Across the country, cities are upgrading.

Fiber networks are expanding.
Cloud systems are migrating.
Cybersecurity budgets are increasing.
Smart sensors are being deployed.
AI tools are entering public administration.

Billions of dollars are flowing into what can only be described as a smart city boom.

But there is a quieter question that rarely makes the headlines:

Who is winning the contracts?

Because modernization is not just a technology story.
It is a procurement story.

And procurement determines who builds capacity—and who builds wealth.

The Invisible Pipeline

When cities announce broadband expansion or digital transformation initiatives, the public conversation usually centers on outcomes:

• Faster internet

• Safer systems

• More efficient services

• Better data integration

What rarely gets examined is the pipeline between funding allocation and contract award.

That pipeline often includes:

• Prequalified vendor lists

• Complex RFP requirements

• Prior performance thresholds

• Bonding requirements

• Multi-state or national experience mandates

• Large-scale insurance coverage

These standards may appear neutral.

But they tend to favor firms that are already scaled, already capitalized, and already embedded in national contracting ecosystems.

Local firms—especially small and minority-owned firms—frequently enter the process already at a disadvantage.

Not because they lack capability.

But because they lack positioning.

The Scale Barrier

Smart city contracts are rarely small.

Broadband buildouts are multi-million dollar projects.
Cybersecurity upgrades can span departments.
Cloud transitions require enterprise-level integration.

Cities often bundle these services into large, consolidated contracts for efficiency.

The result?

Local firms may:

• Lack bonding capacity

• Lack the balance sheet size required

• Lack prior prime contractor experience at that scale

• Lack relationships with national vendors

So they participate as subcontractors—if at all.

Subcontracting builds revenue.
Prime contracting builds enterprise value.

That difference compounds over time.

The Relationship Gap

Procurement is not just paperwork. It is networked.

National technology firms often:

• Maintain dedicated government relations teams

• Engage in early-stage policy discussions

• Participate in vendor advisory boards

• Build long-term relationships before RFPs are released

By the time a public RFP appears online, much of the positioning has already occurred.

Local firms frequently enter at the announcement stage.

National firms entered at the design stage.

That timing difference matters.

Because procurement does not begin when the RFP is posted.
It begins when modernization strategy is drafted.

Broadband Expansion: A Case Study in Missed Participation

Federal infrastructure funding has directed billions toward broadband expansion.

Yet in many regions:

• Fiber is owned by national carriers

• Installation contracts go to large engineering firms

• Equipment suppliers are global manufacturers

• Operations contracts are multi-year national agreements

Local firms may provide labor.
But rarely do they secure ownership stakes in the infrastructure itself.

Fiber lines generate recurring revenue.
Data centers generate long-term lease income.
Managed services contracts generate predictable cash flow.

Without participation at the ownership or prime contractor level, local firms capture short-term income—but not long-term leverage.

Cybersecurity and Cloud: The New Utility Layer

As cities migrate to cloud platforms and modern cybersecurity frameworks, they are building what is effectively a new public utility layer.

The vendors that secure these contracts:

• Embed into city operations

• Control data architecture

• Maintain long-term service agreements

• Become recurring budget line items

These are not one-time projects.
They are multi-year institutional relationships.

If local firms are absent from this layer, they are absent from the most durable revenue streams in modern governance.

Why the Participation Gap Persists

The participation gap is not always driven by explicit exclusion.

It often persists because of structural inertia:

• Procurement policies written for risk minimization

• Bonding requirements tied to legacy infrastructure models

• Vendor lists that roll over year after year

• Capacity gaps that were never intentionally closed

Risk avoidance becomes the dominant lens.

But risk avoidance often reinforces concentration.

And concentration limits local firm scaling.

The Strategic Shift Required

If cities are serious about inclusive modernization, the procurement conversation must evolve.

Not as a compliance exercise.

But as a capacity-building strategy.

That means:

• Unbundling contracts where possible

• Creating joint venture pathways

• Structuring mentorship pipelines for prime readiness

• Designing procurement scoring systems that value local capacity development

• Investing in bonding and capitalization programs for emerging firms

Modernization without participation widens inequality.

Modernization with participation builds ecosystems.

From Inclusion to Enterprise Growth

There is a difference between inclusion metrics and enterprise growth.

Inclusion metrics might track:

• Percentage of subcontracting dollars

• Vendor diversity counts

• Participation in outreach sessions

Enterprise growth tracks:

• Prime contract awards

• Recurring service agreements

• Asset ownership stakes

• Long-term contract positioning

The smart city boom is not just about digital transformation.

It is about who transforms their balance sheet in the process.

The Procurement Question

As cities deploy AI systems, expand fiber, upgrade digital infrastructure, and harden cybersecurity, they are shaping the next decade of municipal spending.

The procurement question is simple:

Will local firms scale with the city’s modernization?

Or will modernization scale without them?

That answer will determine whether smart city investment becomes a catalyst for local wealth creation—or another chapter in concentrated growth.

Modernization is inevitable.

Participation is not.

And the difference lies in how the contracts are structured—long before the ribbon cutting begins.

About the Author

Joshua Edmonds writes about technology, infrastructure, and economic positioning at the intersection of modernization and equity. His work examines how cities adapt to structural change—and who benefits when they do.

For a long time, the broadband conversation has focused on access—who has service, who doesn’t, and where coverage falls short. That was the right place to start. But access alone doesn’t tell us whether an investment is actually working.

The question cities are now being asked—by residents, funders, and policymakers alike—is more direct:

What impact does community broadband investment actually produce, and how do we measure it?

Because if we can’t show outcomes, we can’t justify scale.

Access Is Necessary—but It’s Not the Outcome

We’ve learned something important over the past several years:
Connecting households is only the first step.

Without clear benchmarks and follow-through, even well-intentioned broadband projects can stall. The real value of broadband investment shows up when access translates into measurable gains—economic, educational, and operational.

That’s the difference between a project and infrastructure.

What ROI Really Looks Like

Return on investment in community broadband isn’t abstract. It shows up in places cities already track—if they’re paying attention.

1) Workforce Participation

Reliable home connectivity expands the labor market. It supports job searches, remote and hybrid work, digital scheduling, and skills training.

What to measure:

• changes in employment and reemployment rates

• growth in remote or hybrid job placement

• reductions in commute-related time and cost burdens

When people can work more efficiently, the local economy becomes more resilient.

2) Small-Business Performance

Neighborhood businesses increasingly depend on digital tools—online payments, marketing platforms, supply management, and e-commerce.

Without stable broadband, those businesses operate at a disadvantage that has nothing to do with effort or demand.

What to measure:

• new business registrations

• adoption of digital payment and sales platforms

• business survival rates after year one

Broadband expands market access. That’s direct economic return.

3) Education and Workforce Readiness

Students and adult learners with reliable connectivity are better positioned to keep pace with modern education and training pathways.

What to measure:

• attendance and assignment completion rates

• reduced reliance on emergency hotspots

• participation in online credentialing and training programs

Education outcomes don’t just matter individually—they compound over time.

4) Healthcare Access

Telehealth works when broadband does. For seniors, caregivers, and people managing chronic conditions, reliable connectivity reduces missed appointments and unnecessary emergency visits.

What to measure:

• telehealth utilization rates

• missed appointment reductions

• travel-time and cost savings

These are cost-avoidance gains that benefit families and public systems alike.

5) Government Efficiency

Cities increasingly deliver services online—permits, benefits, public safety alerts, and engagement tools.

When residents are connected, governments operate more efficiently.

What to measure:

• digital service adoption rates

• reductions in processing time and administrative cost

• improved response to public communications

Connectivity allows cities to do more with the resources they already have.

Why Community-Based Models Matter

Traditional broadband deployment often follows short-term return. Community-based and public–private models are designed differently.

They prioritize:

• affordability alongside speed

• reliability over promotional pricing

• accountability to neighborhood-level outcomes

• alignment with workforce, education, and health strategies

When broadband is built as part of a broader development approach, access is far more likely to translate into impact.

Cleveland’s Opportunity to Measure What Matters

In Cleveland, early broadband efforts have focused on neighborhoods where infrastructure gaps were most pronounced. That approach isn’t symbolic—it’s practical.

Investing where unmet need is highest produces the strongest marginal gains and creates models that can be scaled citywide.

But the key is measurement.

Cities that track outcomes—not just connections—are better positioned to:

• justify continued investment

• attract private and philanthropic partners

• compete for federal funding

• refine policy based on performance rather than assumption

This is how broadband shifts from a cost center to a growth engine.

From Installation to Policy

The risk for policymakers isn’t investing in broadband.
The risk is investing without measuring impact.

When outcomes aren’t tracked, projects struggle to sustain funding and credibility. When ROI is clearly defined and reported, broadband becomes part of a city’s long-term economic strategy—not a one-time initiative.

That distinction matters.

The Bottom Line

Community broadband succeeds when access leads to measurable impact.

The return shows up in employment, education, healthcare access, small-business growth, and municipal efficiency. Cities that understand this don’t just connect more homes—they build stronger, more competitive economies.

Access opens the door.
Impact is what justifies keeping it open.

About the Author
Dedicated to closing digital gaps and strengthening community readiness for the future, Joshua Edmonds brings a thoughtful, data-informed perspective to broadband equity and digital infrastructure. He believes that access to reliable, affordable connectivity is essential to economic participation—and that cities thrive when innovation is paired with intentional, community-focused investment.

For more than a decade, the digital equity conversation has centered on access.

Do households have internet?
Do students have devices?
Are there hotspots in public spaces?
Is broadband available at an affordable price?

Those questions matter. They were necessary. They still are.

But they are no longer enough.

Access is the entry point.
Ownership is the strategy.

And cities that fail to understand the difference will modernize without building wealth.

Phase One: Closing the Access Gap

The first phase of digital equity was about closing the obvious divide.

Communities that lacked:

• Reliable broadband

• Affordable service

• Devices for students

• Public Wi-Fi access points

• Basic digital literacy training

were locked out of education, healthcare access, workforce participation, and civic engagement.

Public policy responded. Federal infrastructure funds expanded broadband. Municipalities distributed devices. Nonprofits launched training programs.

This work was critical.

But access is participation in someone else’s system.

Ownership is participation in the upside.

The Quiet Question No One Is Asking

Who owns the fiber beneath the streets?

Who owns the data centers storing municipal information?

Who holds the contracts for cloud migration, cybersecurity, and smart-city systems?

Who profits from the modernization of urban infrastructure?

When cities deploy new broadband networks or smart technologies, billions of dollars move through capital stacks, procurement pipelines, and long-term service agreements.

If local communities only receive service—but not equity—they remain consumers in a system they do not control.

That is not digital equity.
That is digital dependency.

Modernization Is an Asset Class

Cities are being forced to modernize.

Legacy systems are aging.
AI is changing operational requirements.
Cybersecurity risks are escalating.
Residents expect digital efficiency.

Modernization is not optional.

But modernization is also an investment cycle.

Broadband expansion, fiber builds, smart grid upgrades, public cloud migrations, data integration platforms—these are not just upgrades. They are infrastructure investments.

Infrastructure investments create:

• Long-term revenue streams

• Service contracts

• Recurring subscription models

• Bond issuances

• Tax incentive structures

• Public-private partnerships

The question is whether communities participate in the capital stack—or only in the service layer.

Moving From Users to Stakeholders

The next phase of digital equity must move beyond:

• Device distribution

• Subsidized service

• Public Wi-Fi zones

• Digital literacy workshops

Those remain foundational.

But the strategic shift requires:

• Minority ownership in broadband buildouts

• Local firm participation in fiber deployment contracts

• Equity stakes in data center developments

• Community investment vehicles tied to infrastructure projects

• Workforce pipelines aligned to digital engineering and cybersecurity contracts

Digital equity cannot stop at connectivity.

It must extend into capital positioning.

Capital Stacking in the Digital Era

Infrastructure ownership does not happen by accident. It requires intentional capital architecture.

Cities and communities have tools available:

• Municipal bonds

• Opportunity Zones

• New Markets Tax Credits

• Public-private development agreements

• Cooperative ownership models

• Community investment funds

When these tools are structured with digital infrastructure in mind, communities can move from being recipients of service to participants in long-term asset creation.

The shift is subtle but powerful.

Access answers: “Can we log on?”

Ownership answers: “Do we benefit when the system scales?”

Why This Matters Now

Artificial intelligence, data analytics, and digital platforms are not peripheral technologies. They are becoming the operating layer of cities.

Transportation systems.
Energy grids.
Public safety.
Healthcare networks.
Economic development strategy.

The digital spine of a city increasingly determines its economic resilience.

If communities are absent from the structuring table when these systems are financed and deployed, they will again find themselves downstream from the upside.

And by the time the economic impact becomes visible, the ownership structures will already be locked in.

The Strategic Reframe

Digital equity must evolve from a social conversation to a structural one.

Not just:

“How do we make sure everyone is connected?”

But:

“How do we make sure communities build equity in the systems that connect them?”

The difference is profound.

Access reduces exclusion.
Ownership builds power.

Access closes a gap.
Ownership creates leverage.

The Next Phase

The next phase of digital equity will not be driven solely by philanthropy or device donations.

It will be driven by:

• Policy alignment

• Procurement strategy

• Capital design

• Local firm development

• Collective investment models

Cities that understand this shift will modernize in ways that build both efficiency and equity.

Cities that do not will digitize their infrastructure while widening their ownership gap.

The future is not just connected.

It is structured.

And the communities that learn to structure their participation in the digital asset economy will not just log on to the future.

They will own part of it.

About the Author

Joshua Edmonds writes about technology, infrastructure, and economic positioning at the intersection of modernization and equity. His work examines how cities adapt to structural change—and who benefits when they do.

For years, Cleveland, Ohio carried an unenviable distinction: national studies routinely cited the city as one of the most digitally divided major cities in the United States, with entire neighborhoods priced out of reliable high-speed internet. That reality shaped everything from education outcomes and workforce participation to healthcare access and entrepreneurship.

Today, that story has materially changed.

According to recent reporting and year-end announcements, DigitalC has met — and in key areas exceeded — the connectivity goals it set when the city first backed its citywide broadband initiative. More than 7,500 households are now connected to fast, affordable internet through DigitalC’s Canopy network, reaching over 18,000 Cleveland residents in just under two years. Training efforts have expanded in parallel, with tens of thousands of digital skills sessions delivered across the city.

This progress marks a turning point — not just for Cleveland, but for how cities nationwide think about broadband.

A Brief Note on the Utilities Committee Question

The last time DigitalC appeared before Cleveland City Council’s Utilities Committee, members broadly acknowledged that the organization was on track and performing well. One point of discussion, however, centered on access to subscriber data — specifically, why individual councilmembers could not directly receive customer-level sign-up information if the City of Cleveland administration had access.

That question deserves a brief, factual explanation.

Why DigitalC cannot simply share subscriber data with individual councilmembers

DigitalC operates as a broadband service provider. As such, it is governed by federal privacy and consumer-protection rules, including:

• FCC Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) protections, which restrict disclosure of personally identifiable subscriber data without proper authorization.

• Federal privacy and data-minimization standards, which limit sharing of customer data outside narrowly defined operational and oversight contexts.

• Contractual and grant-compliance obligations, which typically allow data sharing with an administering authority (such as the City) in aggregated or anonymized form, but not distribution of raw subscriber records to individual elected officials.

In practical terms:
✔ The City of Cleveland, as the program partner and fund administrator, can receive verified, audited, aggregate data to confirm performance.
✘ Individual councilmembers cannot receive customer-level data directly without triggering serious legal and privacy violations.

This is not a matter of reluctance or secrecy — it is standard practice across telecommunications, utilities, healthcare, and education sectors, and it protects residents’ privacy while still ensuring public accountability.

From “Least Connected” to a National Case Study

Multiple national analyses over the past decade identified Cleveland as lagging behind peer cities in household broadband adoption, affordability, and digital inclusion. That context makes the current moment significant.

Under the leadership of Joshua Edmonds, DigitalC executed one of the fastest citywide broadband builds in the country, completing deployment in under 18 months — a pace that traditional fiber projects often take many years to achieve.

Equally important, this progress was not achieved in isolation. It was made possible by:

• The City of Cleveland’s willingness to invest in a new model

• City Council’s sustained support and oversight

• Mandel and Meyers Foundations without

• Cross-sector collaboration with community institutions and residents

Philanthropic leadership from the Mandel and Myers Foundations, whose significant early investments helped make this work possible and provided critical momentum at a time when few were willing to bet on a new broadband model.

The result: a measurable reduction in Cleveland’s digital divide in record time, proving that the investment was not only justified — it was transformative.

A New Way to Think About Internet Access

DigitalC’s success also challenges a long-standing assumption in the broadband industry: that fast, reliable internet must cost $70–$100 per month.

While Cleveland’s $18 per month price point may not be immediately replicable everywhere, the broader lesson is unmistakable:

High-speed internet does not have to be unaffordable to be sustainable.

By leveraging next-generation fixed wireless technology from Tarana, DigitalC demonstrated that urban broadband can be fast, reliable, and dramatically cheaper — without sacrificing quality. Cleveland is now widely recognized as one of the first dense urban cities to deploy Tarana’s technology at full city scale, a milestone that matters because dense cities are traditionally the hardest environments for wireless broadband to serve.

This is not incremental change. It is industry disruption.

Momentum Beyond Cleveland

That disruption is already spreading. DigitalC’s model is now being tested in Detroit, Michigan, where a pilot is underway to connect hundreds of families in public housing — a clear signal that other cities are watching closely and adapting Cleveland’s approach.

Interest has also come from:

• Rural and Appalachian communities across Ohio

• Regions nationwide struggling with high costs, slow deployment, or both

The takeaway is clear: Cleveland is no longer trailing the national conversation on broadband — it is shaping it.

Meeting the Moment — Even Against Rising Costs

Perhaps most notably, DigitalC met its milestones despite extraordinary external pressures, including tariffs that reportedly caused some network component costs to increase by as much as 700%. Achieving deployment targets under those conditions underscores both operational discipline and strategic foresight.

The Next Milestone

The next phase for DigitalC is ambitious — and consequential. But with:

• Proven execution

• Strong public-sector partnership

• Growing national interest

• And hard-won momentum

There is every reason to believe DigitalC will meet it.

Cleveland took a risk on a new broadband model — and it paid off. With the continued support of the City of Cleveland and City Council, the city has moved from one of the least connected major cities in America to one of the most connected in remarkably short order.

That is not just a milestone.
It is a blueprint.

America talks constantly about innovation, progress, and being a global digital leader. But behind all the marketing and political speeches lies a more complicated truth: Entire neighborhoods — across race, income, and geography — are being left out of the digital future.

Suburbs with great schools can still struggle with outdated internet lines.

Rural areas often go years without upgrades. Urban cores, especially in cities like Cleveland, routinely face slow speeds, higher prices, or simply being ignored by large providers. This is The Great Disconnect. And every city in America is feeling the consequences.

1. The Myth: “Everyone Has Internet Now.”

Officially, the U.S. continues to report high internet access rates.

But everyday reality tells a different story: Many working families—of all backgrounds—are paying more for less speed. Seniors struggle with unreliable internet connections, which make telehealth difficult. Students in underserved areas still fight to stay online during peak hours. Neighborhoods with lower economic activity are offered fewer options.

This isn’t “lack of demand.”

It’s a lack of investment in the places that need it most.

2. Fast-Growing Cities, Slower-Growing Access

Take the high-growth cities everyone talks about:

• Atlanta

• Houston

• Dallas–Fort Worth

• Charlotte

• Phoenix

Their skylines grow every year. But many of their neighborhoods — regardless of race — still operate at internet speeds from the early 2000s.

America is discovering the hard way: You can build high-tech districts, but if everyday residents don’t have high-quality broadband, the city stalls.

And the people paying the price are working families, students, local business owners, caregivers, and job-seekers — not just one demographic.

3. The Cleveland Model: Starting Where Disinvestment Hit Hardest

If any place understands the long-term effects of infrastructural neglect, it’s Cleveland. Rather than waiting for traditional internet providers to change their business models, Cleveland is seeing something bold: a community-based approach that upgrades the areas hit hardest first—not last.

That’s why so much of the early work is happening on the East Side:

Not because it only benefits one group but because that’s where the need was most urgent, and where the return for the whole city is the strongest.

When households in neighborhoods like Glenville, Hough, Buckeye, and Central get reliable, affordable, high-speed internet, students learn better, seniors stay connected to healthcare, entrepreneurs can operate nationally, families gain new digital opportunities, property values stabilize, and the entire city becomes stronger economically

This is not charity.

This is innovative urban development.

Cleveland doesn’t rise by leaving any side of town behind.

4. Why This Matters for Everyone: The Internet Is the New Infrastructure

Digital access used to be a convenience.

Now it’s the foundation of:

• education

• employment

• public safety

• transportation

• entrepreneurship

• civic participation

• healthcare

When neighborhoods lack reliable internet, the entire city loses revenue, talent, and competitiveness. The digital divide hurts every taxpayer. Fixing it benefits everyone. This is not a Black issue, a White issue, or an East vs. West issue. It’s a Cleveland issue.

5. The Future: Cities That Connect Their People Win

The cities that succeed in the next decade will be the ones that: connect every neighborhood, treat broadband like electricity or water, invest in affordability measures, invest in equity as an economic asset, and ensure that innovation is not limited to the downtown corridor. Cleveland has a chance to lead nationally by demonstrating what happens when you build a digital future that includes everyone from the start. The East Side is simply where the work begins, not where it ends. And as those communities rise, they pull the city upward with them.

6. The Call: Inclusive Connectivity Builds a Stronger, Wealthier Cleveland

This is bigger than internet speeds.

This is about:

• stabilizing families

• attracting businesses

• preparing the workforce

• supporting seniors

• empowering students

and making Cleveland competitive with the fastest-growing cities in the country

Every neighborhood matters.

Every ZIP code counts.

And every resident deserves access to the tools of the modern economy. The Great Disconnect can be reversed — but only if the city continues investing in the communities that have historically been overlooked. Cleveland’s future isn’t East or West.

It’s all of us.

“You deserve to know what decisions are being made in your name.”

What This Policy Really Means

Starting in 2026, cities that fail to modernize their digital infrastructure may lose access to major federal grants. This includes funding tied to public safety, broadband, economic development, and infrastructure.

What “Modernization” Actually Includes

• Outdated permitting systems
• Slow or unreliable public Wi-Fi
• Failing 911/emergency technology
• Poor or inconsistent data management
• Weak cybersecurity

These aren’t optional upgrades — they’re becoming federal expectations.

Why This Matters for You

When a city falls behind digitally, residents pay the price. Slow systems create longer wait times, delayed benefits, stalled business permits, and fewer opportunities. A poorly modernized city becomes harder to live in and harder to invest in.

What Happens in 2026

Federal agencies will begin tying modernization to grant eligibility. Cities that modernize will remain competitive. Those that don’t may lose access to major funding streams that support schools, roads, public safety, broadband, and neighborhood development.

How DigitalC Steps In

DigitalC is already working with Cleveland’s leaders to modernize systems, improve cybersecurity, expand broadband, strengthen digital navigation programs, and prepare the city for upcoming federal requirements.

Our goal isn’t just to make Cleveland connected — it’s to make Cleveland competitive.

A modern city isn’t defined by fancy gadgets — it’s defined by fast service, accurate information, secure systems, and equal access to opportunity.

That’s the future DigitalC is building.
That’s the future Cleveland deserves.

Stay connected. Stay curious. Stay empowered.

Why a column?

Because some conversations need more than a radio segment, a quick headline, or a hot take, some things deserve a walkthrough, a breakdown, and a little bit of “wait… so what does that actually mean for us?” That’s what The Digital Download is for.

What we’re doing here

Think of this as your guided tour through the world of digital equity, tech policy, internet access, and the systems that shape who gets connected — and who gets left buffering.

I’m going to make tech make sense.
Not in Silicon Valley language.
Not in corporate press-release language.
In community language.
In “tell me how this affects my bill, my job, my neighborhood, or my kid’s homework” language.

Why this matters right now

The digital divide isn’t just about Wi-Fi. It’s about:
• Who can work from home
• Who can access healthcare
• Who can apply for benefits
• Whose business can scale
• Whose kids can keep up
• Which neighborhoods get investment
• And which communities get left behind

What you can expect

Every two weeks, I’ll bring you:
1. The Big Picture — national tech and broadband policy changes that matter.
2. The Local Lens — how these changes impact cities like Cleveland.
3. The Real-World Impact — stories and insights from the people living this divide.
4. A Little Bit of Geek Energy — yes, I get excited about fiber and Wi-Fi 6.
5. A Clear Call to Action — what you can do and where opportunity is opening.

Why listen to me?

At DigitalC, we see the wins, the gaps, the opportunities, and the possibilities. My job isn’t just to talk about the digital divide. My job is to help bridge it — with context, clarity, and honesty.

If I do this right, The Digital Download becomes a trusted voice you can count on. Not a lecture. Not a rant. A conversation.

What’s next?

Starting now, you’ll get me:
• One week on WOVU with The Upload
• The next week, right here with The Digital Download

A rhythm. A route. A way to keep the conversation going — on the air and on the page.

Sign-off

“Stay connected. Stay curious. Stay empowered.”

Today, the story has shifted.

In the first quarter of 2025, DigitalC connected 1,148 new households, bringing its total number of connected homes to 3,949 since launching the PinnaCLE Connectivity Initiative in January 2024. That represents a 276% increase compared to the same quarter last year.

Equally significant is the expansion of their network. In just one quarter, DigitalC increased its household coverage from 67,403 to 98,130—a 46% leap. This growth is not just technical; it’s transformational, enabling residents in more neighborhoods than ever before to access fast, affordable, and community-first internet.

Public satisfaction with the service remains strong. According to a recent survey conducted by the City of Cleveland, 87% of users rate the service’s reliability as excellent or good. 90% say they’re getting the speeds they were promised, and 84% report they would recommend the service to their neighbors.

What made the difference? Access.

DigitalC finally received the permits to knock on doors—nearly 14 months after they were originally promised. This door-to-door engagement was a key element of their outreach strategy, and its absence throughout 2024 significantly hindered subscriber growth. Once granted, the impact was immediate and measurable: DigitalC experienced a 180% increase in subscribers in Q4 2024.

Beyond internet access, DigitalC continues to invest in Cleveland’s digital future. In Q1 2025 alone, its Click program trained 2,458 residents in essential digital skills, including computer basics, coding, and job readiness. These trainings have empowered Clevelanders of all ages. Breonn Davis, a ninth-grader from Ginn Academy, completed the program by coding a digital fried egg—his final project. “I was getting tired of it, but then I told myself, ‘I gotta complete this if I want to pass,’” Davis said. “It was fun. Really fun.”

The organization’s recent progress is not just about numbers—it’s about rebuilding trust. In response to criticism earlier this year, DigitalC intensified its customer service efforts. Their teams returned to homes multiple times to resolve issues and, in some cases, quadrupled user speeds. Communication with residents, partners, and stakeholders has also improved, reflecting a renewed commitment to community engagement and transparency.

Growth at the neighborhood level further underscores this momentum. Ward 3 saw a 69% subscriber increase in Q1 2025, with Wards 7 and 6 showing similar strength. Newly connected neighborhoods in Wards 11, 13, and 16 are already adopting the service, demonstrating that once access is available, residents are eager to connect.

Members of City Council have also begun to acknowledge the momentum. Councilman Kris Harsh, who was among those pressing for results during earlier hearings, praised the visible improvements, stating that what DigitalC has achieved since their last appearance at the Utilities Committee table “is very very encouraging.” Harsh noted that the structure of the contract—designed to incentivize connections in Cleveland’s most disconnected neighborhoods—appears to be working as intended.

Following a positive audit review, Harsh added, “It sounds like we’re getting there,” and affirmed, “We are right where we need to be.” He also shared his enthusiasm for further community engagement and noted that he looks forward to hosting a DigitalC community meeting in Old Brooklyn this July.

For neighborhoods that have historically had fewer options for reliable internet access, this progress is more than just a milestone—it’s a clear example of what can happen when results-driven organizations are empowered to deliver. DigitalC’s expansion, backed by data, transparency, and field-tested strategies like direct outreach, is making measurable strides in closing the digital gap. In this case, success isn’t just about technology—it’s about ensuring every household has a fair opportunity to compete, contribute, and thrive in today’s connected economy.

Subscribe now

Yet, instead of being formally recognized for their extraordinary progress, DigitalC is now facing an unnecessary $1,000,000 penalty—despite exceeding the majority of goals and achieving 80% of installations. When the full picture is considered, one thing becomes clear: the city’s investment in DigitalC is working, and penalizing them now only hurts the residents who need this service the most.

Overcoming Roadblocks to Deliver on a First-of-Its-Kind Initiative

Building a broadband network at this scale and under these circumstances is something no company—big or small—has ever attempted. DigitalC agreed to connect 3,500 households in 2024 and 23,500 by 2027, fully aware that they were setting a precedent. However, like any first-of-its-kind project, there were unpredictable roadblocks.

One major challenge was that DigitalC was not permitted to knock on doors to sign people up for service until September 2024—nine months into the engagement and a full year after the Cleveland City Council was expected to facilitate these permits. Without door-to-door outreach, it was nearly impossible to enroll households at the pace needed. Once they received permission, installations surged by over 150%, proving that with the right support, they will not just meet but exceed expectations.

Then, in an event no one could have foreseen, Cleveland’s first tornado since 1953 destroyed months of DigitalC’s work, forcing them to rebuild critical infrastructure. Yet, even with these setbacks, they managed to connect over 2,800 households, coming remarkably close to their original target.

The Real Impact of the $1,000,000 Penalty

The penalty imposed on DigitalC—$500 per household signed up through the CMSD partnership—adds unnecessary strain to an already cost-intensive operation. With equipment alone costing $600 per household, these fines create artificial financial pressure that directly impacts the city’s most vulnerable residents.

More alarming is the impact of this penalty on CMSD students. The total CMSD penalty was $450,000, a cost that falls entirely on families who live in Cleveland. These penalties amount to $500 per CMSD household, despite the fact that the City Council knew DigitalC secured outside funding for students’ monthly payments from day one. How is this good judgment or responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars? The very students this program was supposed to help are now being penalized by a decision that was completely avoidable.

An Excessive and Illogical Cut

If any reduction in funding were necessary, a 20% cut—bringing the contract amount to $1,750,000, with DigitalC receiving $1.4 million—would have been a logical adjustment, representing a $350,000 reduction. Instead, the city will only pay them 43% (or $ 760,000) of the money for 80% of the work, despite the fact that it was city-imposed permitting delays that slowed installations in the first place.

This excessive $1,000,000 cut deeply impacts DigitalC’s already razor-thin budget, creating unnecessary financial hardship for a project that is demonstrably working. Rather than making an adjustment that aligns with the actual work completed, the city has chosen to dock more than half the funding for a project that is nearly finished.

DigitalC is On Track to Deliver

While some have tried to frame this as DigitalC missing the mark, the numbers tell a different story. The project has surpassed expectations in nearly every area except installations—a challenge that can be directly linked to delayed permitting. Now that those roadblocks have been removed, all projections indicate that DigitalC is on pace to meet and even exceed their goals.

Building a broadband network of this scale takes more than just funding—it requires vision, resilience, and adaptability. DigitalC has demonstrated all three. And with over $30 million raised outside of city funding, they have proven their commitment to making Cleveland a leader in digital equity.

This isn’t just about meeting a number—it’s about connecting families, ensuring students have access to education, and positioning Cleveland as a forward-thinking city that invests in solutions rather than punishing progress.

DigitalC is doing exactly what they set out to do. The only question now is whether Cleveland will support the success of its own investment—or create unnecessary hurdles for a project that is already delivering real results.

Subscribe now