Establishing Coordinated Investments in Internet Infrastructure by Western Hemisphere Nations

Abstract

The establishment of ubiquitous, reliable and fast internet access should be prioritized to encourage economic collaboration, political stability and social wellbeing across the Americas and Caribbean. In the newly minted Digital Era, many aspects of daily life collapse without internet access. In developing and developed markets, however, the core infrastructure connecting users to the internet has lagged under the fast pace of digital development. The infrastructure needed to support the complex technologies holding together the internet is expensive. But the benefits of a fast, reliable and ubiquitous internet are well established, and investment spending is simply seen as not urgent and not important by government entities. In the United States, where the importance of internet infrastructure is widely known and accepted, lawmakers have dragged their feet on the issue. Regulation has defaulted to laws drafted from the early days of telecommunications. Spending has been sporadic and mismanaged. This paper outlines the case for an internet infrastructure coalition across the Western Hemisphere states with significant financial backing for the development of internet infrastructure, internet regulatory norms, and high-speed, reliable and affordable access for the majority of the population. To position the countries of the Americas and Caribbean strategically for the coming century, the U.S. government should prioritize multilateral efforts to normalize access to an open internet as a utility, ultimately protecting the economic and social stability of western states.

 

I. Introduction

The internet has rapidly transformed society and now society needs to transform the way it treats the internet. In the span of a few decades the internet has made the unimaginable commonplace, serving as a platform for society to push boundaries. Despite its prevalence in daily life few seem to understand what exactly the internet is composed of. Particularly in an era of slick web browsers and fast search engines, users need not worry of what’s inside. The internet’s humble beginnings as network for researchers and academics underscores the arcane knowledge propping it up.

A complex network of computers, wireless systems, cables, power systems, hum along like silent workers in a hulking machine. Through digital electronics like computers or smartphones consumers typically connect to the internet, downloading and uploading information. The general trend is to treat what is beyond the personal device as an amorphous black box. This is not necessarily bad, since after all it should not be necessary for every doctor or art student to know the gory underpinnings of such a complex technical system. Generally speaking it is beyond the scope of learning. However, that complex technical system does exist and needs to be cared for, even if only a tiny percentage of users truly understand it.

Private entities, government organizations and nonprofits manage much of the routing and addressing of the internet (via standardized protocols and servers). But for the majority of the internet’s physical infrastructure (such as wireless base stations or high-speed cable), government spending has incentivized private firms. For instance ISPs (Internet Service Providers) have received grants to lay fiber optic lines across the United States. The physical infrastructure necessary for high quality reliable service is expensive, so these private American firms use profits from subscribers and government funding to operate and continuously upgrade their infrastructure. All this is one thing, but even with private spending and government support the United States has lagged behind other nations in internet service quality.

According to data compiled by Susan Crawford and Mitchell Shapiro, the top four internet service providers in the United States spent $434.4 million from 2001 – 2012 on capital expenditures. Despite these millions of dollars in investment, the United States has rapidly fallen in recent years to 11^th and 47^th, respectively, in fixed connection download speed and mobile download speed.¹ By contrast, South Korea, a leader in providing robust internet infrastructure, has prioritized the regulation and development of robust internet infrastructure over the past decades. Users there enjoy connection speeds on average of 28.6 Mb/s, and the country ranks 1^st in terms of internet speed globally.¹

While the initial investments in internet infrastructure may be tough pills to swallow, the cost of developing and maintaining the internet is clearly offset by its benefits for nations. According to a 2011 study by McKinsey, a global consulting firm, the internet accounted for 21% of GDP growth over the previous five years.² That number has no doubt increased since. The internet has and will continue to play an increasingly prevalent role in the global economy. If the internet is a proverbial golden goose, nations would do well to keep it alive and healthy.

Considering the importance of the internet in modern society, this paper advocates for governments to collaborate on regulation and infrastructure spending, specifically in the Western Hemisphere. Keeping the internet healthy will involve allocating government spending toward direct investments in the infrastructure that supports the internet, including a reliable power grid, wireless base stations, fiber optic cables, and satellite communication links, among others. The scope of this paper is not to enumerate each and every detail of a complex system of regulations and spending across multiple nations, but rather to lay the groundwork for what such spending and regulations should accomplish. This paper may explore implementation and regulation on a high level, but in both cases the analysis will be brief. They serve principally to consider estimated costs of the program, and which government organizations in the United States and abroad should be responsible for taking the necessary steps of action.

 

II. Background

The Current State of Internet Infrastructure in the Western Hemisphere

The penetration of internet use varies significantly from region to region. According to Internet World Stats, a website compiling internet usage statistics, internet use has an 88.1% population penetration in North America. In South America, Central America, and The Caribbean, the numbers fall at 65.3%, 59.7%, and 45.4%, respectively.³

According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) 43.4% of all households were connected to the internet in 2015. The cost of broadband service of 1Mbps dropped from 18% average monthly income to 2% between 2010 and 2016.⁴ They note that problems persist in terms of quality, and equitableness of access.

Levels of household internet users may give a good overview of internet service, but it certainly does not paint the full picture. The amount of content users in the United States download and upload has rapidly increased over the past years. In 2012 average data usage on mobile phones was 450 MB per month in the United Sates. Now? 1.8GB.⁵ Internet penetration should also be seen in tandem with speed of access as a larger indicator of the quality of access in countries. No country in the Latin American region has at least 5% of its connections with speeds of more than 15Mbps.⁴ In other words, approximately 359 million internet users across the Latin American region have internet speeds below 15Mbps. For most developed nations this number is above 50%.⁶ These numbers indicate a large digital divide between advanced and developing countries in the Western Hemisphere. Because advanced nations have greater funds to readily invest in internet infrastructure if they choose, this gap will grow without the presence of foreign investment or radical policy change. A concoction of both would be the most likely to succeed. Based on demand, expansion of access has been concentrated in the richest generally urban areas, also creating a digital rift between the poor and rich.

Economic Benefits of an Open Internet

Whether it be through online community, searching for information, learning a new skill, or checking bank statements, most facets of life now necessitate access to the internet. Some of the largest public firms today made their empires from single websites. The days of seeing the web as a research tool or luxury service are long gone.

From the lines of the official Budget of the United States Government for fiscal year 2017, “The U.S. economy, national security, educational systems, and social lives have all become deeply reliant on this connectivity [to the internet].”⁷ For current investments, we can find that the Budget invests $19B in Federal resources for cybersecurity, including upgrades to ageing hardware and digital infrastructure.⁷ They further elaborate that “These challenges require that we take bold, aggressive steps, sustain those efforts over time, and fundamentally change the way we as a Nation think about issues of security, privacy, and digital identity in the online age.”⁷

The internet has catalyzed the global economy and accelerated the rate of innovation in nearly all sectors. Today the five largest publicly traded companies by market capitalization are Apple, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook.⁸ All five of them innovative technology firms. Three (Google, Amazon, Facebook), started off as single websites. A strong internet infrastructure provides the platform for individuals and corporations to innovate and gain access to the spoils of a digitally connected society. Research conducted by the OECD notes that a strong open internet enables innovation, social wellbeing, and economic growth.⁹ The fact that all five mega-tech firms are based in the country where the internet was founded is far from surprising. For lagging countries, the benefits of improving internet access to larger swaths of the population should be clear.

 

III. The State of Current Policy

The Failure of Market Forces to Spur Competition 

Far from creating competing firms, market forces have created virtual monopolies in many areas.¹⁰ Without much pressure from competition, the firms drag their feet to innovate.¹⁰ In developing nations, the lack of funding and wealth limits the profitability of private investment. Even in places where the percentage of the population with access to the internet is higher, the quality of service is still lagging. The argument that the market protects consumers lacks historical evidence in the case of the internet.

 

IV. Policy Proposal

Government Entities Responsible for Policy Action

The United States should lead countries across the Americas and Caribbean to work together as a coalition toward the development of stronger internet-related wireless infrastructure and policies. For the purposes of this policy paper, coalition states will refer to the governments of participating states across the Americas and Caribbean.

The Cyber Security National Action Plan has laid out the presidential appointment of a Federal Chief Information Officer (USCIO) to oversee the Office of Electronic Government, principally to manage issues of national cybersecurity.¹¹ Under the E-Government Act of 2002 the federal spending in technology but is restricted to work with systems within the Federal Government. The office should be expanded, the role of USCIO changed to a senate approved nomination, and the process of coordinating internet technology policy authorized through their institution.

A central fund should be created and distributed to countries to address key development areas, as determined by private consultancies. The U.S. State Department has already enumerated Internet Freedom as core policy in the interest of the United States.¹² The internet infrastructure coalition will deal diplomatically with aligning values across the western hemisphere. The State Department, in coordination with the USCIO, should be tasked with establishing and managing the coalition. Representatives from the State Department should work with other representatives on developing multilateral internet regulation agreements and coordinating the funding of internet infrastructure across nations.

Domestically, the FCC should control spending of the funds. A special taskforce should be established within the FCC to research and authorize responsible spending on infrastructure. Clear metrics and expectations must be established to ensure proper management of funds. 

Serving Rural Communities

In South Korea, regulations for minimum speeds have been established in rural areas.¹³ Paired with extra funding, ISPs have been able to lay cables for rural users. Without extra funding private providers would have been unable to provide such service without incurring losses. A similar funding program should be adopted by coalition countries. Guaranteeing minimum levels of access for rural populations is not just the right thing to do, but the best thing to do, particularly in developing nations.¹⁴ It ensures that access is not wholly stratified between wealthy city dwellers and rural outsiders. Such a division will surely create ideological rifts.

Governments should not manage the control and construction of internet infrastructure. For wireless base stations and fiber optic cables private companies should be incentivized through subsidies and grants. While the United States has failed catastrophically in implementing such a private investment scheme in the past, countries have succeeded and can be modelled. The list of those with faster average internet speeds than America would do fine to start. At the very least the failed attempt to lay fiber optic cable across the country will be a blueprint of what the United States and coalition states should avoid. 

Funds should be pooled based on relative GDP. This is to balance projected contribution with available resources. Countries should contribute .05% of GDP via taxes collected toward spending on the project. Such a contribution would create a pool of approximately $112B per year for spending on grants and subsidies across the coalition states.

Avoidance of Overspending and Under-Delivery

In such a large infrastructure spending plan, missing budget and timing deadlines should be an important concern. According to EY, a global accounting firm, 64% of the 100 largest global projects these projects experienced delays and 57% were over budget.¹⁵ The infrastructure should reach measurable milestones, such as average dollars per Mbps (Megabits per second), coverage, and accessibility to the middle class (those in the three middle quintiles of the population). Because of the economic stratification of nations across the Americas, where generally the top echelon of each country’s population receives the compiled economic benefits of reliable internet access, a relative middle-class metric for each country encompasses citizens generally above the level of poverty who could benefit the most by the open nature of the internet.

Private firms and policy think tanks should be included in the discussions over metrics. This will allow for conversations over what goals would be too ambitious, and consequently lead to the program failing, or too low, and subsequently be a waste of coalition funds. When the milestones have been accomplished, the program will be considered successful. Fines baked into contracts should serve as deterrents for over spending. The same should go for delays. Reasonable exceptions should be considered, for instance large scale natural disasters, but under high scrutiny.

Because of the instability of some governments and the corruption found in others, the centralized organization and regulation of development spending can mitigate the risk of the project collapsing with billions of dollars lost. For instance, as Venezuela teeters on the brink of autocracy and collapse, the risk of funds mismanagement runs high. It is doubtful any coalition funds given to Venezuela would be used for their original purpose. In Paraguay where corruption still permeates all levels of government graft is likely.¹⁶ In such an environment the oversight of an international coalition can give the project the necessary transparency to succeed. Even corrupt leaders tend to behave better in the sunlight. Pressure by the major coalition players (including the United States) can force good results out of would-be bad apples.

The United States itself is not immune from misuse of public capital. From the period of 1992-2014 roughly $400 billion in taxes was received by telecoms for fiber optic upgrades that never happened. This would be roughly $5000 per household in lost tax dollars.  The management of capital toward this infrastructure investment should be managed closely, both at home and abroad. The coalition must draft policies to safeguard against mismanagement, graft, and corrupt spending. If government ISPs are established, they should be privatized within five years of establishing.

 

V. Expected Benefits

The Benefits to Corporations in Developed Nations

Infrastructure investment, both domestically and across the Western Hemisphere region serves to benefit American firms. developed countries such as the United States serve to benefit from expanded markets and greater political stability in developing countries across the western hemisphere.

Emerging markets have historically been a boon for firms. Many fortunes were made as China’s middle class exploded and grew hungry for consumer goods. KFC found a rebirth in the new global market.¹⁷ American firms should be supportive of ways to spur Western Hemisphere neighbors toward economic prosperity. As poverty falls across the region, the middle class has been steadily growing. According to the World Bank moderate poverty in Latin America has dropped over 10 percent in the period from 2000 to 2010.¹⁸

But out of poverty, many of these individuals are still awkwardly stuck below the true middle-class. Ubiquitous reliable internet access could provide the means for lifting the incomes of many of these people. Entrepreneurs utilizing inexpensive smartphones and reliable wireless networks could conduct business with low initial investments and overheads, leveraging their craftiness and desire to succeed.

A growth of 10% to the Latin American Middle class would create 50 million new middle-class consumers. This new middle class does not need to afford a Starbucks Frappuccino to benefit from a globalized economy. New consumers could shop online for foreign brands regardless of geographic location. Online competition could drive down the price and drive up the quality of goods and services. New innovative delivery systems might be developed to deliver Amazon packages from the city to rural homes. Cheap smartphones connected to fast reliable wireless networks can push a digital revolution. They have already succeeded to transform the economy in Africa in spite of poor infrastructure.¹⁹ What would stop a local version of Yelp for service providers from emerging in Peru?

A Potential to Extend U.S. Soft Power and Fend off Potential Chinese Influence

This proposal will also serve to extend soft power from the United States. The global political climate has grown increasingly fractured, and the prowess of American power dimmed significantly in recent years. As China and Russia seek to extend their forms of control over neighboring countries via investments, coercion, or in the case of the Ukraine force, the United States lacks ability and proximity to maintain its previous levels of influence. A stronger, more democratic western hemisphere should be a top priority in the coming decade. China restricts and monitors internet usage like a hawk based on justified fears toward the education and empowerment unfettered internet access brings.²⁰ A strong, open internet across the western hemisphere would bring cultural touchstones from currently more isolated countries into the mainstream of western discussion, and vise versa.

The alternative to not adopting such an investment proposal could be a further expansion of Chinese sharp power and control into the Western Hemisphere. One can look to Africa to see how China leverages infrastructure investments to gain influence among developing nations. China, as a country ascendant to power, desires reach and control far beyond the East Asian subcontinent. But China’s Communist Party embodies many ideologies the United States has from its founding rejected. It has violently suppressed free speech and independent thought. Perhaps the most liberal aspect of the party is it’s use of the secret police to silence dissent. Staving off growth in Chinese sharp power should be a top priority for United States foreign policy, particularly in the western hemisphere.

As The Economist has noted, With the complexities of a globalized economy (in which China plays a significant role), fending off their push into new zones of influence has been difficult.²¹ Without being able to isolate China and the ruling Communist Party, bolstering support of key allies and democratic states can be a key tool of defense. Building infrastructure to support an open robust internet across the Western Hemisphere can provide the physical manifestation of a liberal ideological spine.

Benefits of Capital Investment Strategy

This policy proposal serves to benefit countries in the western hemisphere in balanced ways. Considering the large economic and political variation across the hemisphere, the policy must have such a quality. While America and Canada are exemplars of western social and political ideologies, the recent collapse of Venezuela’s democracy and the massive levels of corruption seen in countries as seemingly well established as Brazil demonstrate that the political canvas is stretched wide and thin. Additionally, many Central and South American countries are wary of American influence after years of clandestine meddling. Engaging in an internet infrastructure spending plan would begin levelling the democratic deficit across much of Latin America. Far from meddling, this will be an investment plan focused on improving core infrastructure. It is in the interest of each participating nation. And the joint regulation of the infrastructure will keep internet access in these regions open and safe.

Research by Ohio State University suggests that an open internet promotes fundamental democratic values, particularly in countries where democratic freedoms are at least marginally present.²² For corrupt or stumbling countries like Colombia or Venezuela, an open internet can nudge the population to embrace a vision of democracy beyond what they might be lulled into accepting. For a thriving democracy like Uruguay, ubiquitous robust internet access can maintain citizen fluency in democratic norms. Joint regulation will maintain open access for citizens alongside sensible rules, keeping the main democratic benefits of ubiquitous internet access.

Aiding the Pace of Innovation in Underdeveloped Western Hemisphere Nations

This infrastructure spending and policy adjustments will aid in removing many barriers toward innovation in underdeveloped nations in the Americas, keeping countries that would otherwise be left behind by the digital revolution at pace. The sooner a robust internet infrastructure is established in a country the sooner individuals and businesses can begin the process of adoption.

Developing nations have the potential to make changes in their internet public policies and improve their infrastructure rapidly. In Kenya, where a new “National Broadband Strategy” was launched in 2013, internet penetration has reached 88%.²³ In 2017 broadband penetration had reached 30% in the country, and their average mobile internet speed was 14^th in the world. ²⁴ Recently the government has taken steps to privatize ISPs in Kenya.²⁴ Their efforts are particularly apt to understand and mirror in developing countries across the Americas because of the large percentage of rural population. The Digital Village Scheme is a project with aims to provide government services in rural areas via wireless access. ²⁴ In areas where laying cabling can be difficult, building wireless networking base stations has filled the gap. Kenya, sitting defiantly high on the list of average mobile internet speed, represents the potentials of smart policy in developing nations.

The next generation also serves to gain the significantly from robust internet infrastructure. It has been known for quite some time of the educational potential the internet possesses.²⁵ A child in a country without ubiquitous internet lacks many of the benefits inherent to a child in a country with ubiquitous internet. To learn English, online educational tools and online videos by native speakers can be crucial for developing proficiency. And because the majority are free, they expand access to quality instruction beyond those who can simply afford it.

Ubiquitous internet access has the potential to break down the privilege of wealth surrounding education. In an era when menial jobs are increasingly automated away, this will be crucial to maintain employability among populations. Considering the vast number of roadblocks facing the next generations in underdeveloped nations, improving the environment for learning has the potential to counteract the economic polarization, serving those who most need democratically accessible systems.

The pace of digital innovation also has the potential to displace jobs in a variety of sectors. Even if a shopkeeper in Panama has never surfed the web, he is not wholly immune to its economic wake. Artificial Intelligence programs, fed off troves of aggregated online data, will soon automate jobs from booksellers to food preppers. A vehicle assembly line worker in Mexico should likely start brainstorming their next enterprise unless she is comfortable with retiring soon. Automation of currently stable jobs will be so widespread a tool has been developed to calculate one’s automation risk.²⁶ Countries cannot wait for the changes a digital economy creates unless they wish to be left behind by them. Better to hop on before the train leaves the station.

The Benefits to Individuals in Developed Nations  

For more well-established economies like Canada and the United States, a more robust internet could also help prepare workers for widescale automation. Jobs safe from automation, or more practically working alongside the robots and algorithms, will require workers to learn new skills. Online educational platforms will be one way to transform a workforce from obsolete to on the money.

Though the United States may be considered ahead of the curve, the pace of change in technologies over the past decades has aged out much of its older infrastructure. Video has quite a few more bytes than text to transmit to a modern smartphone. By investing and establishing norms of competition in domestic American markets, the tectonic slide toward geographic polarization can be reversed. In a Harvard Business Review paper by Bhaskar Chakravorti, the author notes that “access to the digital infrastructure” is critical for determining access to economic mobility.²⁷ He notes that when lower income rural households are provided fewer and lower quality internet connections, a “digital divide” is cyclically compounded. Though the internet divide is not as wide in America, it nevertheless exists and is growing. It may be easy to grasp the economic benefits of robust internet infrastructure, but the social and political benefits are no less important.

Bridging the digital divide would bring crucial benefits to all aspects of life in more rural communities such as community involvement, cultural cohesion and economic development.¹⁴ In rural medical centers, high speed internet can enable access to the growing trove of digital technologies serving providers. Patients would be better served for example by having proper digital access to their medical records. Educational and governmental institutions in rural communities also have much to gain by more robust internet access. High-speed internet for vocational or educational training keeps community members informed and employable in rapidly changing jobs markets.

 

VI. Counterarguments and Potential Costs

Major Economic Issues Facing Multilateral Cooperation

Economically, countries in the Western Hemisphere are spread widely. America’s GDP per capita sits at $57,466 USD.²⁹ Mexico, hugging America’s southern border has a GDP per capita of $13,891 USD, despite making tremendous progress in recent years to improve the quality of life for individuals living in the country.³⁰ Chile, ranked the highest in South America for GDP per capita, sits at only $23,969 USD.²⁹ It wouldn’t make sense or be possible for some of the lowest earning countries such as Bolivia to pitch in an equal amount as the United States. However, those states are most likely to need larger subsidies and grants for investments. With a lion’s share of the funding coming from wealthier nations, it will be difficult to convince lawmakers, particularly in the United States, of the necessity of such a proposal. A counterargument may be to advocate simply for domestic infrastructure spending. But such an argument ignores the clear data on political stability and economic prosperity for the United States western neighbors. The United States serves to gain from a politically stable Western Hemisphere and should be interested in defending democratic ideals. Economic stability in struggling nations will not just help those citizens but will ease issues of immigration as people leave for better opportunities elsewhere, and political turmoil as frustration boils over into resentment of the political incumbency.

The perceived benefits to poorer nations should be tempered. Construction work will be a temporary infusion in labor markets, providing employment to workers. And jobs for long-term maintenance technicians will spring up that will be both skilled and well paid. These jobs could benefit and kickstart local economies particularly in poorer states. Cutting edge digital infrastructure will be built in areas that would never be able to afford it. Ultimately poorer nations they will receive more than they put into the coalition funds. But the benefits of growing internet adoption in markets close to home serve to benefit American digital firms first and foremost. And the benefits of political stability in the western hemisphere should not be understated. Assuming this form of foreign investment does not serve the interests of the United States is patently false.

Addressing Potential Negative Social Impacts of Internet Access

The internet as a platform is not spotless. As a conduit, it can be used for good or for bad. Hate speech and government propaganda disseminated through social media platforms create political subversions and false national narratives. Even internet titan Facebook acknowledges the threat they potentially pose to democracy.³¹ If the internet itself negatively impacted economies or served to deteriorate western political ideals it would be a grave threat.

However, this is far from the truth. The internet is more a force for good than for evil. From the OECD, it is concluded that ubiquitous access to an open internet positively encourages social wellbeing.⁹ Instead of worrying, governments should take steps to establish sensible regulations and standards for the internet. This paper makes very clear the need for multilateral work to establish regulations that maintain an open internet while protecting individuals. Governments should start treating the internet as a necessity and should make it work in the best way possible for citizens. Because the internet spans across borders, it is in the interest of nations to collaborate on the development of policies to regulate it. By legitimizing the need of internet access for nations across the economic spectrum, all nations serve to benefit from well thought out regulations that prevent abuse.

Treating the Internet as a Utility Will Do More Harm than Good

This paper proposes treating the internet in the form of a utility. Such a reclassification in both the public mind and policy has been the subject of contentious debate in the United States. Tasked with regulating the internet, Tom Wheeler and the FCC, reclassified internet service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. This action was criticized by many conservatives as bad for competition and costly. According to the Progressive Policy such a reclassification would slow innovation, reduce investments, and add an estimated $16 billion in taxes to U.S. consumers.³³

These criticisms are based on antiquated views of society and more broadly economic markets. They utilize studies that suggest regulation and higher taxes reduce competition among providers. Fees will be passed onto consumers. These analyses fail to recognize the massive funding granted to ISPs up to the current point. As it is, ISPs have managed to reduce competition because of a lack of regulation.

Based on updated estimates they received $400 billion from American taxpayers to upgrade data lines across the country, with not much to show for it.¹ On top of this mismanagement, there is seldom competition for ISPs in markets. 50 million households have access to one or zero internet providers.³⁵ ISPs have cut up markets in ways to box in customers into single choices. In the current state of things, if a family in certain areas has poor internet service, their choice is to stomach it or to not have internet at all. That is not a fair choice at all.  

Internet infrastructure is inherently costly, but households have already been paying for it. ISPs have consistently been incentivized by government spending to build. Allocating tax dollars toward internet spending is not a new trend. But it should be mentioned that without well managed public spending on internet infrastructure, American households will pay for it through lost economic opportunities. As this paper has shown, a fast, reliable internet is an economic advantage for individuals and companies. Assuming people have a choice to simply not pay for the internet is wrong.

Finally, it should be noted that it is in the public interest to treat the internet as a utility. This policy paper has outlined the numerous ways a fast, reliable internet is necessary for individuals and economies. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Choosing to treat the internet as a commodity, a luxury, is an antiquated view. It is also false. The internet must be treated as a utility if the United States and other nations are to survive in the Digital Era.

 

VII. Conclusion

An expanded, concentrated effort to rapidly expand internet and wireless technology infrastructure in the Western Hemisphere through a joint nations fund and multilateral regulatory agreements will benefit the United States as well as strengthen Western Hemisphere alliances. The global power footprint of the United States has shrunk in recent decades. Many countries in Latin America have fallen behind the economic pace of the larger global economy. If the fast pace of disruption through Artificial Intelligence and digital transformation continues or accelerates, many of these countries will be left in the dust. That is not good for the people living there, or the strategic alliances the United States needs to remain a global power.

Though the project will be costly, and the bulk of funding will be provided by richer states, those states will have much to gain. And in the long run, bringing lagging countries in Latin America and the Caribbean across the digital divide and up to pace with the global economy will reinforce liberal democratic ideals there. The United States needs to stay ahead of the pace of digital transformation, as more and more new jobs grow around the internet. And states in the Western Hemisphere must be buffered against Chinese or Russian sharp power.

This policy proposal serves to refocus the United States domestically toward creating a strong digital backbone. Developing states would receive investment in their infrastructure and be prevented from falling any further behind. This policy paper proposes actions that will cement digital future of the Western Hemisphere. Prioritizing internet infrastructure investment is necessary for the stability and prosperity of the United States and its neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. The internet is a golden goose, and the states who keep it alive and healthy will prosper the most.

 

Bibliography

1. Editorial Staff. “Americans Taxed $400 Billion for Fiber Optic Internet That Doesn’t Exist”. National Economics Editorial, November 27, 2017. Web. 9 Feb 2018. <https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/11/27/americans-fiber-optic-internet/>
2. Manyika, James and Charles Roxburgh, October 2011. “The great transformer: The impact of the Internet on economic growth and prosperity.” McKinsey Global Institute, October 2011. Web. 9 Feb 2018. <https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/High%20Tech/Our%20Insights/The%20great%20transformer/MGI_Impact_of_Internet_on_economic_growth.ashx>
3. Internet Usage Statistics for all the Americas. Internet Worlds Stats. Web. 9 Feb 2018. <http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats2.htm>
4. ECLAC: Internet Use and Access Increases Sharply in Latin America and the Caribbean. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 12 September 2016. Web. 9 Feb 2018. <https://www.cepal.org/en/pressreleases/eclac-internet-use-and-access-increases-sharply-latin-america-and-caribbean>
5. Neiger, Chris. “The Average American Uses This Much Wireless Data Every Month. How Do You Compare?” The Motley Fool, 24 January, 2015. Web. 9 Feb 2018. <https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/24/the-average-american-uses-this-much-wireless-data.aspx>
6. Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2017. Office of Management and Budget, 2017. Web. Feb 8, 2018. <https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2017-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2017-BUD.pdf>
7. List of public corporations by market capitalization. Wikipedia. Web. Feb 8, 2017. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization>
8. “Economic and Social Benefits of Internet Openness.” Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2 Jun 2016. Web. 2 8, 2018. < www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DSTI/ICCP(2015)17/FINAL&docLanguage=En>
9. Cox, Kate. “Here’s What the Lack of Broadband Competition Looks Like on a Map.” Consumerist, March 7, 2014. Web. Feb 8, 2018. <https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-competition-looks-like-in-map-form/>
10. Federal Chief Information Officer of the United States. Wikipedia. Web. Feb 8, 2018. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Chief_Information_Officer_of_the_United_States>
11. Internet Freedom. U.S. Department of State. Web. Feb 2, 2018. <https://www.state.gov/j/drl/internetfreedom/index.htm>
12. Laravea, Merrick. South Korea’s Internet Infrastructure Shows How Net Neutrality Should Be Done.” Forbes, 26 January 2018. Web. Feb 9, 2018. < https://www.forbes.com/sites/outofasia/2018/01/26/south-koreas-internet-infrastructure-shows-the-fcc-how-neutrality-should-be-done/#49feb2d7581b>
13. Hupka, Yuri. “Findings on the Economic Benefits of Broadband Expansion to Rural and Remote Areas.” Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, 2014. University of Minnesota. Web. Feb 8, 2018. < http://www.cura.umn.edu/publications/catalog/cap-188>
14. “Power and utility Megaprojects Run 35% Over Budget on Average.” T&DWorld, Dec 7, 2016. Web. Feb 8, 2018. < http://www.tdworld.com/overhead-transmission/power-and-utility-megaprojects-run-35-over-budget-average>
15. Olhero, Nelson and Mark Sullivan. “CRS Report for Congress. Paraguay: Background and U.S. Relations.” Congressional Research Service, September 20, 2007. Web. Feb 8, 2018. < https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34180.pdf>
16. Bell, David and Mary Shelman. “KFC’s Radical Approach to China.” Harvard Business Review, November 2011. Web. Feb 8, 2018. < https://hbr.org/2011/11/kfcs-radical-approach-to-china>
17. Francisco H. G. Ferreira, Julian Messina, Jamele Rigolini, Luis-Felipe López-Calva, Maria Ana Lugo, and Renos Vakis. “Economic Mobility and the Rise of the Latin American Middle Class.” World Bank Latin American and Caribbean Studies. 2013.
18. Dahir, Abdi Latif. “Smartphone use has doubled in Africa in two years.” Quartz Africa, August 3, 2016. Web. Feb 8, 2018. < https://qz.com/748354/smartphone-use-has-more-than-doubled-in-africa-in-two-years/>
19. Park, Madison. “China’s Internet firewall censors Hong Kong protest news.” CNN, September 30, 2014. Web. Feb 8, 2018. <https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/world/asia/china-censorship-hong-kong/index.html>
20. “What to do about China’s ‘sharp power’.” The Economist, Dec 14, 2017. Web. Feb 8, 2018. < https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21732524-china-manipulating-decision-makers-western-democracies-best-defence>
21. Ohio State University. "Internet use promotes democracy best in countries that are already partially free." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 4 April 2012. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120404152004.htm>.
22. Kuo, Lily. “Kenya’s mobile internet beats the United States for speed.” Quartz Africa, June 08, 2017. Web. Feb 8, 2018. <https://qz.com/1001477/kenya-has-faster-mobile-internet-speeds-than-the-united-states/>
23. Internet in Africa. Wikipedia. Web. Feb 8, 2018. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Africa>
24. Singhal, Meena. “The Internet and Foreign Language Education: Benefits and Challenges.” The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. III, No. 6, June 1997. Web. Feb 8, 2018. < http://iteslj.org/Articles/Singhal-Internet.html>
25. “Will a robot take your job?” BBC, September 11, 2015. < www.bbc.com/news/technology-34066941>
26. Chakravorti, Bhaskar. “The Missing Political Debate Over the Digital Economy”. Harvard Business Review, October 6, 2016. Web. Feb 8, 2018. <https://hbr.org/2016/10/the-missing-political-debate-over-the-digital-economy>
27. “World Bank Open Data.” The World Bank. Web. Feb 8, 2018. <https://data.worldbank.org/>
28. Mexico. Better Life Index. Web. Feb 8, 2018. <http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/mexico/>
29. “Facebook admits social media threat to democracy (Update).” Phys.org, January 22, 2018. Web. Feb 8, 2018. < https://phys.org/news/2018-01-facebook-acknowledges-social-media-democracy.html>
30. Litan, Robert and Hal Singer. “Outdated Regulations Will Make Consumers Pay More for Broadband.” Progressive Policy Institute, December 1, 2014. Web. Feb 8, 2018. <http://www.progressivepolicy.org/slider/outdated-regulations-will-make-consumers-pay-broadband/>
31. Brodkin, Jon. “50 million US homes have only one 25Mbps Internet provider or none at all.” Arstechnica, June 30, 2017. Web. Feb 8, 2018. <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/>