019

98
See, e.g., Lara Fishbane and Adie Tomer, How Cleveland is Bridging Both Digital and Racial Divides, March
9, 2020, Brookings – The Avenue blog, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/03/04/how-
cleveland-is-bridging-both-digital-and-racial-divides/.
99
ACLP Analysis of FCC Form 477 (on file).
100
ACLP Analysis of FCC Form 477 (on file).
101
ACLP Analysis of ACS Data (on file).
102
ACLP Analysis of ACS Data (on file).

-23-
The pandemic greatly exposed these gaps in broadband adoption, particularly in low-
income households with school-age children. To address these divides, local service
providers like Charter and Cincinnati Bell provided students, their families, and educators
with discounted broadband options and access to low-cost computing devices. 103 Since
then, these and other ISPs have continued to work locally to bring more residents online.
For example, Cincinnati Bell partnered with the Greater Cincinnati Foundation and several
other groups to provide free broadband access to every public-school student in the city
for the 2020-2021 school year. 104 More recently, the federal ACP has become available,
helping to greatly offset the monthly subscription price for thousands of families in the
city.

Unlike in Cleveland, Cincinnati appears to lack a cohesive strategy for bolstering digital
literacy skills. Instead, efforts to make available adoption-oriented programming targeted
at different user groups – e.g., students; working-age adults; seniors – have been mostly ad
hoc in nature. This highlights an opportunity for local officials, ISPs, community groups,
and other stakeholders to marry up resources and expertise in an effort to deploy a
comprehensive digital literacy framework. Coupled with the ACP subsidy and related low-
income programs maintained by Charter and Cincinnati Bell, a holistic and partnership-
oriented approach could help shrink the city’s digital divide more rapidly, bringing
additional households online and connecting them to the transformative power of
broadband.

4.4.3 Columbus Case Study

Broadband connectivity in the state capital is robust. Every household in the city has had
access to a wireline broadband connection for several years; as of 2019, 97% of households
could choose from at least two wireline broadband connections. 105 Columbus was also
among the first markets in the state to receive 5G service, providing residents with
additional choices for accessing the internet. 106

103
See, e.g., Governor DeWine, Lt. Governor Husted Praise Internet Providers for Commitment to “Keep
Americans Connected” Pledge, March 13, 2020, Office of the Governor of Ohio,
https://governor.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/governor/media/news-and-media/dewine-husted-praise-
internet-providers-for-commitment-to-keep-americans-connected-pledge.
104
See Greater Cincinnati Foundation, Fifth Third Foundation, Accelerate Great Schools, Donors Close Digital
Divide for Cincinnati Public Schools Students, Aug. 25, 2020, Greater Cincinnati Foundation,
https://www.gcfdn.org/news/greater-cincinnati-foundation-fifth-third-foundation-accelerate-great-
schools-donors-close-digital-divide-for-cincinnati-public-schools-students/.
105
ACLP Analysis of FCC Form 477 (on file).
106
See, e.g., Chris White, Verizon Launching 5G Service in Columbus Monday, Dec. 23, 2019, ABC6.com,
https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/verizon-launching-5g-service-in-columbus-monday.

-24-
Broadband adoption is also healthy across the city: overall adoption rose to 90% in 2019,
outpacing the state average of 85%. 107 However, under-adoption is evident among lower-
income households and in well-defined pockets across the city (see Figure 6).

Figure 6 – Household Broadband Availability and Adoption in Columbus 108

Availability Adoption

1+ Providers 0 Providers 0-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%

As in Cleveland and Cincinnati, the conditions evident in Columbus – universally available

broadband; robust competitive choice; well-defined pockets of under-adoption – lend
themselves to impactful interventions on the demand-side. Responses to date, however,
have focused mostly on the supply-side. For example, a June 2020 assessment prepared for
the city recommended a range of supply-side interventions, many of which are GON-like
in nature, even though the report concluded that the digital divide in Columbus was “not
the result of a gap in infrastructure.” 109

Nevertheless, the city has pursued a strategy of attempting to remedy clear demand-side
issues via supply-side interventions. Specifically, Columbus launched a pilot program that
leveraged city-owned fiber to deliver low-cost internet access – 50 Mbps for $15/month – to

107
ACLP Analysis of ACS Data (on file).
108
ACLP analysis of FCC Form 477 and ACS Data (on file).
In the availability map: broadband is defined as service at or above the 25/3 Mbps threshold; Census blocks
with both zero residential providers and zero households are omitted; color coding indicates the number of
ISPs providing residential 25/3 Mbps connectivity.
In the adoption map, color coding indicates the proportion of households that have a broadband
subscription.
Broadband Access in City of Columbus, Ohio – Assessment and Strategies for Addressing the Broadband Gap,
109

at p. 6, The Columbus Foundation (June 2020), https://columbusfoundation.org/umbraco-

media/6661/broadband-access-in-city-of-columbus-2020-06-30.pdf.

-25-
several hundred households. 110 Last-mile connectivity is delivered wirelessly. 111 Even though
cable ISP Charter, for example, offers a similarly cost-effective option for qualifying
households, and even though the federal ACP has dramatically reduced service costs from
all ISPs, some think the Columbus pilots “represent exciting opportunities to introduce
new, scalable, low-cost options into the market.” 112 Whether these experiments are viable
over the long-term, particularly in the face of competition from wireline and wireless ISPs,
remains to be seen.

With discussions ongoing about how to spend federal stimulus funds, and whether and
how those funds should be used for broadband, local stakeholders might be best served
collaborating on a plan to address the city’s demand-side issues. There is evidence that
steps have already been taken in this direction, in particular meetings among local
policymakers and ISPs to identify how best to maximize available ACP funding to help close
the local digital divide. 113 Focusing on these issues and channeling any available funding to
address affordability concerns and bolster digital literacy skills could help to significantly
improve digital equity and finally close the digital divide in Columbus.

4.4.4 Dayton Case Study

Like in many of Ohio’s larger cities, broadband is universally available in Dayton, and
competitive choice is increasing – the percentage of households able to choose from at least
two wireline providers of broadband has increased from less than 3% in 2015 to about 66%
in 2020. 114 Overall broadband adoption was 80% in 2019. 115 Differences in adoption rates by
income group are significant: nearly 90% of households with annual incomes over $75,000
had adopted broadband in 2019, compared to about 70% of households with incomes below
$35,000 (see Figure 7). 116 In a city where annual median income is approximately $32,540
and the poverty rate is over 30%, the affordability of broadband looms largest as a barrier
to adoption. 117

110
See, e.g., Franklin County Digital Equity Coalition Framework, at p. 8, March 2021,
https://www.columbuslibrary.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/Franklin%20County%20Digital%20Equit
y%20Framework.pdf (“Franklin County Digital Equity Framework”).
See, e.g., Maren Machles, Franklin County, Ohio Aims to Address Digital Equity in Urban Areas, April 22,
111

2021, MuniNetworks.org, https://muninetworks.org/content/franklin-county-ohio-aims-address-digital-

equity-urban-areas.
112
Franklin County Digital Equity Framework at p. 8.
See, e.g., Hayleigh Colombo, ‘Cautious Optimism’ in Columbus About Influx of Federal Money to Tackle
113

Digital Divide, May 7, 2021, NBC4.com, https://www.nbc4i.com/news/columbus-business-first/cautious-

optimism-in-columbus-about-influx-of-federal-money-to-tackle-digital-divide/.
114
ACLP Analysis of FCC Form 477 (on file).
115
ACLP Analysis of ACS Data (on file).
116
ACLP Analysis of ACS Data (on file).
117
US Census Quick Facts, Dayton city, OH, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/daytoncityohio.

-26-
Figure 7 – Broadband Adoption by Household Income Category – Dayton

100%

91 88 90 90
80%
81
77
72
60% 68
56
53
40%
40
33
20%

0%
<$10k $10k-$20k $20k-$35k $35k-$50k $50k-$75k Over $75k

2013 2019

A variety of efforts on both the supply-side and demand-side are underway in Dayton to
address these connectivity issues.

On the supply-side, Dayton invested $2 million in federal CARES Act funds to provide free
Wi-Fi service and distribute hundreds of laptops in five public housing communities. 118 This
aligns with a broader strategy aimed at leveraging public assets to support new networks
that can compete with incumbent ISPs in an effort to drive down “high” prices. 119
Unfortunately, the track record of such GON-like initiatives in Dayton is poor. About 15
years ago, Dayton “provided free Internet access downtown and unsuccessfully tried to
expand coverage to the entire city,” resulting in a failed municipal Wi-Fi network. 120
Moreover, the ability of public Wi-Fi to serve as a long-term connectivity solution is
unproven, especially in a city where numerous other broadband options are available and
when a significant monthly subsidy is available via the ACP.

On the demand-side, Montgomery County, of which Dayton is the seat, has identified
myriad digital literacy gaps and attempted to marshal local resources to assist in closing

See, e.g., Bonnie Meibers, Ohio Communities Use Relief Funds to Install Public Wi-Fi, Oct. 16, 2020, Dayton
118

Daily News, https://www.governing.com/community/ohio-communities-use-relief-funds-to-install-public-

wi-fi.html.
119
See, e.g., Digital Equity, Montgomery County, https://nextcenturycities.org/wp-content/uploads/BCC-
Final-Presentation-.pdf (“Montgomery County Digital Equity”).
120
Cornelius Frolik, Dayton, Ohio, to Take Another Run at Public Internet, Aug. 31, 2020, Dayton Daily News,
https://www.govtech.com/network/dayton-ohio-to-take-another-run-at-public-internet.html.

-27-
them. 121 Many of the entities providing digital literacy services are located in Dayton and
offer free programs, mostly in libraries. 122 Recently, the Dayton library system partnered
with Charter to raise awareness of the importance of broadband and to provide free
broadband access for several months; thereafter, participants could enroll in Spectrum
Internet Assist to continue forward with low-cost broadband service. 123

Given the considerable demand-side challenges in Dayton, the city, like Cleveland, might
benefit most from a coordinated effort among all local stakeholders to develop and
implement a comprehensive initiative to close the digital divide. Such a campaign focused
on targeting non-adopters was proposed in 2017; it does not appear that Dayton moved
forward with it. 124 With federal funding available for use in support of these kinds of
demand-side initiatives, now might be the time for Dayton to focus all available resources
on this set of issues.

4.5 Maintaining a Level Playing Field

With a sizable infusion of funding available to support broadband deployment to unserved

areas and a growing array of ISPs capable of offering service – traditional providers like
cable, telecom, mobile, and fixed wireless; emerging providers like low-earth-orbiting
satellite firms; and non-traditional providers like GONs and electric utilities – every state,
including Ohio, must ensure that these myriad entities compete on similar terms and
conditions. Failure to address the inherent advantages of certain providers could
undermine the incentives of all ISPs to invest and compete for customers.

What kinds of advantages could tilt the playing field? The inherent advantages of both
GONs and electric utilities are illustrative. Foremost among these is the ability to cross-
subsidize broadband networks by tapping guaranteed revenue streams from captive
customer bases. A local government can do this by propping up a struggling GON with
infusions from a general fund, which is comprised of tax receipts from residents and
businesses. This is a common occurrence with GONs, as illustrated by the continued
subsidization by Fairlawn of its network (see section 3, above). 125 A utility can do this by
allocating some fiber-related costs to its electric business (e.g., for smart grid purposes),

121
Montgomery County Digital Equity.
122
Id.
See, e.g., Gwen Owen, Dayton Metro Library Bridges the Digital Divide with GET CONNECTED Program,
123

Dec. 14, 2020, Dayton Metro Library, http://www.daytonmetrolibrary.org/news/3871-getconnected-

announced.
124
Community Technology Action Plan, City of Dayton, Ohio, at p. 48, Connected Nation (July 2017),
https://connectednation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2018/04/city-of-dayton.pdf.
For additional examples, see, e.g., Charles M. Davidson & Michael J. Santorelli, Understanding the Debate
125

over Government-Owned Broadband Networks: Context, Lessons Learned, and a

Way Forward for Policy Makers, ACLP at New York Law School (June 2014),
http://comms.nyls.edu/ACLP/ACLP-Government-Owned-Broadband-Networks-FINAL-June-2014.pdf.

-28-
which can be recouped in rates charged to captive electric customers. 126 Local governments
and electric utilities also oftentimes own ROW and other assets that are critical to
broadband deployment. When they decide to build a network, a local government or utility
can grant itself free, priority access to those assets while charging other ISPs fees and
putting their permit applications through the standard review process.

In recognition of these kinds of advantages, state legislatures across the country, including
in Ohio, are beginning to adjust legal and regulatory frameworks to assure a level playing
field among all ISPs. As noted above, Ohio has begun doing this in the context of electric
cooperatives, requiring those entities to provide ISPs with nondiscriminatory access to
their ROW. Additional adjustments that have been made in other states and that might be
explored in Ohio and elsewhere include:

 Explicit bans of cross-subsidization by utilities offering broadband service. 127

 Focusing utility broadband efforts on unserved areas. 128

 Requiring local governments and utilities to develop feasibility studies and financial
plans for their broadband projects to ensure that they are sustainable and won’t
require subsidies to keep afloat. 129

 Regular audits and financial reporting to enhance accountability, protect against

cross-subsidization, and guard against corruption. 130

A level playing field also requires a technology neutral approach to broadband connectivity.
This concept revolves around an all-of-the-above mindset vis-à-vis bringing broadband to
unserved and underserved areas. Some argue that all new broadband networks should be
fiber. Such a perspective artificially narrows the solutions available to broadband
challenges. Fixed wireless, for example, has played and will continue to play a key role in
plugging availability gaps and enhancing competitive choice in Ohio and other states
across the country. 131 As previously discussed, 5G mobile broadband is quickly emerging as
a competitor of wireline networks. Emerging satellite services could very well deliver

126
See, e.g., George S. Ford, Electricity Rates and the Funding of Municipal Broadband Networks: An Empirical
Analysis, 102 Energy Economics (Oct. 2021),
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988321003613?dgcid=author.
127
See, e.g., AR Code § 23-18-806; GA Code § 46-3-200.2; KY Rev. Stat § 278.2201.
128
See, e.g., MN Stat. § 429.021; VA Stat. § 56-585.1:9.
129
See, e.g., MS Code § 77-17-5.8; WV Stat. § 24-2-1P(f); FL. Stat. § 350.81(2)(c).
130
See, e.g., IN Code § 32-30-16-17(c); MS Code Ann. § 77-17-15; SC Code § 33-49-150(b).
See, e.g., Joan Engebretson, RDOF Will Put Gigabit Fixed Wireless to the Test, Dec. 18, 2020, Telecompetitor,
131

https://www.telecompetitor.com/rdof-will-put-gigabit-fixed-wireless-to-the-test/.

-29-
service on par with wireline networks in the not-too-distant future. 132 And cable, the most
popular wireline service in the country, continues to increase download and upload speeds
to reflect actual customer demand and usage patterns.

Policy should thus be supportive of all platforms capable of delivering broadband speeds.

See, e.g., Michael Kan, Starlink: Here are the Download Speeds You Can Expect Across North America, May
132

5, 2021, PCMag, https://www.pcmag.com/news/starlink-here-are-the-download-speeds-you-can-expect-

across-north-america.

-30-