In East Cleveland, Ohio, residents pay Spectrum $75 monthly for internet speeds of 100 megabits per second. Just eight miles away in the affluent suburb of Shaker Heights, the same company offers gigabit service—ten times faster—for $70. The only difference? The racial and economic composition of the neighborhoods.
Photo: Shaker Heights, via i.ytimg.com
This isn't an isolated example. Across America, major internet service providers systematically offer inferior service at higher prices to predominantly Black, Latino, and low-income communities—a practice researchers and digital rights advocates call "digital redlining." Like the housing discrimination that created segregated neighborhoods in the 20th century, digital redlining perpetuates inequality through seemingly neutral business practices that have profoundly unequal outcomes.
The Data Doesn't Lie: Mapping Digital Inequality
A 2022 study by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance analyzed broadband availability across 38 major cities, finding stark disparities that mirror historical redlining maps. In neighborhoods that were redlined in the 1930s—marked by federal housing officials as "hazardous" for investment due to racial composition—residents today have access to significantly fewer high-speed internet options and pay more for comparable service.
In Dallas, 57% of historically redlined areas lack access to high-speed fiber internet, compared to just 15% of areas that received the highest investment grades. In Detroit, residents in formerly redlined neighborhoods pay an average of $10 more monthly for the same internet speeds available in historically white areas. The pattern repeats in city after city: Philadelphia, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago.
AT&T provides perhaps the starkest example. A 2017 investigation by the Communications Workers of America found that the company offered its fastest fiber internet service to 59% of census blocks in majority-white areas but only 25% of blocks in majority-Black neighborhoods. In Cleveland, AT&T's fiber network reached 90% of affluent white neighborhoods while serving fewer than 40% of predominantly Black areas on the city's East Side.
The Business Model of Digital Discrimination
Internet service providers defend these disparities as simple economics—dense, affluent neighborhoods offer better returns on infrastructure investment. But this explanation ignores the role of government subsidies, regulatory capture, and deliberate business strategies that prioritize profit over universal service.
Telecommunications companies have received over $100 billion in federal subsidies since 1996 to expand broadband access, with minimal accountability for how those funds are deployed. The FCC's rural broadband programs have historically favored sparse, white rural areas over dense, urban communities of color. Meanwhile, companies like Comcast and Verizon use their political influence to block municipal broadband initiatives that could provide alternatives to their monopolistic service.
The practice extends beyond simple availability. ISPs deliberately offer different service tiers to different neighborhoods, creating a system where your zip code determines your internet speed. Comcast's "Internet Essentials" program, marketed to low-income households, provides speeds of just 50 megabits per second—adequate for basic web browsing but insufficient for video conferencing, online learning, or running a small business from home.
The Civil Rights Dimension: When Infrastructure Becomes Exclusion
Digital redlining isn't just about internet speeds—it's about access to opportunity in an increasingly digital economy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these disparities became matters of life and death as telehealth appointments, remote work, and online education moved essential services online.
Students in digitally redlined neighborhoods fell behind academically when schools went remote. Small businesses couldn't pivot to e-commerce without reliable high-speed internet. Job seekers couldn't access online applications or participate in video interviews. Healthcare providers couldn't reach patients through telehealth platforms.
The National Urban League found that 21% of Black households lack broadband internet access, compared to 13% of white households. This "digital divide" translates directly into economic disadvantage. Workers without high-speed internet at home earn $10,000 less annually than those with reliable connections, according to Federal Reserve Bank research.
Regulatory Capture and the Failure of Oversight
The Federal Communications Commission, supposedly the watchdog for telecommunications equity, has been captured by the very industry it's meant to regulate. Former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who led the agency under Donald Trump, previously worked for Verizon. His successor under Trump, Brendan Carr, worked for telecommunications law firms representing major ISPs.
This revolving door has produced policies that prioritize industry profits over consumer protection. The 2017 repeal of net neutrality rules removed prohibitions on ISPs blocking or slowing content, giving companies even more power to discriminate based on ability to pay. Recent FCC mapping initiatives have relied on industry-provided data that systematically overstates broadband availability in low-income communities.
Meanwhile, ISPs use their lobbying power to prevent competition. In 19 states, telecommunications companies have successfully pushed legislation restricting municipal broadband networks. These laws prevent local governments from providing alternative internet service, even when private companies refuse to adequately serve their communities.
International Comparisons: How Other Nations Treat Internet as Infrastructure
Other developed nations treat broadband internet as essential infrastructure, like electricity or water, with corresponding regulatory frameworks that ensure universal access. South Korea achieved near-universal gigabit internet through public-private partnerships that required service to all neighborhoods regardless of income. Estonia provides free public Wi-Fi as a basic government service. Even in rural areas, countries like Finland and Sweden maintain faster average internet speeds than many American cities.
These nations recognize what American policymakers have forgotten: in the 21st century, internet access is not a luxury but a necessity for full participation in economic, educational, and civic life. Treating broadband as a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder creates the same inequalities that plagued other essential services before public regulation.
The Path Forward: Broadband as a Public Good
Addressing digital redlining requires treating internet access as a civil right and public utility. The Biden administration's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocated $65 billion for broadband expansion, but without strong oversight, these funds risk repeating past failures where subsidies enriched telecommunications companies without meaningfully expanding access.
Congress should require ISPs that receive federal funding to provide equal service across all neighborhoods they serve. The FCC should reclassify broadband as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act, giving regulators power to prevent discriminatory practices. States should follow the lead of Colorado and Washington in protecting municipal broadband networks from industry interference.
Most importantly, policymakers must recognize digital redlining as part of America's broader pattern of structural racism. The same forces that created residential segregation, educational inequality, and healthcare disparities are now operating in cyberspace. Without deliberate intervention, the digital economy will replicate and amplify the inequalities of the physical world.
Broadband internet is the infrastructure of the 21st century economy—and like all infrastructure, it should serve everyone equally, not just those who can afford premium prices for premium service.
