"Digital Divide" is Closing

Policy advocates and policymakers have worried about a "digital divide" in U.S. Internet usage, as much as global policymakers have worried about the difference between communications use in developed and developing regions.

But a new study by eMarketer suggests that the U.S. digital divide is closing fairly rapidly. By 2014, in four years, Internet usage rates by Americans of black ancestry will just about equal rates of U.S. "whites" today, while Hispanic American use of the Internet will rise to within six percentage points of the current U.S. average usage by "white" Americans.

That is not to say rates will be identical, but the point is that almost nobody thinks "white" Americans generally are victims of a "digital divide" today, though there are more issues in rural or isolated parts of the country. In fact, most of the non-adoption factors now are of a "demand" sort rather than a "supply" sort. In other words, most people who want broadband already buy it.

If by 2015 Americans of "black" or "Hispanic" heritage have those same rates, the significance of the "divide" should be largely moot. That is not to say the issue is completely moot, but closing the last percentage or two of gap in any endeavor always is a matter of effort and reward. And since the primary issue these days is demand, not supply, some circumspection might be in order, in terms of the amount of effort expended, compared to the potential benefits. The markets, and consumers, seem to be doing a relatively good job, unaided, in terms of closing the digital divide.

Digital Divide Now is More Subtle

There is no digital divide on inter-city trains, inter-city buses or airplanes, a study of use of personal devices on buses, trains and airplanes suggests.

Internet access remains an issue in rural and lower-income areas, compared to suburban and mid-income urban areas, to be sure, but the issues now are more subtle, having as much to do with people not seeing Internet access as useful as actual physical lack of access.

To be sure, use of fixed high speed access services is lower among households with less income. Access is 70 percent amongst households with $10,000 or less annual income, in the 85-percent range for households with income between $20,000 and $40,000, and above 90 percent for households in higher income ranges.

But age explains non-use of the Internet as much as income. Also, mobile Internet access is substantial among lower-income households, ranging from 50 percent to 60 percent among lower-income groups.

In fact, many younger users use mobile Internet access, rather than fixed network access. In other words, much of the digital divide that remains in U.S. Internet access is explained by age or use of mobile access.

Access speeds in rural areas continue to lag offered speeds in urban and suburban areas, as a rule, though the gap is closing, as cable TV high speed access services tend to be much faster than all-copper digital subscriber line connections. That is true even in India.

That is one good reason why AT&T, among others, is upgrading rural networks with fiber.

In fact, widespread use of connected personal devices on inter-city transportation services suggests the important role ownership of connected devices now plays.

On Greyhound inter-city buses, the use  of personal technology use is now significantly higher than on airplanes and is only marginally below that on Amtrak and discount bus lines, a study by the Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development has found.

In fact, for the first time in five years, use of personal devices on at least one  inter-city bus service was higher than on airplanes or Amtrak.

Among the 505 passengers observed on 20 Megabus and Van Galder buses operating from curbside locations in 2013, 59 percent were using technology, compared to 46 percent in 2012.

In large part, that might be because the amount of use of new “connected” bus services--which offer travelers uninterrupted cell phone signals as well as free Wi-Fi and power outlets--grew 30 percent between 2012 and 2013.

On Amtrak, the share of technology users was flat at 52 percent in 2013, the study found.

Availability of power outlets, Wi-Fi and mobile access likely explains the lighter use of personal devices on airplanes, according to the Technology in  Intercity Travel Study.

Technology use on airlines remained virtually flat and continues to lag behind other

modes in 2013, suggesting that lack of communications “for no incremental cost” is an issue.

But the ban on phone calls aboard aircraft, as well as the lack of power outlets, likely also are issues.

The two fastest growing modes of intercity travel over the calendar years 2012 and 2013—intercity trains and discount buses—were also those in which the technology use was observed to be the highest in early 2013.

The amount of discount bus service grew by four percent between 2012 and 2013, while the number of Amtrak seat-miles grew by 1.4 percent, as did airline seats.

Availability of Wi-Fi and mobile Internet connections, the “no incremental cost” access and lawfulness of device app use on trains and buses possibly explains the higher use of personal devices on buses and trains.

Mobile device connections are disabled in the air, on airplanes, in addition to being unlawful. When Wi-Fi is available, usage requires payment, and power outlets often also are not available.

But there seems to be no “digital divide” between passengers on inter-city buses, trains or airplanes.

The Chaddick Institute survey in 2014 consisted of 1,659 airline travelers, 1,608 intercity train (Amtrak) passengers, 505 discount city-to-city bus passengers (Megabus and Coach USA), 270 conventional intercity bus passengers, and 2,992 commuter rail passengers.

No Digital Divide?

One doesn’t hear quite so much about “digital divides” as was common a decade ago. One suspects that is because the supply of communications, both voice and data, is a problem the world seems capable of solving.

Some of us can remember great "handwringing" an concern in international policy circles about how to bring telephone service to two billion people who never had made a phone call. You don't hear such concern anymore, since we rapidly are solving that problem with mobile communications, a solution not envisioned in the 1970s and 1980s.

Two decades ago the question largely had shifted to the problem of how to get computing into the hands of the next three billion people. There was some work around the notion of special devices optimized for rural villagers that would be low cost, perhaps $150 or so.

For many at the time, likely most knowledgeable observers, the prevailing thinking was that it couldn't really be done. And that remained true even as recently as the middle of the 2000 decade.

But as we stumbled upon a solution to the problem of getting communications to people at prices they could afford, we are about to solve the problem of getting computers to people, also at prices they can afford.

The notion, for some time, has been that in many parts of the world, the smart phone would be "the computer" most people used. That might turn out to be largely correct, for at least a time.

But it also now is possible that we know how to create and sell computers to people that cost no more than $150. Consider that the prototype "One Laptop Per Child" device had a screen of 7.5 inches diagonal and flash memory, with no keyboard.and used Wi-Fi for Internet connectivity.

Oh, that's right, we now call that a tablet, and it is made and sold commercially by the likes of Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and soon Google and likely Apple.

One might note a similar process at work even in the area of rural broadband access. Does it make sense to spend up to $50,000 per home to provide broadband access service to less than 200,000 U.S. rural locations, when at least two other approaches are already available?

The Federal Communications Commission, for example, conducted a  gap analysis that suggested $13.4 billion in subsidies would be required to  expand availability to only 250,000 of the highest cost homes (0.19 percent of all U.S. homes).

According to the FCC, those homes would require subsidies of about $53,600 – on top of what service providers would expect to spend to connect a typical home.

Excluding the cost of serving these 250,000 homes, the cost of connecting the remaining 6.75 million homes would entail a subsidy of about $1,500 per home passed.  

Keep in mind that the “broadband gap” affects less than five percent of U.S. homes. The Federal Communications Commission itself estimates that seven million U.S. households do not have access to terrestrial broadband service, representing about 5.4 percent of the 129 million U.S. homes.

Additionally, analysis assumes those households actually are occupied, but they are not. Some percentage is unoccupied, and some are used only partly as vacation homes.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 18 million of the 130 million units are not occupied (about 14 percent).

On average, the gap estimated by the Commission is $3,357 per home passed, note Dr. George Ford, Phoenix Center chief economist, and Lawrence J. Spiwak, Phoenix Center president.

Even the then director of the  National  Broadband Plan, Blair Levin, said it will be too expensive to  provide service to the last two percent of home using terrestrial facilities. Therefore, those homes should be served by satellite broadband.

A more reasonable approach to satellite broadband at the time might have been that if it costs $50,000 to provide a 4:1 Mbps terrestrial broadband service to a household, then is it reasonable to accept a “lower” service level by a network that already reaches those locations?

The situation has also changed since that analysis. ViaSat’s “Exede” satellite broadband service already has been offering speeds up to 12 Mbps downstream and up to 3 Mbps upstream, for $50 per month, since early 2012.

The HughesNet service, which has launched a new satellite of its own, will begin offering faster service beginning this month. Since both the ViaSat and HughesNet services use exactly the same satellites, it would be reasonable to assume that HughesNet will offer speeds comparable to that of Exede.

In fact, the National Broadband Plan explicitly recognized that the cost of ubiquitous coverage of terrestrial broadband could not be justified and furthermore recommended the use of “satellite  broadband” as an alternative, as it is  ubiquitously available, Phoenix Center argues.

The cost picture has changed dramatically since the FCC conducted its gap analysis. Though the original plan called for a 4 Mbps capability, Exede already sells a 12-Mbps service for $50 a month. As of Aug. 13, 2012, Hughesnet has not announced firm pricing and speeds.

But there is no reason to believe HughesNet will offer speeds any less than offered by Exede. The point is that by spending an abundance of money, the government simply does not make sense at the margin.

The point is that one has to be careful about interpreting Internet or broadband usage trends. In past years, some observers have argued there is a significant “digital divide,” using statistics about Internet or broadband usage (people who buy and use that product or capability) rather than broadband or Internet “availability” (the service actually is available to purchase).

A decade ago, access mostly was measured by activity occurring only on the fixed networks, as well.

The point is that the difference between whether a product is available, and whether a consumer chooses to buy it, is highly significant. A “digital divide” argument assumes that a product such as broadband access is statistically “unavailable,” meaning there is an “access to the product” problem. Lower availability in rural or sparsely-populated areas is one form of the argument.

The latest study of mobile broadband behavior shows the relevance of the distinction between “available to buy” and “I want to buy it.”

About 17 percent of mobile phone owners do most of their online browsing on their phone, rather than a computer or other device, the Pew Center Internet & American Life Project reports.

Young adults and non-whites are especially likely to use their mobile phones for the majority of their online activity, the researchers say.

Nearly half of all 18 to 29 year olds (45 percent) who use the Internet on their mobile phones do most of their online browsing on their mobile device, the study found.

Half (51 percent) of African-American mobile Internet users do most of their online browsing on their phone, double the proportion for whites (24 percent). Two in five Latino cell internet users (42 percent) also fall into the “cell-mostly” category.

Digital marketing specialist Troy Brown, president of one50one thinks Hispanics generate 50 percent of their Internet traffic from mobile phones.

The important implications here are that people might prefer to use mobile Internet and mobile broadband, rather than fixed access, in numbers that are significant.

Additionally, those with an annual household income of less than $50,000 per year and those who have not graduated college are more likely than those with higher levels of income and education to use their phones for most of their online browsing, Pew researchers say.

In that sense, the adoption of mobile broadband might be a rational choice, similar to adoption of mobile “as voice,” when people choose to use a mobile exclusively for their voice service. In fact, we might already have reached the point where further growth of fixed network broadband connections is limited or slowed because users have better mobile alternatives.

The Pew data also suggests that mobile broadband has been particularly important to populations that in the past have “under-indexed” for use of fixed network broadband. The point is that, aside from buyer preferences being at play, fixed network broadband purchases increasingly are not suitable measures of “broadband adoption.”

When 17 percent of mobile users report “mostly” using their mobiles for Internet access, any metrics of adoption that ignore mobile access will be misleading.

On a larger level, one might make the argument that the digital divide, and the communications divide, simply are problems we are solving.

The Digital Divide Will Not Always be a Problem

Scarcity--both real and imagined--drives the prices and perceived value of nearly all products and services. “Lack of” also drives the political agendas of virtually all organizations and entities who promote an agenda. 

Those organizations require resources to operate, and resources mean jobs, prestige and power. So what happens when a “problem” is essentially solved? Do organizations disband, or do they find some other “new problem” to work on, thus inviting continued support of the entity?

Almost always, the latter is chosen over the former. So we can virtually predict that, eventually, policy proponents are going to stop talking about the “digital divide” and move on to some other problem related somehow to “inability to buy broadband internet access.”

Already, many point to “digital literacy,” which is a demand issue, not a supply issue, as a substantial remaining problem. In other words, it is not the quality of the available broadband access that limits use, it is the skills of potential users. Faster broadband does not fix that impediment. 

But to the extent that generational differences exist, that problem eventually fixes itself. Younger generations are more comfortable with all new technologies than older generations, and as each generation passes, the “lag” evaporates. 

There will likely always be “differences” in available speed, latency, reliability or price between remote areas and urban areas, to be sure. Summer fruits and vegetables cost more, and are less fresh, in the winter. 

Still, at some point, internet access is going to be good enough that bottlenecks to experience and value will shift elsewhere in the ecosystem and value chain. 

Where servers are located; what customer premises gear is needed; how pricing and packaging models are crafted; which indoor transmission platforms are operating and processing speed and power could well determine whether internet apps, services and devices work at all or work properly. 

Most are now too young to have encountered it, but back in the 1980s global communications policymakers actually were concerned about how to create “voice access” platforms for most people, as “half the people have never made a phone call.” That might have been true in the 1980s or even 1990s. It no longer is true. 

We have “solved” the problem of humans having access to voice communications. We likewise will solve the “digital divide” in a meaningful sense: not defined as absolute parity of speeds, latency or cost per bit, but in the sense of “access” no longer being a barrier to usage. 

And that will lead a whole bunch of people and organizations to find some other new problem to solve.

Smart Phones Will Close Digital Divide Globally

The “digital divide” has antecedents in the communications business. For many decades, policy makers struggled to figure out how to provide basic telephone service to billions of human beings who “had never made a phone call.”

And though household income and use of the Internet, mobile phones or fixed network telephones are correlated and causal, in any market, it still would be reasonable to expect that smart phone technologies will rapidly allow hundreds of millions of people to use the Internet for the first time, in the same way that mobile networks solved the problem of getting phone service to the “next billion” users.

Over 6.6 billion mobile phones will be in use by the end of 2017, according to CCS Insight's new market forecast. About 66 percent  of them will be smart phones, up from less than 25 percent in 2012.

In the first three months of 2013, smart phone shipments exceeded those of non-smartphones for the first time ever. Sales of smartphones have been helped by new, cheaper devices, especially, but not only, in emerging markets. The mobile and media analyst firm expects 1.86 billion mobile phones to be shipped in 2013, of which 53 percent will be smart phones

That means smart phone markets in Western Europe and North America will see penetration levels approaching saturation point in these markets within three years.

More than 50 percent of the mobile phones in use in these regions are already smart phones. CCS Insight predicts this figure will grow to more than 80 percent in 2015. Beyond 2015, much of the growth will come from emerging markets.

At the same time, sales of tablets are rising at a staggering rate. Altogether, global shipments of smart mobile devices (smartphones and tablets) will increase 2.5 times between 2012 and 2017, to reach 2.1 billion units. CCS Insight predicts that by 2017 the combined number of mobile phones and tablets in use will exceed the world's population.

Nor shouild we  underestimate the role of smart phone access in narrowing “gaps” between regions, states and population segments in use of the Internet, either in developing or developed regions.

It now is clear that the ways people choose to use the Internet is becoming more segmented, and that many users prefer to use smart phones rather than fixed Internet connections.

According to a 2013 analysis conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the digital divide between Latinos and whites is smaller than what it had been just a few years ago.

To be sure, there are sure to be gaps between first world and third world access speeds. As more gigabit networks are deployed in developed areas, the gap might even increase. But it also will be the case that “some Internet access” will be available to most people in emerging markets faster than many now predict.

At that point, ITU had estimated that the “number of people without access to telephony service has decreased to less than one-fifth of world population.”

The big breakthrough was mobile phone service. It took around 125 years to reach the first billion fixed lines across the world (1876-2001).

Mobile telephony has reached the first billion in 21 years (1981-2002) and the second billion users within just three years (2002-2005).

While the installed base of smart phones accounted for just over 20 percent in emerging markets at the end of 2012, Ovum estimates that it will reach nearly 50 percent by 2017, which translates to over two billion devices.

As the fastest-growing segment within overall devices, smart phones will be a critical driver of increased mobile Internet use across emerging markets, Ovum says.

New FCC Chairman Emphasizes Investment to Erase Digital Divide

In one of his first public remarks since being named chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Chairman Ajit Pai reiterated his commitment to closing the digital divide, a theme he talked about when an FCC commissioner.

“I believe one of our core priorities going forward should be to close that (digital) divide; to do what’s necessary to help the private sector build networks, send signals, and distribute information to American consumers, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else,” said Pai.

In the past, Pai has talked about creating investment zones to promote investment in internet access facilities in urban areas, for example. That is likely to be proposed in the new FCC administration as policy.

Will the Digital Divide Always Exist? Will it Matter?

To get funding, any advocacy group must first demonstrate that a problem exists. To keep getting funds, an entity has to insist no progress is being made, necessitating continued funding. And if the original problem actually is solved, the entity has to find some new problem that needs to be solved. 

All that applies to “broadband access,” no less than any other undertaking we might consider worthwhile. Despite much data indicating that internet access (mobile and fixed) is getting substantially better and has held up very well as nationwide stay-at-home policies were put into place because of the Covid pandemic, not every community has been so fortunate. 

Oxnard, Calif., for example, was one such place, seeing a dip in downstream speeds of about 20 percent from mid-March to mid-April, although performance now is moving back up post-mid-April, according to BroadbandNow, using test data from M-Lab. 

The community where I live experienced a 32 percent dip in downstream speed during the same period. Those are the stats. 

What I can say in my own case is that the dip in top speed happened on a connection that normally runs (depending on hour of the weekday) between 130 Mbps and 200 Mbps. The dip was brief, lasting perhaps a week, and did not cause any actual degradation of user experience.

The point is that statistics are one thing; user experience can be quite another matter. The median pre-Covid speed was described as between 75 Mbps and 93 Mbps (half faster, half slower). 

Multi-user households buying lower-speed services might have experienced issues. That was not my own experience, but differences, gaps and disparities exist, and might continue to exist in the future, for all sorts of reasons. 

Consumers make choices. They might decide to buy more-affordable services that can be stressed in multi-user households. Some, in single-user households, might decide to rely on mobile access only. None of that is necessarily a failure of policy, but an expression of consumer choices, or demand. 

Supply is an issue, though. In many communities, though served by gigabit cable networks, telcos still sell digital subscriber line services that are demonstrably slower. 

Still, one analysis by Fastly suggests that even the most-challenged digital subscriber line networks in the United States held up under the new at-home load. Cable TV networks also have held up well.

source: Fastly

According to Ookla, U.S. internet access speeds  on fixed networks dipped about four percent during the pandemic. Mobile speeds actually improved by one percent. 

Most of you are familiar with speed tests. Most of you also know you test your connections primarily when they seem “slow.” Almost nobody bothers to test when the networks are humming along. 

And M-Lab tests have increased significantly during the stay-at-home policies, suggesting customers are aware of greater congestion or slower experienced speeds. 

That would hardly be surprising, as all studies show at-home internet access data volume has grown 40 percent or so as people have been forced to work and learn at home. 

A study by Fastly also indicates speed and income are related. That should not be surprising. Lots of consumer behaviors and spending patterns are correlated with income, education, wealth and geography. Up to 20 percent of U.S. consumers also say they rely on mobile internet access, and do not buy fixed network access. Rural speeds tend to be slower than urban speeds. Rural use of the internet, PC ownership and income also seem to be lower than in urban areas. 

The point is that there always will be room to argue that a digital divide continues to exist, even if it is narrowing and has been narrowing for a couple of decades. And statistics often too-casually dismiss the many nuances as speeds are improving fast. 

But differences might always exist.  Since networks are expensive, the last two percent of locations will always be an economic issue. We might solve the basic speed issue, improving delivery from 10 Mbps to 25 Mbps to some higher figure. But urban networks will keep improving as well, so a gap might always exist.

Universal Internet Access in 6 Countries Would Eliminate 55% of Global Digital Divide

source: ITU

Providing universal Internet access to just three countries (India, China and Indonesia) would eliminate 45 percent of the “unconnected to Internet” population of the globe.

Doing so in just six countries (adding in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria) would solve the digital divide problem for 55 percent of the world’s people, according to the International Telecommunications Union.

About 20 countries account for 75 percent of those not using the Internet, according to McKinsey researchers.

The World Bank points out that many of these offline populations share common characteristics. They are predominantly rural, low-educated, with lower incomes, and a large number are women and girls, according to the World Bank.

Affordability is an issue. According to ITU’s latest price research, a monthly fixed broadband package cost 1.7percent  of average income in developed countries, compared with 31 percent  of average income in developing countries, and 64 percent of average income in Africa.

Mobile broadband costs one to two percent of monthly income in developed countries, compared with 11 percent to 25 percent  of monthly average income in developing countries.

Lack of networks also is a big issue. Of the nearly four billion people not connected to the Internet, some 1.6 billion live in remote locations where networks do not exist. That is why Facebook and Google are developing unmanned aerial vehicle systems, Google is developing Project Loon and both are working on fixed access networks.

Among the 3.9 billion people who are not online, many people may be unaware of the Internet’s potential, or cannot use it because they lack the necessary skills or because there is little or no useful content in their native language, on top of facing other barriers to Internet access, including unreliable power supplies and/or sparse network coverage.

with just 137 million customers and a broadband penetration rate of just 13 percent, compared with a mobile penetration rate of 80 percent , India’s digital leap is just starting.

source: ITU

Digital Divide is Not Based on Access

In the District of Columbia and other urban areas, unlike rural areas of the United States, "lack of adoption of digital resources (computers and broadband) generally is not due to lack of availability of broadband," says a new strategy paper by the District of Columbina CTO.

"The District currently has three large wireline broadband providers and many smaller ones, as well at least six major wireless broadband providers (both 3G and 4G); together, these providers furnish service in all areas of the city," the report notes.

"Rather, individuals and households in areas where broadband service is available typically choose not to subscribe for one or more of three leading reasons²usability, affordability, and perceived value/relevance."

That's a different problem than the "there is no access" argument some have insisted is the issue, and will be tougher to remedy.

Digital Divide Strategy

Will Telecom Italia's Fixed Network be Privatized?

Telecom Italia’s board of directions is said to be meeting Nov. 21, 2021 about a possible fixed network privatization effort by private equity fund KKR, which is already an investor in the Italian phone group's fixed network, Reuters reported. 

At first glance, the proposed deal looks like a standard private equity deal: buy an underperforming asset, make changes and then sell. But the deal might also reflect another private equity focus: buying infrastructure assets to hold longer term, as an alternative asset. 

Telecom Italia, for its part, also fits the scenario: it has high debt and shrinking recurring revenues and profits, arguably impairing its ability to invest in digital infrastructure including fiber to home facilities. 

At the same time, the access network scarcity moat is challenged by the building of a rival Open Fiber wholesale network owned and operated by electrical and gas provider Enel. 

KKR might or might not see value in merging merging TIM's access network merged with that of rival Open Fiber, which would then be able to run as a single national internet and communications access asset supplying retail services to other internet service providers and telcos.

Alternatively, the former Telecom Italia assets might have enough scale to operate independently of Open Fiber. In either case, the value KKR sees is linked to the scarcity value and regulated, stable cash flows the access network would generate.

As the access network is deemed to be a strategic asset by Italy’s government (as is the case in virtually every country), it presumably would benefit from investment to eliminate the digital divide. That changes the business model for FTTH as it introduces subsidies. 

Were the government to sanction a merger of Telecom Italia and Open Fiber assets, to create a single national wholesale provider, KKR’s investment would acquire a business moat. 

Future KKR options would then involve a sale of the assets to a third party or a longer-term holding as an alternative asset. 

Institutional and private equity investor interest in communications infrastructure waxes and wanes. Right now it is waxing, after a precipitous drop in interest in the wake of massive facilities overbuilding around the turn of the century. 

In large part, the interest is driven by returns on other assets, leading investors to desire some exposure to alternative assets, including infrastructure with some market moats, scarcity and dependable demand, plus free cash flow. 

That appetite is matched by connectivity provider capital investment issues, namely low returns on invested capital that have bedeviled connectivity providers in recent years. 

In many cases, service providers have trouble earning back their cost of capital, according to some analysts. 

source: Arthur D. Little

All of that creates a heightened private equity and institutional investor demand for investments in “digital infrastructure” that is similar to demand for the more-traditional interest in real estate and utility investments. 

But the strategies can vary. The easiest and arguably safest choices are core infrastructure operations where most of the return comes in the form of cash dividends. This is most often found in regulated segments of the industry, with low growth but consistent demand. Ownership of electrical utilities provides a good example of this type of asset. 

Most digital infrastructure assets do not offer predictability or moats as high as might be the case for electrical utilities or airports, but arguably is most true for mobile towers. 

In other cases, there are some specific drivers that shift a bit of the story to more growth, if some tweak to the business model is made. That seems to be the case for mass market telecom networks where the upside is the upgrade from copper internet access to fiber to home. 

In other markets, the same thinking underpins buying a regional airport with expectations of creating a higher-value super-regional hub. In the communications assets business, perhaps an example is the “roll up” strategy of amalgamating many diverse and smaller connectivity or data center assets to create scale. 

The point is that a confluence of connectivity provider need and investor want is fueling a resurgence of private equity and institutional investor interest in a growing range of digital infrastructure assets.