In order to adequately determine best practices to bridge the digital divide in the city of Pittsburgh, the reviewers looked at several city case studies. First, Chattanooga, Tennessee and Cleveland, Ohio, were analyzed for their the fiber-to-premise model of providing internet access. These cities were chosen because they are somewhat in the same geographic region as Pittsburgh and have similarly sized metropolitan populations. However, as the project progressed, talking more about infrastructure developments in the City of Pittsburgh would not be an adequate way to address the digital divide at this point in time.

 

Then, the reviewers looked at the city of Seattle, Washington which is at the forefront of bridging the digital divide. The city began tackling the issue of digital equity in 2000, by administering a technology survey to see what kinds of phone, broadband and other services were being used by its residents. The survey (paper and cold-call) was carefully crafted then administered with the help of municipal government and non-profits specializing in this subject. The results are available online for public consumption.

 

The city then created a committee, called the “Community Technology Advisory Board” whose mission it was to make recommendations to the Mayor and the City Council on issues relating to information and communications technology, research issues and collect public input, encourage and promote affordable access to and use of information and communications technology, and promote and advise effective electronic civic engagement and e-government services. The Board eventually became full-time city employees solely focused on this issue and identified the most important and pressing goals of the project, intended benefits and success measures, they identified key community stakeholders and held roundtable discussions as well as community focus groups to understand needs and wants. Every four years they send out a technology survey to their residents to ensure they are up to date with the reality of their city.

 

There are four branches on this committee; one called “Digital Inclusion” which seeks to get residents access to educational resources online (such as studying for and taking the GED), educating residents on how to apply for jobs online, and helping residents to sign up for health care online. They provide a list/map of public free internet access and a list of low-cost providers.

 

As the project has progressed, Seattle was able to do other important things such as establish community grant funds to help residents pay for cable and internet bills, sign a franchise agreement with cable and internet providers to provide free broadband for public WiFi (this took almost nine years), and created a technology matching fund program to fund local technology initiatives (currently funding 23 projects).

 

Challenges they faced and are facing include keeping consistency with goals of the program and with the funding available. Factors that contributed to success were having a group of people in key leadership roles for this project and ensuring they had the full support of the city leadership and interdepartmental buy-in to keep the project progressing.

 

All case studies provided some important insights such as a project of this scope, infrastructure-related or not, requires extensive public and private partnership and takes years of planning and dedication on the part of the city and others involved, and requires investment, in the form of finances, time, energy, ideas etc. Another important lesson learned from the case study analysis is that clear and tangible goals must be in place in order for a project like this to be successful.