cbsnews.com
West Virginia's Broadband Plan Leaves 100,000 Residents Behind
West Virginia's $1.2 billion broadband plan, while aiming to connect all residents, will leave roughly 100,000 people without high-speed internet due to a federal reclassification of "served" households and a shift to a technology-neutral approach.
- What are the immediate consequences of West Virginia's revised broadband plan?
- The revised plan excludes approximately 40,000 households (100,000 residents) reliant on fixed wireless, reclassified as "served" despite inadequate speeds. This leaves these residents with slower, less reliable internet, hindering their access to work, education, and healthcare.
- What are the long-term implications of prioritizing less reliable internet technologies in West Virginia's broadband expansion?
- Prioritizing fixed wireless and satellite internet, despite their limitations in West Virginia's mountainous terrain, may lead to persistent digital inequities and higher costs in the long run. The state's decision to allocate only a small percentage of funds to fiber-based solutions, widely considered the superior long-term solution, could lead to future infrastructure issues.
- How did the federal government's reclassification of "served" households and the shift to a technology-neutral approach impact the plan?
- The federal reclassification reduced the number of eligible households by over a third, from roughly 114,000 to 74,000. The technology-neutral approach allows for fixed wireless and satellite providers to compete for funding, prioritizing speed and reliability less than the previous fiber-centric approach.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a critical view of West Virginia's broadband plan, highlighting the exclusion of 40,000 households and the shift to a technology-neutral approach. The headline could be more neutral, perhaps focusing on the plan's details rather than the negative consequences. The introduction immediately points out the shortcomings of the plan, setting a negative tone. The use of quotes from critics further emphasizes the negative aspects. While the governor's positive quote is included, it's presented before the critical information, potentially diminishing its impact.
Language Bias
The article uses language that leans towards negativity, such as "buried in the fine print," "slashed the number," "less reliable connections are being treated as good enough," and "pulling a goal post toward you and claiming a touchdown." These phrases carry negative connotations and could be replaced with more neutral alternatives, like "not included in the initial plan," "reduced the number," "slower connections are considered sufficient," and "the plan's changes have altered the original goals." The repeated use of words like "slower," "less reliable," and "challenging" reinforces the negative portrayal of the plan.
Bias by Omission
While the article mentions the governor's positive statement, it could benefit from including more perspectives from those who support the current plan. It focuses heavily on the negative impacts without fully exploring the potential benefits or reasons for the changes. The article also does not fully explore the financial aspects of why they chose to allocate funds this way or the logistics involved in implementing a completely fiber-based system. The article could also benefit from including data on the speed and reliability of the existing fixed wireless infrastructure to provide a more nuanced picture. It might be useful to note any potential counterarguments or explanations offered by the state government regarding the exclusion of the households.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the choice between fiber and fixed wireless as an eitheor situation. It implies that fixed wireless is inherently inferior, neglecting the possibility of a blended approach or the potential benefits of fixed wireless in certain areas. The article also implies that the plan's goal is to provide only the fastest speeds everywhere, neglecting potential trade-offs between speed, cost, and coverage.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how a change in the definition of "served" by federal officials has resulted in 40,000 households (100,000 residents) being left out of a broadband plan. This disproportionately affects those in rural areas with challenging terrain, exacerbating the existing digital divide and hindering their access to essential services like education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. The shift to a technology-neutral approach, favoring less reliable options over fiber, further contributes to the inequality in access to quality broadband.