Across the Caribbean region, Universal Service Funds have been crucial instruments to increase basic internet access in underserved communities and among marginalised groups. However, as the concept of digital inclusion has evolved to include meaningful connectivity and empowering individuals and communities to fully participate in and benefit from the increasingly digital world, can Universal Service Funds evolve to bridge that gap?

 

In the 21st century, access to telecommunications is no longer a luxury but a fundamental necessity. It underpins education, healthcare, economic opportunity, and civic participation. The concept of “universal service” in telecommunications has long aimed to ensure this access for all, regardless of geography or socioeconomic status. However, as the digital landscape evolves, simply providing a basic connection is no longer sufficient. The new imperative is meaningful connectivity, and it highlights a significant gap that Universal Service Funds (USFs) must bridge.

Having said this, across the Caribbean region and depending on the country, but especially Guyana, Suriname, Jamaica, Belize and Trinidad and Tobago, there are still areas that have limited or no internet connectivity. In Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, which have well-established Universal Service Frameworks, there would be some focus on improving access in underserved communities in addition to juggling other projects and programmes. However, what should be the expectation of USFs when facilitating access may no longer be enough?

 

From Universal Service to meaningful connectivity

Historically, Universal Service (US) focused primarily on access: ensuring that everyone could connect to a telephone network. Hence, the associated framework often revolved around providing subsidies for infrastructure deployment in rural or underserved areas. With the advent of the internet and mobile broadband, the definition expanded to include internet access.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic starkly exposed the limitations of this traditional view. Millions found themselves “connected” but unable to fully participate in online learning, remote work, or even access vital health information. This led to greater visibility being given to the already mooted concept of meaningful connectivity, which goes beyond mere access to encompass a holistic, empowering online experience.

There is no single accepted definition for meaningful connectivity, though from as early as 2020, we were highlighting the definition proposed by the Alliance for Affordable Internet. However, more generally, meaningful connectivity tends to be characterised by most, if not all, of these dimensions depending on the source:

  • Availability of quality infrastructure: This means not just coverage, but a reliable, fast, and stable connection (e.g., fibre or high-speed mobile broadband), not just spotty 3G.
  • Affordability: The cost of internet service and devices must be within reach for all income levels.
  • Device access: Users need appropriate devices (e.g., smartphones, laptops) that can leverage the internet’s full potential.
  • Regular internet use. Individuals must be able to access the internet daily, as and when needed, and not just sporadically.
  • Access to enough data. Though coupled with affordability, users ought to have access to enough Internet data to do all of what they would like, or need, to do and not experience data scarcity.
  • Relevant content and services: The internet should offer content and services that are useful, culturally relevant, and in local languages.
  • Digital literacy and skills: Individuals must possess the knowledge and skills to navigate the digital world safely and effectively.
  • Safety and security: Users need to feel secure and protected from online threats.

Although the above list may appear intimidating, for those of us who have readily available and constant access to high-speed internet service, possess a suitable device, and are digitally literate, in principle, we are meaningfully connected. The challenge, therefore, is to ensure that all citizens can enjoy that degree of connectivity and whether the requisite supports can be put in place to bridge the gaps.

 

The gaps where USFs fall short

Without a doubt, USFs in the Caribbean region have made commendable strides in expanding network coverage and providing basic access, but several significant challenges remain in achieving truly meaningful connectivity.

First, there is the challenge of moving beyond coverage to addressing the “usage gap. As previously mentioned, many USFs primarily focus on increasing network coverage, but living within a network coverage area does not guarantee internet use. This “usage gap” is often due to barriers like affordability, lack of devices, or insufficient digital skills. There is thus a need for interventions to become more demand-side driven to encourage actual internet adoption and effective use.

Second, affordability can be a persistent barrier because even with subsidies, the cost of internet service, data plans, and devices can be prohibitive for low-income households. Current USF mechanisms may not adequately address these costs, or may offer a short-term intervention, but ultimately, people may end up having internet “access” but still cannot afford to truly utilise it.

Third, USFs often prioritise expanding basic coverage, sometimes overlooking the need for higher-quality, resilient infrastructure that supports demanding applications like video conferencing, online education, or telehealth. In summary, the quality of connection matters. If an internet connection is slow, unreliable, or frequently drops, it is far from meaningful.

Fourth, it must be acknowledged that even with affordable, high-quality internet, a lack of appropriate devices and fundamental digital literacy can render connectivity meaningless. Although many USFs in the Caribbean are beginning to address this through device distribution programs, digital literacy training initiatives are still underdeveloped and are not being implemented on a sustained or ongoing basis.

Finally, the effectiveness of USFs hinges on sustainable funding mechanisms and transparent allocation of resources. Challenges like over-reliance on traditional telecom operator contributions or inefficient management can hinder their ability to bridge the meaningful connectivity gap. Across the region, most USFs are financed almost exclusively by contributions from telecom operators and/or a tax levied on consumers. However, income streams have been declining over time, which brings into question the long-term sustainability of existing USFs.

 

Is there a renewed role for USFs in a meaningfully connected construct?

To truly achieve meaningful connectivity, USFs must undergo a paradigm shift, becoming more strategic, inclusive, and forward-looking. In order to do so, and in the first instance, the objectives of US frameworks ought to centre on achieving universal meaningful connectivity and need to explicitly prioritise all dimensions of meaningful connectivity, not just basic access.

Second, cognisant of the restricted and declining income streams for USFs, funding sources ought to be diversified. Contributions solely from telecom operators are no longer enough, but should be expanded to include other digital ecosystem players to achieve more robust and equitable funding.

Third, reiterating a previously made point, USFs must move beyond infrastructure and invest in demand-side solutions. To that end, significant resources would need to be regularly allocated to programmes that address affordability (e.g., device subsidies, low-cost data plans), digital literacy training, and the development of locally relevant content.

Fourth, and unlike existing US frameworks, there ought to be a greater emphasis on promoting public-private partnerships. Collaboration between USFs, private sector companies, and civil society organisations is crucial to leveraging expertise, resources, and local knowledge for effective implementation and to increase the long-term viability and support for crucial programmes executed in communities.

Finally, coupled with the previous point, USFs could also support community-driven projects. Recognising and funding community-led initiatives can be a powerful way to reach unserved and underserved areas, whilst also ensuring solutions are tailored to local needs.

 

Unfortunately, existing US frameworks across the region cannot readily and fully accommodate all of these recommendations. Extensive legislative amendments would be necessary in some instances, though it may be possible within the current framework to partially incorporate them. Moreover, across the region, telecommunication laws are outdated and do not reflect current regulatory trends and best practices. There is thus scope, when those laws are being revamped, to create more progressive US frameworks that better address current and future needs of our societies and bridge the chasm that unlocks the transformative potential of the internet for all.

 

 

Image credit:  rawpixel.com (Freepik)