← We The People Platform Download .docx

UNIVERSAL BROADBAND

TWO PATHS COMPARED

A Side-by-Side Cost Analysis

Path A: Free Universal Basic Broadband

Path B: Universal Access + Affordability Subsidy

Federal cost, household cost, total resource cost,

coverage outcomes, and tradeoffs.

An Analytical Framing Document

Jason Robertson

v1.1 · Created May 4, 2026 · Updated May 4, 2026 · Updated May 6, 2026 for v2.26.2 (MIN-2: Path B header note)

Ohio · 2026

v2.26.2 update: This document compares Path A (federal subsidy of private ISPs) and Path B (federal ownership) as analytical alternatives. v2.26 selected Path B as the platform's commitment per Federal Infrastructure Fee. The comparison below remains valuable for understanding the architectural tradeoffs and for evaluating the platform's reasoning for choosing Path B over Path A. References to Path A continuing the Universal Service Fund describe the Path A architecture; under Path B, USF (Universal Service Fund) is replaced by the Federal Infrastructure Fee.

Executive Summary

Two paths exist for the platform's universal broadband commitment. Path A: free universal basic broadband, with the federal government paying providers to deliver 100/20 Mbps service to every household at no cost to the household. Path B: universal access plus affordability subsidy, with deployment to currently-unserved areas plus a successor to the Affordable Connectivity Program for low-income households. This document compares the cost, coverage, and outcome implications of both paths so the structural decision can be made with clear numbers.

The Bottom Line

Metric | Path A: Free Universal | Path B: Access + Subsidy
Annual federal cost | $50 billion | $25 billion
Annual household cost (aggregate) | ~$19 billion (premium upgrades only) | ~$114 billion (retail bills + co-pays)
Total annual resource cost | ~$69 billion | ~$139 billion
Coverage of US households | 100% universal | ~92-95% (subsidy enrollment gap)
Households without service after deployment | 0 | 5-10 million
Administrative complexity | Low (no enrollment) | High (eligibility verification)
Cross-pillar enabling (mental health, education) | Full | Compromised by 5-10% gap
Disruption to existing private market | Substantial (retail layer) | Minimal

The Counterintuitive Insight

Path A costs the federal government approximately twice as much as Path B ($50B vs $25B annually) but costs the economy as a whole approximately half as much ($69B vs $139B annually). The difference is who pays. Path B keeps most household broadband spending in the private retail market where customer acquisition, marketing, churn management, and shareholder margin add approximately $63 billion per year in overhead costs that disappear under Path A's wholesale-to-government provision.

This isn't accounting sleight-of-hand. It reflects a real structural feature of how retail markets versus utility markets allocate resources. The same dynamic explains why public utilities (water, sewer) typically cost households substantially less than equivalent private market services would: removing the retail competition layer also removes the costs that retail competition produces.

The Coverage Gap Reality

Path B has a structural coverage gap that Path A doesn't have. Affordability subsidy programs always experience non-enrollment among eligible populations — some don't know about the program, some can't navigate the application, some have insufficient documentation, some distrust government programs. The Affordable Connectivity Program, even at peak with active outreach, enrolled approximately 50% of eligible households. Realistic Path B enrollment is 50-65% of eligible low-income households, leaving 5-10 million households without affordable service despite eligibility.

This isn't a hypothetical concern. The 5-10 million coverage gap means 5-10% of the population would have compromised access to telehealth (which the platform's mental health pillar relies on), online education (which the Sovereign Education Fund relies on), telework (which the wage floor architecture relies on), and government services (which the Civic Technology component relies on). The platform's other pillars work less universally because of broadband's residual gap. Path A eliminates this residual gap entirely by making service universal at point of access.

“Path A costs the federal government approximately twice as much as Path B but costs the economy as a whole approximately half as much. The difference is who pays. Retail-market overhead disappears under wholesale-to-government provision.”

Path A: Free Universal Basic Broadband

Path A makes basic broadband (100/20 Mbps fiber, fixed wireless, or LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite) free at point of use for every American household, parallel to how the platform treats healthcare, mental health, and K-12 education. The federal government pays providers a wholesale price per connection; households receive service automatically at their address with no application, eligibility verification, or monthly bill for basic service. Premium tiers (gigabit symmetric, business-class) remain available for purchase from providers.

Service Architecture

What Path A provides • Every American household: free 100/20 Mbps fixed broadband service at address. • No application, eligibility verification, or means-testing required. • Service available wherever the household lives, with deployment completed by Year 7. • Customer premises equipment (router, ONT) provided as part of service. • Customer support and technical assistance included. • Premium tiers (gigabit, business-class) purchasable from same or other providers at $30-50/month above basic. • Provider mix: rural electric cooperatives, municipal broadband authorities, fiber-only ISPs, incumbent telecoms, fixed wireless ISPs, and LEO satellite operators — whichever provides best service at lowest contracted price for each area.

Cost Architecture

Federal cost is the wholesale price providers receive, paid by a federal contracting authority (operating within the Civic Infrastructure Authority described in the v2.3 framing). Wholesale price reflects provider cost plus sustainable margin without retail-market overhead.

Cost Component | Per Connection per Month | Annual at 132M Households
Capex amortization (25-year fiber lifecycle) | $12 | $19 billion
Network operations and maintenance | $6.50 | $10 billion
Backhaul and upstream transit | $3 | $5 billion
Customer support (technical) | $4 | $6 billion
Power, facilities, security, monitoring | $3 | $5 billion
Provider margin (sustainable, ~12%) | $4 | $6 billion
Total wholesale price | $33 | $50 billion

Annual federal cost at full deployment: approximately $50 billion. This represents about 0.17% of US GDP, approximately 3% of the platform's projected Sovereign Fund disbursements at Year 30, and approximately 1.5% of the platform's healthcare commitment by total spending. Modest in the platform's overall scale, but substantial as a standalone Civic Infrastructure commitment.

Household Cost Under Path A

Basic service is free. Households that want premium tiers pay providers directly:

Premium tier uptake estimate: approximately 30% of households would upgrade to gigabit fiber or premium tiers for streaming, work-from-home, or gaming use cases. At an average $40/month for premium upgrades (above the free basic tier), this represents 40 million households × $40 × 12 = approximately $19 billion per year in private spending. Households in the remaining 70% receive basic service free with no monthly broadband cost.

Compared to status quo (households currently spending an average $77/month or about $1,000/year on residential broadband), Path A produces an average household savings of approximately $850 per year for the 70% of households that don't upgrade and approximately $450 per year for the 30% that do (since they pay $480 for premium instead of $924 for current full-price service). Total household spending shifts from approximately $111 billion currently to approximately $19 billion under Path A — a savings of approximately $92 billion per year for American households in aggregate.

What Path A Doesn't Cover

Path A is fixed residential broadband. Several adjacent broadband services remain in the private market:

Outside Path A scope • Mobile broadband (cellular data plans): remains private market with separate affordability programs (existing Lifeline mobile component continues). • Business broadband (commercial premises): remains commercial market. • Premium residential tiers (above 100/20 Mbps): paid private market. • Multi-dwelling unit shared infrastructure: federal contract is per-household; building-level infrastructure economics handled by providers. • Public broadband at libraries, transit stations, parks: separate component of Civic Infrastructure pillar (Public Spaces). • Premise wiring within homes (existing residential wiring): household responsibility unless requiring upgrade for service deployment.

These exclusions matter for cost accounting: Path A is the universal basic residential broadband commitment, not a comprehensive subsidy of all internet-related expenses. The $50 billion cost reflects fixed residential service only.

“Path A: federal cost $50B/year, household cost $19B (premium upgrades only), 100% universal coverage, no enrollment required, no eligibility verification, no application friction.”

Path B: Universal Access + Affordability Subsidy

Path B is the v2.3 framing's broadband commitment: federal investment in deployment to currently-unserved areas, ensuring access exists everywhere, plus an affordability subsidy program (successor to the Affordable Connectivity Program) that provides $30/month subsidy for households below 200% of the federal poverty line. Most households continue paying providers directly at retail rates; low-income households who enroll in the subsidy program have part of their bill covered.

Service Architecture

What Path B provides • Federal investment to deploy broadband infrastructure to currently-unserved areas (~14.5 million Americans, ~5.5 million households). • Universal Service Fund continues at current scale (~$8B/year) supporting rural high-cost areas, schools and libraries (E-rate), low-income access (Lifeline), and rural healthcare. • Affordability subsidy program: $30/month subsidy for eligible low-income households (below 200% federal poverty line, ~41 million households eligible). • Subsidy enrollment requires application, income verification, recertification annually. • Most households (above 200% FPL): continue paying providers retail rates ($60-100/month average). • FCC mapping reform tied to funding eligibility. • Workforce development for fiber installers as part of broader BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment) funding.

Cost Architecture

Cost Component | Annual Federal Cost | Notes
Deployment to unserved areas (amortized + maintenance) | $6 billion | 5.5M households getting service for first time
Affordability subsidy (ACP successor) | $8 billion | 22.5M enrolled households at $30/month
Universal Service Fund (continued) | $8 billion | Existing program, rural high-cost + E-rate + Lifeline
FCC mapping, workforce, regulatory operations | $3 billion | Mapping accuracy, BEAD ongoing operations
Total Path B federal cost | $25 billion | Approximately 50% of Path A federal cost

Annual federal cost at full deployment: approximately $25 billion. This is approximately half of Path A's $50 billion federal cost. The cost difference reflects the fundamental structural choice: Path B subsidizes service for low-income households while leaving most households in the private retail market; Path A pays for everyone.

Household Cost Under Path B

Path B leaves most household broadband spending in the private retail market. Three population segments experience different costs:

Household cost segments under Path B • Above 200% FPL (~91 million households): pay providers retail rates ($60-100/month average, ~$77/month US average). Annual household spending: approximately $84 billion. • Below 200% FPL, enrolled in subsidy (~22.5 million households): receive $30/month subsidy, pay net $30-50/month after subsidy. Annual household spending: approximately $11 billion (after subsidy). • Below 200% FPL, not enrolled in subsidy (~18.5 million households): pay full retail or go without service. Approximately half pay full retail (~$77/month) representing ~$9 billion in household spending; the other half lack service due to inability to afford. • Newly-deployed areas (~5.5 million households): pay retail rates after deployment completes; some qualify for subsidy. Embedded in segments above. • Total annual household spending under Path B: approximately $114 billion (combining all paying segments).

The Subsidy Enrollment Gap

Path B's coverage gap is operational, not structural — service exists, but not everyone who would benefit from the subsidy actually receives it. Affordability subsidy programs consistently underperform their eligible enrollment:

Program | Eligible Population | Peak Enrollment | Take-Up Rate
Lifeline (current) | ~38 million households | ~6.6 million | 17%
Affordable Connectivity Program (peak) | ~52 million households | ~23 million | 44%
SNAP food assistance | ~46 million | ~42 million | 91%
Medicaid | ~95 million | ~83 million | 87%
EITC tax credit | ~30 million | ~24 million | 78%
Path B affordability subsidy (assumed) | ~41 million households | ~22.5 million | 55%

ACP achieved 44% take-up at its peak, with active outreach and aggressive marketing. Lifeline, with weaker outreach, achieves 17%. Programs with better integration into existing systems (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit)) achieve 78-91% take-up because eligibility flows from existing program participation rather than requiring new applications. Path B's affordability subsidy assumed at 55% take-up reflects the 'better than ACP, worse than well-integrated programs' middle range — about 22.5 million households enrolled out of 41 million eligible.

That leaves approximately 18.5 million low-income households not enrolled in the subsidy program despite eligibility. Of these, approximately half would find a way to pay for service at full retail (sometimes with substantial financial strain), and approximately half would forgo service entirely or rely on inadequate substitutes (smartphone-only access, public WiFi at libraries). The 8-10 million household coverage gap is the operational reality of Path B.

Administrative Complexity

Path B requires a complex administrative apparatus that Path A doesn't. The subsidy program needs:

Eligibility verification: confirming household income relative to FPL (Federal Poverty Level), typically through documentation review or integration with other federal programs (SNAP, Medicaid, FCC (Federal Communications Commission)'s National Verifier system). Recertification: typically annual re-verification of continued eligibility, with disenrollment for households whose incomes rise above threshold. Application processing: handling new applications, denials, appeals. Provider participation: contracting with private ISPs to honor subsidy and provide service at subsidized rate. Fraud prevention: detecting double enrollment, ineligible enrollment, provider gaming. Administrative overhead is typically 8-15% of subsidy program costs — approximately $0.6-1.2 billion per year in addition to the $8 billion subsidy disbursement.

“Path B: federal cost $25B/year, household cost $114B, ~92-95% effective coverage (subsidy enrollment gap), high administrative complexity, retains most existing private market dynamics.”

Side-by-Side Comparison

This section places Path A and Path B alongside each other across the dimensions that matter for the structural decision: cost, coverage, market disruption, administrative complexity, and cross-pillar implications.

Cost Comparison

Cost Dimension | Path A: Free Universal | Path B: Access + Subsidy
Federal annual cost | $50 billion | $25 billion
Federal cost as % of GDP | 0.17% | 0.08%
Federal cost as % of Sovereign Fund (Y30) | ~3% | ~1.5%
Federal 30-year cumulative | $1.42 trillion | $700 billion
Household annual spending (aggregate) | $19 billion (premium only) | $114 billion (retail bills + copays)
Household average annual cost | $144/yr (premium uptake amortized) | $863/yr
Total annual resource cost | $69 billion | $139 billion
30-year resource cost (federal + household) | $2.0 trillion | $3.7 trillion
Net economic resources saved vs status quo | $50 billion/year | (no significant savings)

Path A federal cost is approximately twice Path B federal cost, but Path A total resource cost is approximately half Path B total resource cost. This is the most important number in the comparison: total economic resources consumed delivering broadband decline by approximately $70 billion per year under Path A relative to Path B, even though federal spending increases by $25 billion. Path A is more economically efficient at the system level despite costing more federally.

Coverage Comparison

Coverage Dimension | Path A: Free Universal | Path B: Access + Subsidy
Households with available service | 132 million (100%) | 132 million (100%)
Households actually receiving service | 132 million (100%) | ~120-125 million (90-95%)
Households at affordability barrier | 0 | ~8-10 million
Enrollment friction | None (automatic) | Application + verification + recertification
Coverage of low-income (below 200% FPL) | 100% automatic | ~55% via subsidy enrollment
Coverage of middle-income | 100% automatic | ~85-90% (some skip due to cost)
Coverage of upper-income | 100% automatic | ~95-98% (most opt in)
Geographic coverage gap (rural/tribal) | Closed by deployment | Closed by deployment (same as Path A)

Path A and Path B achieve identical infrastructure deployment (universal availability) but differ substantially in actual service delivery. Path B's structural coverage gap of 8-10 million households reflects the operational realities of subsidy-based access programs. The gap concentrates in the population the platform's other pillars are most concerned with: low-income households whose access to telehealth, online education, and government services depends on having broadband.

Cross-Pillar Implications

The 8-10 million household coverage gap under Path B isn't just a broadband problem; it's a problem for several other platform pillars whose universal commitments depend on broadband:

Pillar Affected | Path A Effect | Path B Effect
Mental Health (telehealth-based capacity) | Full effect (1.5-2.5x multiplier) | 5-10% capacity gap in low-income areas
Healthcare (telehealth + EHR access) | Full effect | Compromised in 5-10% of population
Education (online learning access) | Full effect | 5-10% gap in low-income students
Sovereign Education Fund (rural reach) | Full reach | Compromised in low-income rural
Civic Technology (government services) | Universal access | 5-10% structural gap
Wage Floor architecture (telework option) | Universal | Less universal

This is the strongest argument for Path A: the 5-10% coverage gap under Path B doesn't just affect those households' broadband access, it cascades through several other platform commitments that those households were promised. The mental health pillar's telehealth-based workforce capacity multiplier reaches less of the population. The Sovereign Education Fund's online delivery reaches less of the population. Civic technology's government services reach less of the population. Path A makes the broader platform's universal commitments actually universal in operation, not just universal on paper.

Operational Complexity Comparison

Operational Dimension | Path A: Free Universal | Path B: Access + Subsidy
Federal contracting authority | Yes (single) | Yes (single, plus subsidy admin)
Eligibility verification system | Not needed | Required (FCC National Verifier expansion)
Application processing | Not needed | Required (millions of applications)
Recertification process | Not needed | Required (annual)
Provider participation contracts | Universal (everyone served) | Optional (providers choose)
Fraud prevention overhead | Minimal (no eligibility games) | Substantial (subsidy game prevention)
Administrative cost | ~2-3% of program cost | ~10-15% of subsidy disbursement
Customer support burden | Standard ISP (Internet Service Provider) support | ISP support + subsidy program support
Coordination across agencies | Civic Infrastructure Authority | FCC + states + USAC + providers

Market Disruption Comparison

Market Effect | Path A: Free Universal | Path B: Access + Subsidy
Existing ISP retail revenue ($111B/yr base) | ~$30-50B remains (premium tiers) | ~$100-110B remains (mostly intact)
ISP wholesale-to-government revenue | ~$50B/year | $0 (no wholesale relationship)
Total ISP revenue (federal + private) | ~$80-100B (decline of $11-31B) | ~$108-118B (roughly stable)
Customer acquisition activity | Mostly eliminated | Continues
Marketing and brand competition | Premium tier only | Continues for all tiers
Industry workforce | Maintained (same service delivery) | Maintained
Cooperative/municipal provider expansion | Strong incentive (federal contract) | Modest incentive (small subset of market)
Incumbent telecom shareholder impact | Significant (retail margin loss) | Minimal

Path A produces meaningful disruption to the retail layer of the existing broadband industry. Incumbent telecoms lose approximately $30-50 billion per year in retail margins they currently capture. Their customer-facing operations (sales, marketing, customer support, billing) shrink substantially. The actual service delivery operations (network engineering, field deployment, customer support, infrastructure maintenance) continue — they shift from competing for retail customers to fulfilling federal universal service contracts.

Path B is much closer to the status quo. ISPs continue retail competition for most households. The subsidy program adds a low-income service tier but doesn't fundamentally restructure the retail market. Existing private market dynamics persist.

The disruption question is real, but it's worth being clear about what's being disrupted. Path A doesn't reduce broadband investment, eliminate broadband jobs, or reduce service quality — it eliminates the retail margin layer that adds approximately $63 billion per year in costs without producing additional service. The disruption is to the financialization of the broadband industry, not to the actual broadband industry.

“Path A doesn't reduce broadband investment, eliminate jobs, or reduce service quality. It eliminates the retail margin layer that adds $63B/year without producing service. The disruption is to financialization, not to broadband itself.”

Stress Test Comparison

Both paths should be tested against adverse scenarios. This section compares how Path A and Path B respond to common stress scenarios.

Stress 1: Wholesale Cost Higher Than Expected

If actual provision cost runs higher than mid estimates (incumbent telecoms dominate provider mix, deployment proves more expensive in rural areas):

Stress Scenario: Costs 50% Higher | Path A Impact | Path B Impact
Federal cost | $50B → $75B | $25B → $33B
Within pillar envelope? | Yes (within 1.1% GDP) | Yes (within 0.5% GDP)
Coverage outcome | Unchanged (still 100%) | Unchanged (gap still 8-10M)
Verdict | Strained but absorbable | Comfortably absorbable

Stress 2: Subsidy Take-Up Lower Than Expected

If Path B's affordability subsidy achieves only 35% take-up (closer to ACP's actual peak rather than aspirational 55%):

Stress Scenario: 35% Take-Up | Path A Impact | Path B Impact
Federal cost | Unchanged ($50B) | $25B → $20B (lower subsidy disbursement)
Coverage outcome | Unchanged (still 100%) | Gap grows from 8-10M to 14-17M
Population without effective broadband | 0 | ~10-13% of US
Verdict | Resilient | Coverage gap doubles

This stress is uniquely Path B's problem. Path A doesn't have a take-up dimension because there's no enrollment to take up. Path B's coverage outcome is sensitive to subsidy program performance — if administration falters, coverage worsens. Path A's coverage outcome is structurally guaranteed regardless of administrative quality.

Stress 3: Premium Tier Uptake Lower Than Expected

If Path A's premium tier uptake is lower than the assumed 30% — say 20% of households upgrade rather than 30%:

Stress Scenario: 20% Premium Uptake | Path A Impact | Path B Impact
Federal cost | Unchanged ($50B) | Not applicable
Household premium spending | $19B → $13B | Not applicable
Total resource cost | $69B → $63B | Not applicable
Provider economics | Modest revenue compression | Not applicable
Verdict | Reduces total cost further | Not applicable

Lower premium uptake under Path A actually reduces total economic resource cost because the premium tier private spending falls. The federal cost is unchanged because Path A federal commitment is to basic tier only. This stress works in Path A's favor at the system level.

Stress 4: Service Standards Need to Increase

If basic broadband service standards need to increase from 100/20 Mbps to 250/50 Mbps over the platform horizon (driven by application bandwidth growth):

Stress Scenario: Service Standard Doubles | Path A Impact | Path B Impact
Federal cost (basic tier upgrade) | $50B → ~$60B | $25B → $28B
Provider obligations | Standard built into contract | Standard regulated, providers comply
Affordability subsidy adequacy | Not applicable | Subsidy may not cover increased retail cost
Coverage outcome | Unchanged (100% on new standard) | Subsidy gap may grow if retail prices rise
Verdict | Federal contract scales naturally | Subsidy adequacy becomes new question

Combined Adverse Scenarios

Combined Adverse: Multiple Stresses | Path A: Free Universal | Path B: Access + Subsidy
Federal cost (all stresses combined) | $95 billion | $50 billion
Total resource cost | $110 billion | $170+ billion (with coverage gap costs)
Coverage outcome | Universal maintained | 15-20% structural gap
Pillar envelope status | Strained but within envelope | Within envelope
Cross-pillar effect | Maintained | Substantially compromised

Both paths remain within the platform's funding envelope under combined adverse stress. The crucial difference is what happens to coverage and cross-pillar effects: Path A maintains universal coverage and full cross-pillar enabling under stress; Path B's structural coverage gap grows substantially when subsidy program performance falters. Path A is more robust to operational stress because it doesn't depend on operational program execution to deliver universal access.

“Path A is more robust to operational stress because it doesn't depend on program execution for universal access. Path B's coverage outcome depends on subsidy administration quality — a real operational risk Path A doesn't have.”

Tradeoffs and Decision Implications

Both paths are defensible commitments. Each has genuine advantages over the other in specific dimensions. This section articulates the tradeoffs cleanly so the structural decision can be made with clear-eyed understanding of what's gained and given up under each option.

Where Path A Wins

Path A's genuine advantages over Path B • Total resource cost: $70 billion/year less in total economic resources consumed delivering broadband. • Coverage outcome: 100% universal vs Path B's 90-95% with structural gap of 8-10 million households. • Administrative complexity: minimal (no enrollment, eligibility, recertification) vs Path B's substantial subsidy administration. • Cross-pillar enabling: full effect for mental health, education, Civic Technology vs Path B's 5-10% compromise. • Robustness to operational stress: coverage doesn't depend on subsidy program execution. • Platform pattern alignment: matches healthcare and K-12 education's free-at-point-of-use treatment of essential services. • Simplification of citizen experience: 'you have broadband' rather than 'you might be eligible for a subsidy program if you apply'. • Elimination of digital redlining incentives: providers have no reason to selectively avoid low-income areas because they're paid the same wholesale price for any served household.

Where Path B Wins

Path B's genuine advantages over Path A • Federal cost: $25 billion less in annual federal spending ($25B vs $50B). • Smaller federal footprint: less direct federal involvement in residential broadband. • Less private market disruption: existing retail competition continues for most households. • Easier political feasibility: incremental from current programs rather than structural overhaul. • Maintains private capital incentive structure: ISPs continue investing for retail returns rather than for federal contracts. • Tier flexibility: households choose what service tier they want with normal market signals operating. • Lower risk of provider dependency: federal government doesn't become single dominant customer for broadband industry. • Reversibility: easier to adjust subsidy levels or eligibility than to dismantle a free universal commitment once established.

The Structural Question

Both paths deliver universal broadband access in the sense that infrastructure becomes available to every household. They differ in whether universal access also means universal service — whether having broadband available is enough, or whether having broadband actually delivered to every household matters.

The platform's broader architecture treats this distinction as central. Healthcare isn't 'universal access' (every American can pay for it if they're rich enough); it's universal service (every American gets it free at point of use). K-12 education isn't 'universal access' (every American can enroll their child if they pay tuition); it's universal service (every American child can attend public school free). The platform's commitment to universal services as the foundation of shared prosperity is a substantive structural commitment, not just rhetoric. The structural question for broadband is whether it joins this universal-service tier or remains in the universal-access tier alongside utilities like water and electricity.

There are honest cases for both. Broadband shares features with healthcare (capital-intensive infrastructure, near-zero marginal cost of additional users, foundational to participation in modern life). Broadband also shares features with utilities (variable usage, technology with multiple service tiers, existing private market structure). The platform's author has architectural authority over which pattern applies. Cost feasibility doesn't determine the answer; structural design preference does.

The Decision Framework

The decision question reduces to four sub-questions:

Decision sub-questions • Q1: Is broadband foundational to modern life in the same way healthcare and K-12 education are? (If yes, lean Path A; if no, lean Path B.) • Q2: Does the platform commit to making other pillars (mental health, education, Civic Technology) actually universal in operation, not just universal in access? (If yes, lean Path A because Path B compromises operational universality; if no, Path B is sufficient.) • Q3: Is the platform willing to accept the disruption to the existing private broadband retail market in exchange for total resource savings of ~$70 billion per year? (If yes, lean Path A; if no, lean Path B.) • Q4: Is the platform comfortable with structural reversibility being harder under Path A than under Path B? (If yes, lean Path A; if no, Path B preserves more future optionality.)

These questions don't have objective answers. They're judgment calls about platform design philosophy. The platform's author can answer them and the answer determines the path.

Recommendations for Implementation

Whichever path is chosen, several implementation principles apply to both:

Multi-modal architecture is required regardless. Both paths require the same physical deployment: fiber via rural electric cooperatives where economically viable, fixed wireless access for medium-density rural, LEO satellite as backstop for frontier areas. The choice between Path A and Path B doesn't change the deployment architecture; it changes who pays for the resulting service.

Universal service standards apply to both. 100/20 Mbps minimum, with the standard rising over time as application bandwidth needs grow. Path A bakes the standard into federal contracts; Path B regulates providers to meet the standard. Either approach can work.

FCC mapping reform is required for both. Parcel-level rather than census-tract-level mapping is needed for either deployment program to target funding accurately. This is platform infrastructure that supports both paths.

Workforce expansion supports both. Fiber installer training, splicer certification programs, and field crew apprenticeships are needed regardless of path. The platform's broader workforce development investments support both options.

Tribal sovereignty matters in both. Tribally-owned broadband authorities receive direct federal funding rather than state pass-through, recognizing tribal sovereignty over reservation infrastructure. This commitment applies to both paths.

How to Document the Choice

Path A implementation in v2.4 • Update v2.3 Civic Infrastructure framing to commit to free universal basic broadband as the broadband architecture. • Adjust Civic Infrastructure model: broadband component shifts from $15-20B/yr to $50B/yr. • Adjust pillar total: from $215-325B/yr (mid $270B) to $250-360B/yr (mid $300B). • v2.4 Universal Broadband Access Substantiation operationalizes the free-universal commitment with full implementation analysis: federal contracting structure, provider qualification standards, premium tier private market boundary, deployment workforce coordination, and stress-tested cost projections. • Platform's free-at-point-of-use tier expands to include broadband alongside healthcare, mental health, K-12 education, post-secondary education, childcare.

Path B implementation in v2.4 • v2.3 Civic Infrastructure framing remains as built. Broadband component stays at $15-20B/yr, refined upward to $25B/yr based on this analysis. • v2.4 Universal Broadband Access Substantiation operationalizes the access-plus-subsidy commitment with full implementation analysis: deployment program design, subsidy program architecture (eligibility, application flow, integration with other federal programs), affordability subsidy enrollment outreach strategy, FCC mapping reform mechanism, and coverage gap monitoring. • Platform's free-at-point-of-use tier remains as currently defined. • Affordability subsidy successor to ACP closes the affordability gap for low-income enrolled households without making basic service universally free.

Closing Reflection

This comparison answers the cost question precisely: free universal basic broadband (Path A) costs the federal government approximately twice as much as universal access plus affordability subsidy (Path B), but costs the economy as a whole approximately half as much. Path A delivers 100% universal coverage; Path B delivers 90-95% coverage with a structural enrollment gap. Path A enables the platform's other universal pillars to function as designed; Path B partially compromises their universality. Path A is administratively simpler; Path B is more aligned with current federal program architecture.

The cost analysis demonstrates affordability is not the barrier to either path. The platform can fund either choice within its established architecture. The barrier is structural design preference: which pattern — universal service or universal access — better fits the platform's commitments to the people it serves. Both are defensible commitments. The choice is the platform's author's to make.

“Cost analysis demonstrates affordability is not the barrier to either path. The platform can fund either choice. The barrier is structural design preference: universal service or universal access — which pattern better fits the platform's commitments?”

Jason Robertson

Ohio, May 4, 2026