Digital Inclusion? A Comparative Analysis of Broadband Policies Affecting Indigenous Populations in the U.S. and Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper provides a comparative analysis of policies affecting indigenous populations in the U.S. and Canada, including analysis of data from Alaska and other U.S. tribal regions and from northern Canada. Both countries have policies with goals of universal access to broadband, and both have used government subsidies to encourage investment in unserved and underserved regions.However, they take different approaches to issues affecting rural indigenous populations including affordability for users and sustainability for providers. Further, indigenous involvement in providing services varies, with some native-owned traditional telecommunications co-operatives in the U.S. and native-owned ISPs in Canada. Neither country has addressed convergence of fixed and mobile technologies as delivery platforms in remote and tribal regions, although mobile phones are widespread and other portable devices such as tablets are increasingly popular.The paper examines the potential impact of the transition from previous universal service fund (USF) subsidies to the Connect America Fund for remote tribal service areas in the U.S., as well as other issues the FCC is addressing such as whether Lifeline subsidies should be extended to broadband, and whether USF should be used for digital literacy. It also analyzes new FCC initiatives to expand broadband in tribal areas through targeted funding for tribal lands and remote regions and requirements for operator engagement with tribal representatives. The paper also examines proposed Canadian strategies to extend broadband in remote areas, which are primarily composed of First Nations communities. It also examines the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decision requiring minimum broadband speed targets to be “available to all Canadian homes, regardless of their geographic location… by the end of 2015.” To date, there is little awareness of this new requirement among consumers, including First Nations residents or their representatives, and enforcement mechanisms are unclear. The U.S. analysis reviews current initiatives of the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) including a reverse auction for 3G/4G licenses for tribal lands, fixed broadband funding for tribal lands, and funding for broadband Lifeline pilot projects. The Canadian analysis includes a review of federal funding for remote and indigenous broadband and CRTC decisions on universal access to broadband and a current CRTC case addressing broadband in the Canadian Arctic which is considering issues of quality of service, upgrades in facilities and bandwidth, and opening of competition for service provision.The paper draws on field research and case studies in Alaska and an extensive literature review on broadband for rural/indigenous development by the author, and documentation obtained by the author from participation in Canadian policy and regulatory proceedings.Universal access and consumer issues remain highly relevant in an increasingly information-dependent economy, which includes isolated regions and minority populations. They also serve as a microcosm of next-generation issues including provider sustainability in rural markets, converging fixed and mobile wireless technologies for broadband, strategies to encourage adoption and entrepreneurship, and accountability of providers. An analysis of policy and regulatory strategies to address these challenges is therefore relevant not only for North America but for other countries with remote and developing regions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».