Though it doesn’t have the high profile of healthcare, the fate of the Broadband Internet in general and rural broadband in particular is a vitally important issue that folks should pay careful attention to as they consider their vote in special elections, the midterms and, ultimately, the next presidential election.

Delivering broadband to difficult-to-serve places is difficult technically and financially. Rural broadband must serve areas lack the population density needed to make connectivity worthwhile for carriers and service providers. The same cost issues extend to urban areas that are densely packed but lack the discretionary income. 

How this is managed and administered has huge implications for the future of work, education, entertainment and everything else for which the Internet is used.

Though it doesn’t have the high profile of healthcare, the fate of broadband is a vitally important issue that folks should pay careful attention to as they consider their vote in special elections, the midterms and, ultimately, the next presidential election.

asked Google Gemini AI for an essay of about 500 words and an infographic on the two major parties’ position on broadband. I cover this stuff as a writer and think it’s a pretty good essay. The key is that it is a universe in transition. The emergence of fixed wireless access (FWA) and low earth orbit satellite (LEO) services –including Elon Musk’s Starlink–is drastically expanding both what’s possible and what’s feasible. Both technologies allow sophisticated broadband to reach remote areas with minimal use of fiber or other high-cost forms of connectivity.

How this is managed and administered has huge implications for the future of work, education, entertainment and everything else for which the Internet is used.

Here is a graphic that highlights the points made by Gemini. The essay is below that.

Broadband Deployment Solutions Comparing Democratic and Republican Frameworks
🗳️ DEMOCRATIC 🏛️ Public Investment Broadband as a public utility via federal BEAD grants. ⚖️ Digital Equity Net Neutrality and affordability subsidies for low-income families. 🏘️ Municipal Networks Empowering local governments to build community fiber.	🐘 REPUBLICAN ⏱️ Permitting Reform “Shot-clocks” to cut red tape and speed up approvals. 📡 Tech Neutrality Using satellite and wireless to reach rural areas faster. 🔍 Fiscal Oversight Prioritizing funds for physical “hard” infrastructure costs.
🏔️ Geography    🛠️ Workforce    📄 Permitting

Click here for an ongoing collection of infographics on the Democrats’ and Republicans’ positions on the issues.

---

Here is the essay. The only editing was to use words and phrases likely to appeal to Google. Unfortunately, that’s how the game is played these days.

In 2026, broadband Internet has solidified its status as a fundamental utility, essential for participation in modern education, healthcare, and the economy. Yet, universal access remains elusive. The challenges to deployment are multifaceted, involving geographic, economic, and regulatory hurdles. As the United States navigates these obstacles, Democrats and Republicans offer diverging philosophies on how to bridge the “digital divide.”

Broadband Internet Fraught with Challenges

The most immediate challenge is geographic and topographic. In rural broadband and tribal areas, the cost of “last-mile” infrastructure—connecting individual homes to the main network—is of

ten prohibitively expensive. Low population density means internet service providers (ISPs) cannot recoup the high capital costs of laying fiber-optic cables through rocky terrain or dense forests.

Beyond geography, regulatory and administrative barriers create significant friction. Navigating “make-ready” processes for utility poles, obtaining federal and state permits, and managing “right-of-way” access can delay projects by years. Additionally, the industry currently faces a workforce shortage, with a projected deficit of tens of thousands of skilled technicians and construction workers needed to install new networks. Finally, affordability remains a hurdle; even when infrastructure exists, many low-income households cannot afford monthly subscription fees or the hardware necessary to get online.

The Democratic Approach: Public Investment and Equity for Rural Broadband and the Broadband Internet

Democrats generally view broadband as a public good, similar to electricity or water. Their strategy emphasizes federal oversight and direct subsidies to ensure equity.

• Subsidies and Affordability: Democrats have championed programs like the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), advocating for permanent funding to provide monthly discounts to low-income families.
• Municipal Networks: They often support the right of local governments to build and operate their own “community broadband” networks. By allowing cities to treat broadband as a public utility, they aim to bypass the profit motives of large ISPs that might ignore low-income or rural neighborhoods.
• Net Neutrality and Regulation: Democrats advocate for “Title II” reclassification, which gives the FCC more power to regulate ISPs, preventing them from “throttling” speeds or creating “fast lanes” for certain content.

The Republican Approach: Deregulation and Market Competition Can Drive Rural Broadband and the Broadband Internet

Republicans typically view broadband deployment through the lens of free-market efficiency, arguing that heavy-handed government intervention stifles innovation and wastes taxpayer money.

• Deregulation and “Red Tape” Reduction: A core Republican priority is streamlining the permitting process. They advocate for “shot clocks” that force local governments to approve or deny permits within a strict timeframe, and “One Touch Make Ready” policies to simplify pole access.
• Technology Neutrality: While Democrats often prioritize fiber-optic cables as the “gold standard,” Republicans advocate for “tech neutrality.” This includes using cheaper alternatives like Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites (e.g., Starlink) and 5G fixed wireless to reach remote areas more quickly and cost-effectively.
• Incentivizing Private Investment: Rather than government-owned networks, Republicans prefer providing tax incentives and grants to private companies, arguing that competition between private firms is the best way to lower prices and improve service.