Closing Broadband Connectivity Divides for All

3. Policies to bridge connectivity divides

Abstract

This chapter provides a comprehensive review of the policy and regulatory measures adopted by countries to bridge connectivity divides. It distinguishes between overarching policies such as promoting competition, easing infrastructure deployment, and efficient spectrum management, and tailored policies and approaches like public-private partnerships, community-led networks, and targeted public funding. The chapter underscores the importance of sound institutional frameworks to promote broadband deployment and emphasizes the key role of broadband mapping for effective policy implementation. It also explores demand-side programmes that aim to enhance broadband adoption, especially among vulnerable groups. Finally, the chapter highlights the crucial role of development cooperation in addressing digital divides, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

This chapter will examine how the policies and regulatory measures countries, within and beyond the OECD, are adopting to bridge digital divides. While OECD Member countries have made progress to expand connectivity, policy makers continue to place high priority on bridging digital divides. As shown in this report, people need to be connected well. This means not only having access to services but also having affordable access and the skills to adopt and use the services to realise their capabilities to bring value to their lives (OECD, 2021[1]). However, there are significant and persistent spatial connectivity divides. Consequently, many people still do not have access to adequate connectivity infrastructures and services where they live, work and travel. Policies to bridge these gaps are essential to allow everyone to fully benefit from digital transformation.

Closing the gap: Overarching policies and regulatory measures to bridge connectivity divides

The 2021 OECD Council Recommendation on Broadband Connectivity (OECD, 2021[2]) sets out a roadmap so that countries may be better able to unleash the full potential of connectivity for the digital transformation and to ensure equal access to connectivity for all citizens and companies. This Recommendation sets a reference for policy makers and regulatory authorities within and outside of the OECD. It recommends policies that support competition and investment in the communication sector, and reduce deployment costs, within an overarching sound regulatory and institutional framework. Use of such policies by OECD Member countries has been shown to be effective in bridging digital divides (Figure ‎3.1).

Figure ‎3.1. Overarching policies can boost connectivity

Expanding connectivity to achieve an inclusive society is at the heart of the policy agenda in all OECD Member countries and in partner economies. National broadband plans and digital strategies, and policies to foster competition, promote investment and ease infrastructure deployment are important tools to spur expansion of high-quality communication networks. As such, the vast majority of OECD Member countries have established connectivity targets through national broadband plans or digital strategies, which set targets for coverage and speeds. Many of these plans and strategies acknowledge the importance of combining efforts from all levels of government, public sector organisations, private sector actors and communities to reach these goals. Annex A lists examples of connectivity targets and associated programmes from OECD Member countries.

A sound regulatory and institutional framework, a necessary condition to expand broadband connectivity

Robust legal and regulatory frameworks for connectivity are a necessary condition to achieve overall goals for connectivity. Such frameworks ensure that decisions are made in an independent, impartial, objective, proportionate and consistent manner. Recommendations to ensure sound regulatory and institutional frameworks have been important elements of OECD telecommunication country and regional reviews. These reviews guide countries on how to adapt the legal framework to increase connectivity and access to high-quality communication services at competitive prices. The OECD has conducted more than 22 country reviews in the past two decades, with several in Latin American countries (OECD, 2020[3]; 2017[4]; 2014[5]; 2012[6]) and most recently for Southeast Asia (OECD, 2023[7]).

In the communication sector, with its high fixed costs and barriers to entry, the institutional and regulatory framework heavily influences the resulting market structures (OECD, 2021[8]). As regulatory decisions can have a significant impact on regulated parties, sector stakeholders will pay close attention to the way these decisions are made. Sound frameworks that promote regulatory certainty are essential for inspiring and maintaining the confidence of the private sector to invest. This is particularly important to ensure competitive neutrality if government-owned operators are also in the market.

Evidence-based policy decisions are key to foster investment and competition in communication networks. Network operators have key information about the market, the operation of their networks and their financing. Consequently, regulators need the ability to obtain information from these parties.

A strong evidence base is a prerequisite for objective analysis to evaluate the performance of the industry against set objectives. Regulatory measures should thus be tailored and proportionate to their purpose to reflect sector performance and further achievement of the objectives.

Innovation can apply to regulatory frameworks just as for technology and business processes. For example, legacy measures should be reviewed and streamlined or modernised, while unnecessary measures can be eliminated. Further, country regulatory processes should ensure that decision making is transparent, has a well-defined scope and is open to submissions from members of the public on reasonable timeframes (OECD, 2021[2]).

Fostering competition

Competition is at the core of the policy approach adopted by most OECD Member countries. Building on the powerful effects of competition to spur lower prices and investment, countries adopt other policies to augment its effects, and tailor measures to rural and remote areas. OECD research for over two decades has shown that competition is one of the strongest levers to increase connectivity (OECD, 2001[9]). Since the dismantling of monopoly control of telecommunications markets in OECD Member countries, competition has brought lower prices, higher investment and higher quality services. Countries pursue competition to harness market forces – the effects of pitting operators against each other in a rivalry to be the choice of consumers. These forces encourage operators to improve their service offering in all its dimensions – including availability, capacity, quality, reliability, speed and prices (OECD, 2021[8]).

Healthy effective competition also empowers consumers to make informed choices about available services, enabling them to choose a service provider free from arbitrary or unreasonable restrictions (OECD, 2021[10]).

The connectivity market has high barriers to entry and high fixed costs. Even after the market has been opened to competition, there can be a tendency towards duopoly or oligopoly. Such conditions can allow the maintenance of prices above competitive levels. Given this context, the institutional and regulatory framework has an outsized impact on the market (OECD, 2021[10]). Below are several examples of how competition generated positive benefits in communication markets as a key driver for broadband development:

Following the Telecommunication and Broadcasting Review for Mexico (OECD, 2012[6]), the country implemented 28 of the 31 recommendations through a constitutional reform of the telecommunication sector in 2013. Among the positive effects of the reform, Mexico witnessed over 93.9 million additional mobile broadband subscriptions over the 2013 (Q2)-2023 period (i.e. more than the entire population of Colombia and Peru combined). This was accompanied by sharp declines in mobile broadband prices in Mexico ranging from 69% to 85% (according to OECD price baskets) over 2013-20‑23 (OECD, 2025[11]; 2024[12]).

In India, Reliance Jio entered the market in 2016 and had over 450 million subscribers as of Q1 2024 and one of the lowest prices in the world, connecting millions of the previously unconnected (TRAI, 2024[13]).

In France, the entry of a fourth mobile operator in 2012 (Iliad) resulted in steady price declines (OECD, 2021[8]). Overall investments in the communication sector have been steadily increasing (Arcep, 2023[14]).

Countries have taken different approaches to promote market development and competition. Through infrastructure competition, multiple operators have end-to-end infrastructure and provide competing services in the same market. Retail-based competition focuses on wholesale access to common infrastructures.

Infrastructure-based competition is possible, particularly where effective policies ease deployment of competing networks (discussed in the next section). However, it is not always economically feasible. This explains why many OECD Member countries subject their network operators to regulatory oversight and measures, and why operators pursue single network wholesale models with retail competition (OECD, 2021[8]).

In the absence of effective competition, particularly in fixed broadband market segments, governments and regulators in many OECD Member countries have decided to impose or maintain regulatory intervention (OECD, 2019[15]). When regulators intervene in the fixed market, it usually takes the form of ex ante pro-competitive regulation. This requires either wholesale open access to portions of networks (to enable more competition in portions of the infrastructure and the retail markets), or infrastructure-sharing requirements. Other countries employ ex post remedies on operators with significant market power. These include measures to divide the functions of a network operator (functional separation) or to separate the wholesale segment from the retail service provision segment (structural separation). In some instances, operators have voluntarily chosen to separate wholesale operations (e.g. the case of the fixed incumbents in Czechia and in New Zealand) (OECD, 2019[15]). An individual assessment of the markets and the circumstances of competition is needed to identify appropriate regulatory measures (OECD, 2021[2]).

In mobile markets, end-to-end infrastructure competition in OECD Member countries has been the predominant form of competition (OECD, 2021[8]). In this respect, compared to fixed networks, mobile network operators have generally had fewer obligations to provide access to competitors. However, in many markets operators make commercial agreements for roaming or co-‑investment in a network. As such, they rely on business partners to supply the infrastructure to serve their customers even within the geography of their country. On the one hand, these agreements can be highly positive for bridging digital divides. For example, they enable broad coverage by lowering the overall amount of investment needed to provide coverage to an area. On the other hand, they can give rise to co‑ordination and competition concerns. Consequently, they are often monitored or require sanctioning, i.e. prior approval, by either a communications or competition regulator (OECD, 2022[16]). Several examples of infrastructure-sharing agreements are presented in Box ‎3.1.

In limited instances, as part of merger control remedies or within the scope of obligations in spectrum licences, OECD regulators have mandated access for mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) to boost competition. These operators do not own their own radio access networks (RAN); rather, they operate over that of another operator. For example, in Portugal, the communication network regulator, ANACOM, included network access obligations in the spectrum conditions for the frequencies in the bands for 5G, 700 MHz and 3.6 GHz, and for the 1800 MHz, 2.1 GHz, 2.6 GHz bands. These obligations included a requirement to negotiate agreements with MVNOs, giving ANACOM the power to resolve administrative disputes where no agreement is reached (ANACOM, 2020[17]). In Canada, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) permits operators with spectrum and a small network of their own to use the network of incumbent wireless carriers as MVNOs. This allows these operators to grow a customer base while they build their own network (CRTC, 2021[18]). MVNO competitive dynamics in OECD Member countries are discussed in more depth in the 2021 OECD report “Emerging trends in communication market competition” (OECD, 2021[8]).

Box ‎3.1. Infrastructure-sharing agreements between mobile operators

Mobile operators in different OECD Member countries participate in various forms of infrastructure- sharing agreements, while maintaining competition with each other at the retail level. These arrangements can ease deployment of infrastructure in harder-to-reach and less densely populated areas, while maintaining competitive incentives. Sometimes, government encouragement or funding is involved, or regulatory approval is required. Some examples of these arrangements are found in Korea, New Zealand and Portugal.

In Korea, the 5G Network Sharing in Rural Areas Plan aims to facilitate the use of 5G services in remote (i.e. rural, coastal) areas with small populations. Commercial services were rolled out beginning in 2021 and were substantially complete as of 2024. The network uses a Multi-Operator Core Networks design between the three major carriers (SK Telecom, KT, LGU+).

In New Zealand, Mobile Black Spot Fund towers are deployed by the Rural Connectivity Group, a joint entity by New Zealand’s three mobile network operators (Spark, Vodafone and 2degrees). The Rural Connectivity Group builds mobile infrastructure in partnership with Crown Infrastructure Partners, a government agency administering connectivity programmes. All three mobile network operators can share access of the towers.

In Portugal, Vodafone Portugal and NOS established an agreement in 2020 for infrastructure sharing of passive and active assets to extend coverage of mobile networks to underserved areas, such as areas of low population density, mostly in the rural interior of Portugal.

Promoting investment by easing barriers to infrastructure deployment

Sound institutional and regulatory frameworks that foster competition and provide incentives to invest in broadband networks are essential for achieving connectivity objectives. The communication sector requires substantial long-term capital investment, relying on an enabling environment that provides regulatory certainty (G20/OECD, 2021[19]). There are diverse actors in the financial landscape of connectivity infrastructure – from communication operators, tower companies, large technology companies to financial asset managers and the public sector (OECD, 2024[20]). Policies that ease and encourage investment by these actors are key to expanding and upgrading networks (OECD, 2022[16]).

Overarching policies that promote investment include removing foreign investment restrictions; simplifying licensing; guaranteeing interconnection on reasonable terms; promoting transparency of information; establishing “dig-once” policies and co-investment incentives; streamlining administrative requirements (e.g. access to rights of way); ensuring building codes promote deployment of high-capacity networks; and allowing infrastructure sharing (OECD, 2021[1]).

Streamlining access to rights of way

Access to rights of way includes the typical requirements for permitting and construction approvals. These could either be imposed by communications regulators or by authorities such as municipal or local governments. Countries can ease the administrative burden on operators and potential new entrants. To that end, they can ensure a high degree of collaboration and co‑ordination between different levels of public authorities to smooth and clarify deployment processes (OECD, 2024[12]).

OECD Member countries are actively working on this topic. In Mexico, the communication regulator, IFT, has a strategic priority for 2021‑25 to collaborate with different levels of government to harmonise, make transparent and expedite the processing and granting of permits for the deployment of infrastructure. In June 2024, IFT published a practical guide for the states and municipalities of Mexico to facilitate and encourage deployment of infrastructure (IFT, 2024[21]). In the Netherlands, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy created a taskforce of national and local authorities. It seeks a uniform approach to permit-granting procedures for antennas and access to physical infrastructure for small cells. In the Slovak Republic, new legislation for spatial planning and construction came into effect in 2024, with one of its goals being to ease broadband rollout.

Infrastructure sharing

Countries across the OECD also act to reduce the cost of network deployment in both urban and rural areas through infrastructure sharing. Such sharing can jointly promote competition (see above section on competition) and encourage investment. Most OECD Member countries encourage or require co-location of certain forms of passive infrastructure, such as poles, ducts and conduit. The civil works required to build this infrastructure are the largest cost component for new network development. Therefore, initiatives to enable its shared use can significantly reduce deployment cost (OECD, 2021[1]).

While some countries have mandated basic access to poles since the introduction of competition decades ago, this area has seen recent policy and regulatory action across OECD Member countries. Since 2018, Canada, Colombia and the United States have taken steps to improve or extend access to poles to enable faster deployment or upgrades for competing networks.1 In Portugal and Spain, mandated access to the incumbent’s poles, as well as ducts, have played a key role in the deployment of fibre networks. Portugal approved amendments to facilitate access to the incumbent’s ducts and poles in 2022, while Spain imposed an obligation on the incumbent to provide access to ducts and poles in 2021 (CNMC, 2021[22]; ANACOM, 2022[23]). As of June 2024, 88.3% of the fixed broadband subscriptions in Spain and 67.4% in Portugal were provided over fibre (OECD, 2025[11]).

In Europe, building on the Broadband Cost Reduction Directive, the Gigabit Infrastructure Act (GIA) was approved in May 2024. It aims to facilitate telecom operators’ access to a wide range of infrastructure. These include assets whose primary purpose is not for communication networks, such as sewage systems, ducts, the poles of energy operators and other utilities. The GIA also includes access obligations to public non-network facilities, such as public buildings or street furniture, to host elements of newly deployed networks.2

Operators are also increasingly acting on their own initiative to adopt shared-infrastructure agreements or models. Such agreements can permit the sharing of passive infrastructure (e.g. masts, towers and sites) or active mobile infrastructure (e.g. RAN sharing, roaming and software elements). Most OECD Member countries encourage infrastructure sharing, provided the advantages outweigh the drawbacks, i.e. that sharing is not detrimental to competition (OECD, 2022[16]). In some cases, all such agreements are subject to regulatory approval. Thirty-two OECD Member countries generally allow sharing agreements of the RAN (e.g. antennas, transceivers, power, base stations, backhaul networks also called “multi-operator radio access network”), with some subject to regulatory approval. In 27 OECD Member countries, sharing of RAN and spectrum resources is allowed (i.e. “multi-operator core network”), while secondary trading or sharing of spectrum resources may require regulatory approval. Finally, 24 OECD Member countries share core networks (i.e. sharing of core network functionalities and servers) (OECD, 2024[12]).

The Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC) region is seeing innovative shared-infrastructure models resulting in deployment of open access fibre networks (Box ‎3.2). If these models provide wholesale capacity on fair and reasonable terms in a transparent and non-discriminatory way, they can enable competition and innovation at the retail level (OECD, 2022[16]). In this way, they can be both investment opportunities for global capital – bringing sources of funding necessary to bridge digital divides – and models that preserve competition to ensure connectivity is affordable (OECD, 2024[20]; 2022[16]).

Box ‎3.2. Innovative infrastructure sharing and open access operator models in Latin American countries

Brazil

V.tal is one of the most advanced neutral fibre networks in the LAC region and the largest in Brazil, serving communication operators, Internet service providers and cloud providers (V.tal, 2024[24]). The company has over 400 000 km of fibre backbone connecting more than 2 380 municipalities in Brazil. It also has 26 000 km of submarine cables, as well as data centres distributed in Brazil and Colombia. V.tal was created from the spin-off of Oi’s fibre network in 2021. Private equity funds linked to BTG Pactual own 83% of the company, while Oi retained 16.15% ownership (V.tal, 2025[25]).

Chile

In February 2021, KKR, a global investment and private equity firm, acquired a majority stake in Telefónica Chile’s fibre optic network, the most extensive fibre optic network in Chile. It made that network open access through a newly established independent Chilean company with assets managed locally. Telefónica holds a 40% stake in the business (Telefónica, 2025[26]). The newly formed enterprise, OnNet Fibra Chile, provides open wholesale access to all telecom operators in Chile (KKR, 2021[27]).

Colombia

In July 2021, KKR followed the same model used in Chile and applied it to the Colombian market. KKR acquired a majority stake in Telefónica’s fibre optic network, the largest in Colombia, and created OnNet Fibra Colombia as an open access wholesale operator (KKR, 2021[28]). Telefónica holds a 40% stake (Telefónica, 2025[26]). As of 2024, the company’s fibre network covered more than 4.5 million homes in 92 cities (OnNet Fibra Colombia, 2025[29]).

Peru

Peru’s Internet Para Todos (IPT, “Internet for all”) is a neutral operator of mobile infrastructure in rural areas. This joint initiative of Telefónica, Meta, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Invest, and the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean deploys communication infrastructure in locations with limited Internet access. Telefónica holds a 54.7% stake in the company (Telefónica, 2025[26]).

Managing spectrum efficiently

Radio spectrum is a limited national resource enabling our digital world, but its limited nature and capacity for different uses raises the stakes for its efficient management to maximise economic and social welfare. Spectrum management is an indispensable pillar of overarching policies to achieve connectivity objectives. Namely, mobile broadband services rely on these invisible airwaves to function. Spectrum also supports the provision of wireless services across the economy, from education to health care to industry. In addition, it enables applications such as satellites, broadcast television, space-based communication services, environmental monitoring, navigational and security applications, and the IoT (OECD, 2022[30]).

Spectrum management often aims to enable services that increase economic and social welfare through continued improvement in wireless communication services. In the context of mobile broadband services, this aim can be further broken down into fostering affordable access to communication services by promoting competition, coverage and investment in mobile markets (OECD, 2022[30]). Across the OECD, a key policy objective of spectrum management is to promote its efficient use, including allowing access to the widest number of users possible and avoiding underuse (OECD, 2022[30]). This is challenging, given the increasingly diverse demands for spectrum access to support wireless solutions across various technologies. In light of these demands, some OECD Member countries are considering more flexible frameworks. For instance, they might allow more dynamic and co‑ordinated spectrum sharing across frequency, time or location (geography), or permit secondary market access (e.g. spectrum trading or leasing) (OECD, 2022[30]).

Spectrum assignment (i.e. licensing) usually includes three key policy considerations in its design, which should be considered simultaneously: extending coverage, fostering investment and promoting competition. Experience across the OECD has shown that transparent and well-designed licensing regimes provide legal certainty with the aim of fostering long-term investment and catering to innovation.

For mobile broadband, market assignment mechanisms, such as auctions, continue to be the gold standard. Auction design is important as it can embed different policy objectives and influence outcomes. Policy makers can use various tools to achieve different objectives in auctions. These include spectrum caps, coverage obligations, reserving blocks of spectrum for certain uses or entities (e.g. new entrants), reserve prices and annual fees, among others (OECD, 2022[30]).

A key component of spectrum management is setting an appropriate spectrum price that reflects its value and promotes its efficient use, while avoiding the principle of maximising fiscal revenues. In most OECD Member countries, spectrum pricing is based on a one-time payment levied on winning bidders in a spectrum auction (OECD, 2022[30]). However, countries may also adopt a hybrid model of spectrum pricing. This sets up an up-front auction fee, along with an administratively determined annual fee. When a country places additional high spectrum fees on top of auction fees, it risks undermining policy objectives, such as curbing innovation, affordability and investment (OECD, 2022[30]). For further discussion on the effects of high annual spectrum fees in addition to up-front auction payments, see Box 4 of OECD (2022[30]).

As the demands for spectrum increase, many countries around the OECD are considering how to enable further access to spectrum on a shared basis to increase its efficient use. While sharing has been employed historically, new sharing frameworks are emerging that allow more dynamic and co‑ordinated shared access to scarce spectrum. Countries further adopt tailored approaches to spectrum management for rural and remote areas (see below).

For a comprehensive overview of the issues involved in spectrum management, refer to “Developments in spectrum management for communication services”, which provides a holistic view (OECD, 2022[30]).

Tailored policies and approaches

Overarching policies that foster competition and private investment are key to expanding connectivity, including in unserved and underserved areas. These policies also diminish reliance on public resources derived from taxation or Universal Service Funds (USFs) allocated to bridge connectivity divides. However, market forces have not proven capable of meeting all policy objectives in some areas, such as rural and remote regions. In these areas, countries also use tailored policies and approaches, such as coverage obligations, demand aggregation, public-private partnerships (PPPs), bottom-up approaches, public programmes and demand-side measures (OECD, 2021[1]).

Coverage obligations in spectrum assignment procedures

Along with competitive communication markets, coverage obligations in spectrum assignment have proven effective in OECD Member countries in extending mobile broadband coverage in rural and remote areas. Spectrum managers should ensure, however, that the coverage obligation does not impede certain actors to bid in the auction. It should thus also consider the costs of these obligations when establishing the reserve price. Coverage obligations should further consider the spectrum band in question, as well as the geographical scope of the licence (OECD, 2022[30]).

Policy makers have also used innovative spectrum assignment models that leverage the ability of multiple parties to share spectrum to ensure its efficient use and the availability of services within competitive markets. For example, the United Kingdom developed a Single/Shared Rural Network (SRN) solution as an advanced form of network and spectrum sharing to improve population and geographic coverage. Operators agreed to invest to close connectivity gaps in areas where a single operator provides coverage to increase competition in those areas. The programme also includes government investment to build towers in areas where there is no coverage, with capacity made available to all operators (OECD, 2022[30]). In four years of the SRN, geographic coverage in the United Kingdom with 4G service from at least one operator has expanded from 91% to 94.9%, comprising expansion to some of the most remote areas of the country (BDUK, 2024[31]).

Spectrum assignment procedures can also be combined as a tailored approach to bridging digital divides with community-led approaches. For example, in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established a “Rural Tribal Priority Window” in 2020. This allowed Tribes in rural areas to directly access unassigned 2.5 GHz spectrum to expand broadband in their lands (FCC, 2024[32]). As of March 2024, the FCC had issued 336 licences to entities, which assists them in providing connectivity services to their communities (FCC, 2024[33]). Similarly, Canada’s spectrum manager – Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) – is developing an “Indigenous Priority Window”. This aims to reduce barriers to spectrum access and support Indigenous applicants in accessing spectrum on a priority basis (ISED, 2024[34]).

Demand aggregation

Demand aggregation strengthens the business case for investment in network deployment by pooling and guaranteeing the demand of the individuals, businesses or organisations in an area. In this approach, customers can sign service contracts before any decision to build the infrastructure. With a guaranteed customer base before investing in the network, the deploying company reduces the risk of the investment and accelerates the payback period. Communities or other organisations can take on the task of demand aggregation to demonstrate their viability as a potential investment destination to a network operator. This approach can be used independently or in combination with other approaches (OECD, 2021[1]).

Multiple OECD Member countries have used demand aggregation. In 2020, for example, Deutsche Glasfaser had about 500 000 fibre-to-the-house (FTTH) connections using this approach. It now counts around 2.4 million connections (Deutsche Glasfaser, 2025[35]).

Public-private partnerships

PPPs are another approach to boost investment in underserved areas and bridge digital divides. While they can take various shapes, PPPs generally involve government ownership of an investment project. This partnership can enable sharing of the risk associated with the deployment of infrastructure assets in higher risk areas.

Following liberalisation of the communication sector in the OECD, the private sector has primarily taken the lead in investing in communication networks. However, in areas where broadband deployment is not commercially viable, PPP approaches can link private sector business expertise to public objectives as a complementary strategy. Some instances of PPPs provide open access to the built network on fair and reasonable terms to promote competition at the retail level (OECD, 2021[36]).

The “Rural Broadband” project in Greece is an example of a successful PPP approach. The EU-funded project was conceived to bring broadband infrastructure to remote regions of Greece, which represent 5% to 6% of the population. Information Society, a government-created corporation, partnered with the private sector in three segments of the Greek territory. The project granted operators concession agreements to build and operate a fibre backhaul network. The project covered more than 5 000 villages and over 500 000 residents (European Commission, 2018[37]; Mantzoufas, 2019[38]).

In another PPP approach, Greece is using funds from the European Regional Development Fund to bring faster speeds to its citizens. The Ultra-Fast Broadband Project is one of the largest PPP projects in Europe, with plans to bring upgraded connectivity to over 830 000 households and businesses (Ministry of Digital Governance, 2023[39]). For this project, the funding split is estimated at 35% public and 65% private, with deployment ongoing as of 2024 (European Commission, 2020[40]; OTE Group, 2024[41]). The European Investment Bank has also invested in PPPs in communication networks in 2022 and 2023 (EIB, 2024[42]).

Bottom-up approaches: Municipal and community-led networks

Municipal and community-led networks are also commonly used across OECD Member countries to help bridge digital divides. These involve locally led efforts to develop infrastructure and provide communication services to their own community. Frequently, these projects are inspired by dissatisfaction with incumbent operators and perceived underinvestment, which prompts action to provide higher quality services (OECD, 2021[36]). By taking initiative, the community has more say in the timing of improvements, along with assuming the burden of ongoing operation and maintenance.

Municipal networks can promote fibre deployment, and several OECD Member countries use them to build out high-speed networks. Such networks usually have some degree of public involvement; they are typically fully or partially built, operated or financed by local governments, public bodies, utilities, co‑operatives or organisations with some sort of public participation (Mölleryd, 2015[43]). In the United States, successful examples of municipal networks provided by utility providers in Tennessee and Louisiana offer fixed broadband services at advertised speeds of up to 10 Gbps (OECD, 2023[44]).

Community networks can also play a role to lower fibre deployment costs in areas with low population density by leveraging community knowledge and involvement (e.g. voluntary work, innovative handling of permissions and excavation) (OECD, 2023[44]). Local communities may form co‑operatives to roll out fibre networks, which are also referred to as “village networks” (OECD, 2023[44]). These village networks leverage community involvement to plan, build and operate local fibre networks, in co‑operation with municipalities and commercial operators.

The Dakota Carrier Network (DCN) in the United States offers a successful example of a rural fibre co-operative network. Despite low population density in the state of North Dakota, 95.25% of rural residents had access to gigabit fixed broadband offers as of December 2024 (i.e. at least 1 000 Mbps download/100 Mbps upload speeds) (FCC, 2025[45]). Thanks largely to the DCN, this percentage far exceeded the national average at this speed range in both rural (42.43%) and urban (64.08%) areas in December 2024 (OECD, 2023[44]; FCC, 2025[45]).

In some OECD Member countries with Indigenous populations, community-led initiatives have been successful in bringing high-quality affordable services to their residents. The Kuhkenah Network (K-Net) provides communication infrastructure and services in regions of Ontario, as well as in other remote regions in Canada. K-Net connects First Nations to its backbone network and each First Nation can become its own ISP with K-Net support and expertise (K-Net, 2024[46]).

Policy makers can enable these types of initiatives in several ways to complement national service providers. These could include streamlined permitting, free access to land or easing of regulatory burdens for such types of operators, as well as spectrum licensing for local needs. Other actions may include capacity building and training to ensure local communities have the knowledge, tools and skills to run such networks efficiently.

Some OECD Member countries are taking steps to adapt their regulatory frameworks to ease the ability of communities to serve as their own network operator and service provider. In Colombia, for example, Law 2108 of 2021 raised the status of Internet access to an essential public service. This directed the regulator to evaluate different rules for providers establishing service in unserved areas and created a fund to finance small operators (Congress of Colombia, 2021[47]). CRC, Colombia’s communication network regulator, adopted a resolution in 2022 to establish relaxed regulatory obligations for small providers (CRC, 2022[48]). In Brazil, Anatel, the communication regulator, explicitly recognises the role of community networks to provide Internet access in the country. Anatel established a working group of Anatel officials and representatives of community networks, which has explored regulatory measures to expand connectivity in rural and remote communities (Anatel, 2024[49]). Further, Anatel simplified its rules for the provision of certain services and established a “Small Providers Committee” to support such providers and expand Internet services in the country (Anatel, 2024[50]). Tanzania offers an example from a developing country through its Micro Mobile Network Operator licence, which encourages cellular service for small populations in rural areas (Amadou-Garba, 2021[51]).

Spectrum licensing can be a tool to promote wireless local community broadband networks (OECD, 2022[30]). In several OECD Member countries, the spectrum licensing framework can cater to local networks to address rural connectivity needs. This includes low-cost licences to extend coverage in rural and remote areas (e.g. Australia, Finland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States). In Mexico, social purpose spectrum licences can provide not-for-profit communication services, such as mobile broadband (Government of Mexico, 2024[52]). Mexico also provides spectrum licences to smaller providers such as wireless Internet service providers that mainly focus on small rural communities (OECD, 2022[30]).

Connectivity targets and public programmes to expand high-quality broadband

Overarching policies that promote competition and investment within sound institutional frameworks are key to ensuring the private sector invests in extending high-quality, affordable broadband coverage to the population as far as is profitable. The coverage gaps that remain are usually in less densely populated rural and remote areas, as demonstrated by the data in Chapter 1. In these areas, public programmes can be used to meet public objectives for being connected well (OECD, 2024[20]). In addition to furthering social equity, ensuring connectivity across the national territory may enable the full economic participation of rural and remote areas. Reducing reliance on, or shutting down, legacy analogue services and processes would provide long-term economic benefits to justify public investment costs to reach such areas.

Most OECD Member countries have developed connectivity targets either through a Digital Agenda or a National Broadband Plan as a framework for public programmes. These set coverage and quality objectives to be achieved within a certain period. Most member countries (31 of 38) have allocated public funds to expand deployment of high-quality connectivity (e.g. 5G and fibre) with the aim of bridging divides. These public funds (or state aid) have been either part of economic recovery packages, elements of national digital or broadband strategies, or part of tailored funds to expand broadband in rural areas.

Given that countries are diverse in territorial features, regulatory frameworks, market dynamics and historical context, the amount of public funds required to complement private sector investment varies. Annex A lists goals and public funding programmes for OECD Member countries.

Public funding can take various forms, such as subsidies or public procurement (OECD, 2024[20]). To use scarce public funds effectively, some OECD Member countries have adopted market mechanisms such as competitive bidding and reverse auctions (OECD, 2021[36]). Recent examples of publicly funded programmes aimed at reducing rural and remote differences include Project Gigabit in the United Kingdom (GOV.UK, 2024[53]), Gigabit Funding 2.0 (“Die Gigabitförderung 2.0”) in Germany (BMDV, 2024[54]) and Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia (DITRDCA, 2023[55]).

Several examples of public funding for specific communities exist in Canada, Costa Rica, and Mexico. In Canada, the First Nation Infrastructure Fund is a general public infrastructure fund that can support communication infrastructure to benefit Indigenous communities (Government of Canada, 2022[56]). Costa Rica’s Connected Communities programme (SUTEL, 2024[57]) and Mexico’s Social Coverage 2023‑2024 programme (“Cobertura Social 2023-2024”) (SICT, 2023[58]) are focused on connectivity for specified communities.

National governments sometimes distribute public funding for broadband to regional or local governments. The Nkom Fund in Norway (Nkom, 2024[59]) and the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program in the United States provide regional or local governments with public funds for broadband (NTIA, 2025[60]). Another approach is to establish a separate entity to manage public funds for broadband. Examples include the Mobile Communication Infrastructure Company (“Mobilfunkinfrastrukturgesellschaft”) in Germany (BMDV, 2025[61]), Broadband Internet (“Plačiajuostis Internetas”) in Lithuania (Plačiajuostis internetas, 2025[62]), and Crown Infrastructure Partners Limited in New Zealand (New Zealand Government, 2025[63]). These approaches can allow for tailoring of funds to local conditions, improved transparency in management and efficient allocation (OECD, 2024[20]).

Many OECD Member countries also direct public funding to strengthen connectivity infrastructure as part of economic recovery programmes (e.g. Canada, France, Korea, the United States and the United Kingdom as well as the European Union) (OECD, 2024[20]). For example, many countries in the European Union are investing in broadband under the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) (European Commission, 2023[64]). In the United States, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 is allocating USD 65 billion to bridge digital divides by expanding broadband infrastructure (Congress, 2022[65]). This law ties a significant allocation of the programme funding for broadband infrastructure to the share of unserved and underserved premises as determined by the FCC’s maps of broadband coverage, which heightened the importance and determination for accurate broadband mapping (Congressional Research Service, 2022[66]).

Broadband mapping

Broadband mapping is an activity that supports multiple dimensions of the communication infrastructure policy environment, justifying the resources necessary to develop accurate maps that combine infrastructure, demographic and other information.

Improving the accuracy of broadband data at a granular level is crucial as it can influence the allocation of funds to close connectivity gaps in unserved and underserved areas. Many OECD Member countries make mapping a prerequisite to spending public funds. In this way, they aim to allocate funds only to areas truly in need of funding to achieve given objectives. These efforts can also include information gathering to identify or forecast near-term private sector investment to avoid crowding out such investment and competition. The “Guidelines on State aid for broadband networks” published by the European Commission highlight the importance of detailed coverage mapping, thorough analysis and public consultations to determine the necessity of intervention (EUR-Lex, 2022[67]).

Granular broadband data are also important in providing end-user transparency and increasing the effectiveness of broadband policy measures. Broadband maps can be a communications tool to display options available in given areas and demonstrate improvement over time. Accurate broadband maps can also support government decision making on strategy, policy and regulation, including supporting competition analysis. Further, broadband maps can also support spectrum assignment by clarifying both the presence of services in given areas and the presence of terrestrial infrastructure that can be leveraged to deploy new wireless coverage.

Most OECD Member countries (82%) have published broadband maps (OECD, 2024[12]). Broadband maps in OECD Member countries often include data on fixed and mobile network coverage, types of network technology, available ISPs, and download and upload speeds. The granularity of the information varies and is often for administrative districts at various levels or geographic units. A small number of countries have maps that detail information at the individual building level, such as GEO.ANACOM in Portugal (ANACOM, 2024[68]), Broadband Map (“Bredbandskartan”) in Sweden (PTS, 2024[69]) and the FCC National Broadband Map in the United States (FCC, 2025[45]). Information on a map may be less detailed than what the authority possesses internally, often due to confidentiality or operator concerns about releasing sensitive information to competitors. These concerns can be challenging for authorities to manage in information released to the public. In the interests of transparency, authorities want to communicate how their programmes are administered and empower consumers in their decision-making processes.

Communication regulators often acquire data from service providers to build their maps. Some communication regulators directly measure or obtain third-party data acquired via users’ devices. Different sources of data can be combined to provide relevant findings. Almost half of communication regulators in OECD Member countries (47%) use approaches such as crowdsourcing and open data to measure the quality and coverage of broadband (OECD, 2024[12]). Communication regulators can also collect detailed geographic data in co‑operation with other authorities. Some OECD Member countries promote automation and systemisation in the analysis and processing of data from these multiple sources so they can manage and update databases efficiently. For example, Arcep in France collects data from communications operators based on legal authority and publishes a technical document on the processing of that data (Arcep, 2022[70]). In addition, releasing the underlying information for the maps as open data can enable third parties to contribute with further analysis. Countries including Canada, France and the United States provide data for their maps in open format (Arcep, 2024[71]; ISED, 2022[72]; FCC, 2025[45]).

Recent developments in broadband mapping have further enabled countries to provide near real-time information in emergency response situations such as after major damage from natural disasters. For example, IFT in Mexico provided a map showing where mobile networks were available soon after Hurricane Otis hit Acapulco in 2023 (IFT, 2023[73]).

Estimating the amount of public funding needed to bridge connectivity divides

Estimating the amount of public funding required to achieve connectivity targets is important for effective planning towards objectives and an efficient use of public funds (OECD, 2021[74]). The level of investment required to reach the desired coverage is often called the investment gap. To estimate the investment gap, some OECD Member countries follow a three-step process. First, they take the baseline information collected on broadband deployment in their countries (e.g. broadband maps). Second, they forecast the additional coverage improvements expected to be achieved through private sector investment. Third, they calculate the costs of remaining broadband deployment necessary to achieve specific deployment and speed goals.

By applying technical, economic and engineering cost models, countries can estimate investment gaps for various combinations of technologies, timeframes and objectives. In Sweden, the PTS estimated the costs of connecting the remaining 1.9% of households and businesses for the national target of 99.9% coverage of 100 Mbps or more in 2025. In Germany, WIK Consultants published a report on the costs of the country’s fibre optic network using bottom-up modelling and statistical methods (WIK, 2020[75]). Many other OECD Member countries have analysed investment gaps, including Canada, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (see Annex A).

While countries typically subsidise capital costs for communication networks, some are also exploring subsidies for operational costs. Subsidising capital costs (e.g. capital expenditure) of the deployment of communication networks through public funds is the norm. In addition, however, some geographically large countries have allowed or are examining subsidies of operational costs for portions of networks in remote areas. This policy is considered where revenues received after deployment are unlikely to cover operating costs. Australia has a range of mechanisms that help fund universal communication services, including annual government contribution and industry levies. The government is considering options to modernise this funding support and ensure its sustainability and certainty for businesses (DITRDCA, 2024[76]). In addition, later rounds of the country’s Mobile Black Spot Program allowed applicants to seek support for operational costs, in addition to capital costs (DITRDCA, 2024[77]). In Canada, the CRTC administers a Broadband Fund. It is considering policy changes to make certain operational costs for certain projects eligible for reimbursement through the Fund (CRTC, 2024[78]). Given that government funding can be uncertain, countries should favour solutions and policy adjustments that provide predictability and promote commercial sustainability as much as possible when addressing operational costs.

Demand-side programmes

While competition remains the most effective way to deliver affordable services, some countries also target public funding for vulnerable groups to bridge digital divides. Competition has a direct effect on affordability and is the most effective way to make communication services affordable for most people. Nevertheless, to bridge the digital divide on the demand side, some OECD Member countries use public support programmes to boost adoption level of broadband or ease the financial burden of subscribing. These programmes generally target groups with social vulnerabilities (e.g. low-income households). Other targeted people and households can include students, elderly people, people with disabilities, veterans, recipients of social security benefits and Indigenous Peoples. In addition, programmes may focus on people within specific geographies, including people living in rural or remote areas.

Generally, demand-side programmes to boost broadband adoption provide free or discounted service fees to eligible users based on public funding or legal obligations on operators. These initiatives can be administered in several ways. A public authority, such as a tax administrator, may distribute vouchers to eligible recipients. The government may also provide information encouraging eligible persons to self-identify. Subsidies may also cover related initial costs such as connection fees. Some countries subsidise device costs, such as with discounts on device prices or by providing refurbished devices. There are several examples around the OECD of such programmes (Box ‎3.3).

Box ‎3.3. Examples of demand-side programmes in OECD Member countries

Several OECD Member countries have explored demand-side programmes that seek to foster broadband adoption.

In Australia, the government provides one year of free broadband to up to 30 000 households, targeting families with students that lack Internet access at home (DITRDCA, 2023[79]).

In Canada, through the Connecting Families Initiative, Internet service providers offer discounted broadband service to certain families receiving income-based child benefits and to seniors who meet certain income requirements. In addition, recipients can obtain a low-cost refurbished device collected through donations through the “Computers for Schools plus” programme (ISED, 2025[80]).

Costa Rica’s Connected Homes Programme subsidises Internet fees and device purchases to low-income households.

In Korea, low-income households and social security recipients receive a 50% discount on their Internet fees (Republic of Korea, 2025[81]).

Portugal determines the Social Internet Tariff, a discounted fee of broadband services available to low-income and disadvantaged households, which operators are legally obliged to offer. The monthly cost of service under this tariff is EUR 5 and the operator must ensure the plan offered meets service conditions, such as speed and data volume requirements, as well as the availability of video calling and access to certain online services (ANACOM, 2025[82]) (ANACOM, 2022[83]).

Spain's UNICO BONO SOCIAL programme provides vouchers of up to EUR 240 per year to certain vulnerable people or households to access to a fixed broadband connection of at least 30 Mbps (Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital, 2021[84]). The UNICO Demanda Rural programme helps households in remote areas subscribe to a 100 Mbps broadband service for EUR 35 per month. The programme also subsidises all costs associated with these subscriptions up to a maximum of EUR 600 (Ministerio para la Transformación Digital y de la Función Pública, 2025[85]).

Demand-side programmes focused on affordability are not a substitute for policies that deliver effective and durable competition. Ensuring continuity across legislative periods can mean programmes are in consistent jeopardy of fund exhaustion. Funds from regulatory levies, such as USFs, could be appropriate in some instances. However, since they can contribute to higher prices for all consumers, they need to be robustly administered for accountability and effectiveness. When funded from taxation revenues, demand-side programmes should also be analysed for opportunity costs (OECD, 2022[86]). In addition, programmes should be assessed for competitive effects to ensure they include and encourage consumer choice in terms of provider.

Demand-side barriers should be addressed with context-specific, holistic and people-centred policy approaches. Measuring the rate of women’s inclusion in the digital economy across various metrics can pinpoint gaps. This, in turn, can then inform policies to achieve tangible change for women and girls where they are particularly disadvantaged (Coupienne and Harihareswara, 2021[87]). Encouraging women and girls to pursue STEM can reduce and close divides between men and women. “Connect to Grow” (Conectarse para Crecer, CpC), for example, is an award programme in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Funded by Telefónica and Movistar, CpC recognises and gives visibility to rural women entrepreneurs in these countries. It targets women who have used digital technologies to improve the quality of life of their communities, especially in rural areas (Movistar Ecuador, 2023[88]; Movistar Colombia, 2024[89]; Movistar Peru, 2024[90]).

Several other approaches can help to lower price barriers. Some low- and middle-income countries have successfully enhanced affordability and reduced cost of devices and data through asset-financing arrangements; partnerships between mobile operators and financial intermediaries to offer consumer loans; and value added tax exemptions (Amadou-Garba, 2021[51]; Williams and Bachiri, 2021[91]).

Other measures can build more trust in digital platforms. Governments can enact or establish data protection and digital security policies to ensure trust in digital tools. Sufficiently resourcing and ensuring independence of responsible authorities are also key in this regard. In addition, transitioning government services to digital platforms and creating strong digital public infrastructure can help give citizens a reason to go online.

Additional considerations for low- and middle-income countries

The overarching and tailored policies outlined above apply to both OECD Member countries and partner economies alike. However, low- and middle-income countries often face additional challenges to extending high-quality broadband networks and improving access to broadband connectivity for all.

Administrative capacity and government co‑ordination remain key challenges to installing and maintaining a sound regulatory framework in many low- and middle-income countries. Internal barriers can include lack of clarity on mandates of government agencies; difficulty making the leap from digital expansion strategies to implementation; and co-ordination challenges across complementary policy areas such as urban planning (Stuart, 2021[92]; Williams and Bachiri, 2021[91]). This can undermine private sector confidence to invest.

Funding for government agencies can also be a barrier. In the data protection field, for example, where data are available, median per country budget in 2018 was USD 6 million in OECD Member countries compared with USD 500 000 in partner economies (Pisa, Nwankwo and Dixon, 2021[93]). While network expansion and upgrades require private sector investment, public funds may sometimes support rollout (e.g. in underserved areas). However, funding for such projects often competes for scarce public funding with other imperatives like education and health. This is particularly true in low- and middle-income countries, making private sector investment even more important. Yet, weak private sector investment environments are a critical hurdle for low- and middle-income countries (Williams and Bachiri, 2021[91]). Not only that, while governments can use financial mechanisms such as USFs to bridge digital divides, evidence shows significant issues in low- and middle-income countries. This includes low disbursement of collected funds and lack of transparency in allocation of resources (Williams and Bachiri, 2021[91]).

In addition, supporting infrastructure in certain low- and middle-income countries may hamper deployment, operation and resilience of communication networks. The quality of transport infrastructure, for instance, may increase barriers and the financial burden to deploying and maintaining networks if there are poor roadways to reach areas within a country (OECD, 2023[7]). Similarly, the lower level of electricity grid availability and reliability in certain low- and middle-income countries poses challenges to the provision and use of broadband services. Unreliable electricity grids also greatly affect the resilience of communication networks by impeding the ability of network operators to provide consistent service. While exacerbated in certain low- and middle-income countries, challenges to network resilience are shared by OECD Member countries. Recent OECD work finds that power outages are a leading cause of network outages and hardware and software malfunction, with mobile networks being more susceptible than fixed networks (OECD, 2025[94]).

Efforts to address infrastructure challenges at their root, according to the circumstances of each country, are needed to help support an enabling framework to extend high-quality broadband connectivity. Regional and supranational efforts can complement domestic initiatives to strengthen infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries. For example, to promote investment in digital infrastructure, Smart Africa – a joint initiative of African heads of state and government – aims to harmonise legal and policy frameworks in the region (Smart Africa, 2025[95]). Another project under Smart Africa aims to aggregate demand for the bulk purchase of wholesale submarine and satellite broadband bandwidth for cost savings (Smart Africa, 2025[95]). Similarly, regional integration could help realise the digital potential of the LAC region, particularly through establishment of a regional digital market. Bodies such as the ECLAC could play an important role (Traoré, Orozco and Velandia, 2021[96]).

Digital innovations such as peer-to-peer electricity trading networks and digitally-enabled solar electricity units can provide stopgap energy for low-income, remote and other underserved communities (Kamiya et al., 2021[97]). However, these are not a replacement for scaled and sustained investment in electricity grids and road transport infrastructure.

Development co‑operation plays an important role in supporting low- and middle-income countries to address digital divides

Development co‑operation plays an important role in addressing digital divides. Official development assistance (ODA)3 is government financial aid that promotes and targets the economic development and welfare of low- and middle-income countries. The OECD, under the auspices of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) collects, verifies and publishes ODA data. The DAC comprises 33 OECD Member countries, with observers from international organisations and participants drawn from non-OECD countries.

ODA for digital infrastructure and policy, as well as administrative management, is provided by both bilateral arrangements (i.e. country-to-country) and by multilateral organisations such as the World Bank.4 Funds categorised as “digital infrastructure” represent financing for a broad range of information communication and technology goods and services. These include network infrastructure and equipment such as satellites, as well as computers, software and Internet services. Funds labelled as “digital policy” go towards communication policy and administrative management, including sectoral policy, planning and programmes, institutional capacity building and advice. Therefore, development financing and wider co‑operation both directly supports expanding access and use, as well as the creation of a strong enabling environment.

ODA support to digital infrastructure (i.e. connectivity infrastructure) has been on an upward trend since 2016. While ODA for digital infrastructure levelled off between 2019 and 2021, it increased again in 2022 and 2023 (Figure ‎3.2). Support to policy development increased significantly in 2020 and again in 2021, reflecting the increased demand due to the COVID‑19 crisis.

Most ODA financing is provided to infrastructure investments from multilateral organisations. The International Development Association (IDA), housed at the World Bank, was the largest provider over 2019-23, followed by the European Union. These two entities are also the largest providers of policy support in the sector (Figure ‎3.3). IDA provides support in a mixture of loans and grants (World Bank, 2025[98]), while bilateral support is more likely to be concessional (OECD, 2021[99]).

Figure ‎3.2. Development assistance to digital infrastructure increased from 2016 to 2023

ODA flows reported to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) for digital infrastructure and policy, 2012‑23

Notes: This figure relates to the countries and organisations providing ODA to digital infrastructure and policy and reporting to the DAC. All figures are commitments of official development assistance in USD millions, in 2022 constant prices. Infrastructure is a combination of purpose codes 22020 (Telecommunications) and 22040 (Information and Communication Technology); policy refers to purpose code 22010 (Communications policy and administrative management), drawn from the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS). See endnote 14 for further details. More information on CRS codes can be found at www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/dacandcrscodelists.htm.

Source: OECD (2025[100]), “OECD Data Explorer: Development”, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.

Statlink

Figure ‎3.3. The IDA, housed at the World Bank, is the largest ODA provider for digital infrastructure and policy

ODA reported to the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) for digital infrastructure and policy, average over 2019-23

Notes: This figure relates to the countries and organisations providing ODA to digital infrastructure and policy and reporting to the DAC. All figures are commitments of ODA in USD millions, in 2022 constant prices. Infrastructure is a combination of purpose codes 22020 (Telecommunications) and 22040 (Information and Communication Technology); policy refers to purpose code 22010 (Communications policy and administrative management), drawn from the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS). See endnote 14 for further information. Further information on CRS codes can be found at www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/dacandcrscodelists.htm.

Source: OECD (2025[100]), “OECD Data Explorer: Development”, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.

Statlink

Bilateral support offers relatively less funding for digital purposes than multilateral organisations, however it still plays a key role in building an enabling environment. This can be expected given multilateral organisations have a comparative advantage in supporting long-term infrastructure investment. However, the role of bilateral and multilateral engagements in supporting the enabling environment is key. Examples include programmes to improve the interoperability of digital health systems (Waugaman, 2021[101]), support civil society to adapt to the changing digital landscape (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, 2021[102]); support digital government, accessibility and safety measures (Pyeon, 2021[103]); and address digital literacy gaps and enable the creation of locally relevant content (Lustrati, 2021[104]). Addressing gaps in skills needed for the digital world and digital literacy are paramount to ensure users fully realise the benefits of digital applications enabled by connectivity.

Most support for digital infrastructure and policy from international donors to low- and middle-income countries has been concentrated in sub-Saharan African countries from 2019-2023, reflecting that region’s wide infrastructure gaps and need for policy support (Figure ‎3.4).

Figure ‎3.4. Sub-Saharan African countries are the top recipients of digital infrastructure and policy support

Top ten low- and middle-income countries or regions receiving ODA reported to the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) from international donors for digital infrastructure and policy, average over 2019‑23

Notes: All figures are commitments of ODA in USD million, in 2022 constant prices. Infrastructure is a combination of purpose codes 22020 (Telecommunications) and 22040 (Information and Communication Technology); policy refers to purpose code 22010 (Communications policy and administrative management), drawn from the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS). See endnote 14 for further information. Further information on CRS codes can be found at www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/dacandcrscodelists.htm.

Source: OECD (2025[100]), “OECD Data Explorer: Development”, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.

Statlink

Bilateral engagements and multilateral institutions also mobilised additional private finance.5 Over 2018‑23, private finance mobilised by bilateral and multilateral ODA totalled USD 11.16 billion for digital infrastructure and policy support. Multilateral mobilisation outstripped bilateral support from DAC members in all years except 2021 (Figure ‎3.5). Multilateral mobilisation was driven by different actors in different years. In 2020, the Private Infrastructure Development Group mobilised the highest sums. The Group is an infrastructure development and finance organisation funded by seven governments and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), part of the World Bank Group. In 2021, 2022 and 2023, the IFC played an outsized role. In 2023, for example, mobilisation by the IFC accounted for a quarter of the total private finance mobilised over 2018‑23. Mobilisation strategies can play an important role in reducing risk, for example by backing new businesses until they are investment-ready and encouraging investors seeking to balance commercial return with social impact (Sinha, 2021[105]).

Figure ‎3.5. Development assistance mobilises private funds for digital infrastructure and policy

Private finance mobilised for digital infrastructure and policy by bilateral and multilateral ODA, 2018‑23

Note: This accounts for finance in Communications policy and administrative management, and Telecommunications, Information and communication technology sectors.

Source: OECD (2025[100]), “OECD Data Explorer: Development”, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.

Statlink

References

[51] Amadou-Garba, A. (2021), “Practical solutions to connect the last mile”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en.

[82] ANACOM (2025), Perguntas Frequentes - Tarifa Social de Internet (TSI), [Frequently asked questions - Social Internet Tariff], ANACOM, https://www.anacom-consumidor.pt/faq-tarifa-social-de-internet-tsi (accessed on 14 May 2025).

[68] ANACOM (2024), GEO.ANACOM, website, https://geo.anacom.pt/publico/home (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[23] ANACOM (2022), “ANACOM approves simpler access to MEO’s ducts and poles by other operators”, 29 November, ANACOM News, https://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?contentId=1734277.

[83] ANACOM (2022), “Social Internet tariff now open to subscriptions”, 4 March, Press Release, ANACOM, Lisbon, https://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?contentId=1717706&languageId=1.

[17] ANACOM (2020), Auction Regulation for the Allocation of Rights of Use of Frequencies in the 700 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2.1 GHz, 2.6 GHz and 3.6 GHz bands, 5 November, ANACOM, Lisbon, https://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?contentId=1573881.

[50] Anatel (2024), Comitê de Prestadoras de Serviços de Telecomunicações de Pequeno Porte Junto à Anatel - CPPP, [Committee of Small Telecommunications Service Providers with Anatel - CPPP], Anatel, https://www.gov.br/anatel/pt-br/regulado/prestadoras-de-pequeno-porte/cppp (accessed on 9 May 2025).

[49] Anatel (2024), “Redes Comunitárias (Community Networks)”, webpage, https://www.gov.br/anatel/pt-br/regulado/universalizacao/redes-comunitarias (accessed on 9 May 2025).

[71] Arcep (2024), Maps & Data – Open Data, (database), https://en.arcep.fr/maps-data/open-data.html (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[14] Arcep (2023), “Marché des communications électroniques en France – Année 2022 – Résultats provisoires”, webpage, https://www.arcep.fr/cartes-et-donnees/nos-publications-chiffrees/observatoire-des-marches-des-communications-electroniques-en-france/marche-communications-electroniques-france-2022-resultats-provisoires.html (accessed on 6 March 2024).

[70] Arcep (2022), “Ma connexion internet : documentation technique”, webpage, https://www.arcep.fr/cartes-et-donnees/nos-cartes/ma-connexion-internet-documentation-technique.html (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[31] BDUK (2024), “Shared Rural Network (SRN) Progress Update - September 2024”, webpage, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shared-rural-network-srn-progress-update-september-2024/shared-rural-network-srn-progress-update-september-2024#progress (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[61] BMDV (2025), “Mobilfunkförderung”, [The federal mobile communications subsidy programme], webpage, https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/DG/foerderprogramm-mobilfunkfoerderung.html (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[54] BMDV (2024), “Die Gigabitförderung 2.0”, [Gigabit funding 2.0] webpage, https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/DG/relaunch-des-breitbandfoerderprogramms.html (accessed on xx xx 2025).

[22] CNMC (2021), Resolución ANME/DTSA/002/20/Mercados Acceso Local Central, [Resolution ANME/DTSA/002/20/Central Local Access Markets], Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, Madrid, https://www.cnmc.es/sites/default/files/editor_contenidos/Resoluci%C3%B3n_ANME-DTSA-002-20_VP_0.pdf.

[65] Congress (2022), H.R. 3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Congress.gov, http://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684.

[47] Congress of Colombia (2021), Ley 2108 de 2021 (Law 2108 of 2021), Congress of Colombia, https://dapre.presidencia.gov.co/normativa/normativa/LEY%202108%20DEL%2029%20DE%20JULIO%20DE%202021.pdf.

[66] Congressional Research Service (2022), FCC’s National Broadband Map: Implications for the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12298.

[87] Coupienne, F. and N. Harihareswara (2021), “Overcoming exclusion in digital economies”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en.

[48] CRC (2022), Resolution CRC 6755 of May 2022, Comisión de Regulación de Comunicaciones, Bogotá, https://www.crcom.gov.co/sites/default/files/normatividad/RESOLUCION-6755-DE-2022.pdf.

[78] CRTC (2024), Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2024-328, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Gatineau, Quebec, https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2024/2024-328.htm.

[18] CRTC (2021), “Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2021-130: Review of Mobile Wireless Services”, webpage, https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2021/2021-130.htm (accessed on 7 March 2024).

[35] Deutsche Glasfaser (2025), “Deutsche Glasfaser: Netzausbau”, [Network Expansion], webpage, https://www.deutsche-glasfaser.de/netzausbau (accessed on 9 May 2025).

[76] DITRDCA (2024), “Consultation open on funding of regional telecommunication services”, 10 April, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, Canberra, https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/news/consultation-open-funding-regional-telecommunication-services.

[77] DITRDCA (2024), “Funding of universal telecommunications services”, Discussion Paper, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, Canberra, https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/funding-of-universal-telecommunications-services-april-2024.pdf.

[55] DITRDCA (2023), “Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia”, webpage, https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/media-communications-arts/better-connectivity-plan-regional-and-rural-australia (accessed on 4 June 2024).

[79] DITRDCA (2023), “New initiative will deliver free broadband access for disadvantaged students”, 3 February, Media Release, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, Canberra, https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/rowland/media-release/new-initiative-will-deliver-free-broadband-access-disadvantaged-students.

[42] EIB (2024), Market Update – 2023: Review of the European Public-Private Partnership Market in 2023, European Investment Bank, Luxembourg, https://www.eib.org/en/publications/20240030-market-update-2023.

[67] EUR-Lex (2022), “Guidelines from the Commission on State Aid for Broadband Networks 2023/C 36/01”, webpage, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52023XC0131(01) (accessed on 4 June 2024).

[64] European Commission (2023), “Recovery and resilience scoreoboard”, Thematic Analysis: Connectivity, European Commission, Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/recovery-and-resilience-scoreboard/assets/thematic_analysis/scoreboard_thematic_analysis_connectivity.pdf.

[40] European Commission (2020), “Ultrafast broadband for Internet users throughout Greece”, 20 February, European Commission, Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/greece/ultrafast-broadband-for-internet-users-throughout-greece.

[37] European Commission (2018), “Good practice: Broadband network development in white rural areas of Greece”, 16 February, Success Story, European Commission, Luxembourg, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/good-practice-broadband-network-development-white-rural-areas-greece.

[45] FCC (2025), “Area Summary”, FCC National Broadband Map, (database), https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary (accessed on 4 June 2025).

[33] FCC (2024), Budget Estimates to Congress, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401057A1.pdf.

[32] FCC (2024), “Rural Tribal Window Updates”, webpage, https://www.fcc.gov/rural-tribal-window-updates (accessed on 22 May 2025).

[19] G20/OECD (2021), G20 Guidelines for Financing and Fostering High-Quality Connectivity for a Digital World, G20 Italia, http://www.g20italy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/G20-Guidelines-for-Financing-and-Fostering-High-Quality-Broadband-Connectivity-for-a-Digital-World.pdf.

[53] GOV.UK (2024), “Project Gigabit”, webpage, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/project-gigabit-uk-gigabit-programme (accessed on 4 June 2024).

[56] Government of Canada (2022), “First Nation Infrastructure Fund”, webpage, https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010656/1533645154710 (accessed on 4 June 2024).

[52] Government of Mexico (2024), Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión (Art. 83), Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación [Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law], https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFTR.pdf.

[21] IFT (2024), Guía práctica para el despliegue de infraestructura de telecomunicaciones, [Practical Guide for the Deployment of Telecommunications Infrastructure], Instituto Federal de Telecommunciones, Mexico City, https://centrodeestudios.ift.org.mx/admin/files/indicadores/1724438992.pdf.

[73] IFT (2023), El IFT presenta el “Mapa interactivo de disponibilidad de cobertura móvil en Acapulco” (Comunicado 95/2023) 3 de noviembre, [The IFT presents the "Interactive Mobile Coverage Auplet Map in Acapulco" (Communicated 95/2023) 3 November], Instituto Federal de Telecommunaciones, Mexico City, https://www.ift.org.mx/comunicacion-y-medios/comunicados-ift/es/el-ift-presenta-el-mapa-interactivo-de-disponibilidad-de-cobertura-movil-en-acapulco-comunicado (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[80] ISED (2025), “Connecting Families Initiative”, webpage, https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/connecting-families/en (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[34] ISED (2024), “Spectrum and the Indigenous Priority Window”, webpage, https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/spectrum-management-telecommunications/en/spectrum-allocation/spectrum-and-indigenous-priority-window (accessed on 22 May 2025).

[72] ISED (2022), “National Broadband Data Information”, webpage, https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/high-speed-internet-canada/en/universal-broadband-fund/national-broadband-data-information (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[97] Kamiya, G. et al. (2021), “Bridging energy gaps with digital solutions”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en.

[28] KKR (2021), “KKR and Telefónica to create Colombia’s first nationwide open access fiber optic network”, 16 July, Business Wire, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210716005494/en/.

[27] KKR (2021), “KKR to acquire Telefónica Chile’s wholesale fiber optic network to create first open access network in Chile”, 22 February, Business Wire, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210222005928/en/.

[46] K-Net (2024), “About Us”, webpage, https://knet.ca/kuh-ke-nah-networks/ (accessed on 4 June 2025).

[104] Lustrati, A. (2021), “Case study: Leaving no one behind in a digital world: The United Kingdom’s Digital Access Programme”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en.

[38] Mantzoufas, N. (2019), “Broadband network development in white rural areas of Greece on PPP basis”, presentation, Fifth annual EU conference on EAFRD financial instruments for agriculture and rural development in 2014-2020, https://www.fi-compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/Nikos_Mantzoufas_Broadband%20network.pdf.

[84] Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital (2021), “Real Decreto 989/2021, de 16 de noviembre”, [Royal Decree 989/2021, of November 16], Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado, Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital, https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2021-18817.

[85] Ministerio para la Transformación Digital y de la Función Pública (2025), “UNICO Demanda Rural (Rural Demand)”, webpage, https://espanadigital.gob.es/lineas-de-actuacion/unico-demanda-rural (accessed on 14 May 2025).

[39] Ministry of Digital Governance (2023), Υπογραφή Σύμβασης Σύμπραξης για το έργο (Ultra – Fast Broadband), webpage, https://mindigital.gr/archives/5185 (accessed on 4 June 2024).

[102] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (2021), “Case study: The Netherlands’ inclusive and human rights-based approach with civil society”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en.

[43] Mölleryd, B. (2015), “Development of High-speed Networks and the Role of Municipal Networks”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 26, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrqdl7rvns3-en.

[89] Movistar Colombia (2024), “Conectarse para Crecer (“Connect to Grow”) Colombia”, webpage, https://www.movistar.com.co/conectarse-para-creer-colombia (accessed on 14 May 2025).

[88] Movistar Ecuador (2023), “Conectarse Para Crecer: Impulsando a las mujeres emprendedoras (“Connecting for Growth: Empowering Women Entrepreneurs”)”, webpage, https://blog.movistar.com.ec/conectarse_para_crecer_impulsando_a_las_mujeres_emprendedoras/ (accessed on 14 May 2025).

[90] Movistar Peru (2024), “Conectarse para Crecer (“Connect to Grow”)”, webpage, https://www.movistar.com.pe/conectarse (accessed on 14 May 2025).

[63] New Zealand Government (2025), “Crown Infrastructure Partners Limited”, webpage, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/commercial-portfolio-and-advice/commercial-portfolio/crown-infrastructure-partners-limited (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[59] Nkom (2024), “Offentlig støtte til bredbåndsutbygging”, [Public Support for Broadband Development], webpage, https://nkom.no/fysiske-nett-og-infrastruktur/offentlig-stotte-til-bredbandsutbygging (accessed on 4 June 2024).

[60] NTIA (2025), “Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program”, webpage, https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/funding-programs/broadband-equity-access-and-deployment-bead-program (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[11] OECD (2025), Broadband Statistics, (database), https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/broadband-statistics.html (accessed on 27 September 2024).

[100] OECD (2025), “Development”, OECD Data Explorer, (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org (accessed on 14 May 2025).

[94] OECD (2025), “Enhancing the resilience of communication networks”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 374, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d6920477-en.

[20] OECD (2024), “Financing broadband networks of the future”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 365, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eafc728b-en.

[12] OECD (2024), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 (Volume 2): Strengthening Connectivity, Innovation and Trust, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3adf705b-en.

[44] OECD (2023), Enhancing Rural Innovation in the United States, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/22a8261b-en.

[7] OECD (2023), Extending Broadband Connectivity in Southeast Asia, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b8920f6d-en.

[16] OECD (2022), “Broadband networks of the future”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 327, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/755e2d0c-en.

[30] OECD (2022), “Developments in spectrum management for communication services”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 332, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/175e7ce5-en.

[86] OECD (2022), Rural Policy Review of Colombia 2022, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c26abeb4-en.

[1] OECD (2021), “Bridging connectivity divides”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 315, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e38f5db7-en.

[36] OECD (2021), Bridging digital divides in G20 countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/35c1d850-en.

[10] OECD (2021), “Broadband policy and technology developments”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 317, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e273ff77-en.

[99] OECD (2021), Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en.

[8] OECD (2021), “Emerging trends in communication market competition”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 316, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4ad9d924-en.

[74] OECD (2021), Promoting high-quality broadband networks in G20 countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cf0093dc-en.

[2] OECD (2021), Recommendation of the Council on Broadband Connectivity, OECD/LEGAL/0322, OECD Legal Instruments, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0322.

[3] OECD (2020), OECD Telecommunication and Broadcasting Review of Brazil 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/30ab8568-en.

[15] OECD (2019), “The operators and their future: The state of play and emerging business models”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 287, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/60c93aa7-en.

[4] OECD (2017), OECD Telecommunication and Broadcasting Review of Mexico 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264278011-en.

[5] OECD (2014), OECD Review of Telecommunication Policy and Regulation in Colombia, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264208131-en.

[6] OECD (2012), OECD Review of Telecommunication Policy and Regulation in Mexico, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264060111-en.

[9] OECD (2001), The Development of Broadband Access in OECD Countries, OECD, Paris, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2012-06-15/163595-2475737.pdf.

[29] OnNet Fibra Colombia (2025), “Quiénes somos”, [Who we are], webpage, https://onnetfibra.co/es/nosotros/quienes-somos (accessed on 9 May 2025).

[41] OTE Group (2024), “OTE Group: The implementation of the Ultra-Fast Broadband project has started, with Drama as the starting point”, webpage, https://www.cosmote.gr/cs/otegroup/en/implementation_ultrafast_broadband.html (accessed on 9 May 2025).

[93] Pisa, M., U. Nwankwo and P. Dixon (2021), “Creating a level playing field for data protection”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrqdl7rvns3-en.

[62] Plačiajuostis internetas (2025), Plačiajuostis internetas, [Broadband Internet], website, https://www.placiajuostis.lt/ (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[69] PTS (2024), BREDBANDSKARTAN, [The Broadband Map], (database), https://bredbandskartan.pts.se/ (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[103] Pyeon, S. (2021), “Case study: KOICA’s dual approach to digitalisation”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrqdl7rvns3-en.

[81] Republic of Korea (2025), “Mobile Communication Fee Reduction”, webpage, https://www.bokjiro.go.kr/ssis-tbu/twataa/wlfareInfo/moveTWAT52011M.do?wlfareInfoId=WLF00003257&wlfareInfoReldBztpCd=01 (accessed on 13 May 2025).

[58] SICT (2023), Programa de Cobertura Social 2023-2024, [Social Coverage Programme 2023-2024], https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/875287/231129_PCS2023-2024_san_v1.pdf.

[105] Sinha, A. (2021), “Case study: Insights from CDC on catalysing commercial investment”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrqdl7rvns3-en.

[95] Smart Africa (2025), “Who we are – Smart Africa”, webpage, https://smartafrica.org/who-we-are/ (accessed on 14 May 2025).

[92] Stuart, E. (2021), “Determining national priorities in the 4th industrial revolution”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping A Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrqdl7rvns3-en.

[57] SUTEL (2024), Programa 1: Comunidades Conectadas, [Program 1: Connected Communities]. webpage, https://www.sutel.go.cr/pagina/programa-1-comunidades-conectadas (accessed on 12 May 2025).

[26] Telefónica (2025), 2024 Annual report, https://www.telefonica.com/en/shareholders-investors/financial-reports/annual-report/.

[13] TRAI (2024), Telecom Subscription Data as on 31st March, 2024, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, New Delhi, https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/reports/telecom-subscriptions-reports.

[96] Traoré, B., J. Orozco and J. Velandia (2021), “Digital drivers of inclusive growth in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en.

[25] V.tal (2025), Demonstrações financeiras individuais e consolidadas - 2024 [Individual and consolidated financial statements], V.tal, https://ri.vtal.com/.

[24] V.tal (2024), We are V.tal, website, https://www.vtal.com/en/about-us/ (accessed on 8 May 2025).

[101] Waugaman, A. (2021), “Case study: USAID promotes co-ordinated investments in digital systems for better health outcomes”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping A Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en.

[75] WIK (2020), “Kosten von Breitband-Zugangsnetzen (Nr. 473)”, [Costs of Broadband Access Networks (No. 473)], webpage, https://www.wik.org/veroeffentlichungen/veroeffentlichung/nr-473-kosten-von-breitband-zugangsnetzen (accessed on 4 June 2024).

[91] Williams, M. and O. Bachiri (2021), “Financing options for the future of digital”, in Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en.

[98] World Bank (2025), “What Is IDA?”, webpage, https://ida.worldbank.org/en/about (accessed on 14 May 2025).

Notes

← 1.  In 2018, the FCC in the United States reformed its rules about pole attachments to encourage broadband deployment. Canada followed suit in 2023, with the CRTC setting stronger and clearer obligations on large communication operators relating to providing access to poles, including sharing of information on pole access requests to enhance transparency and accountability. In Colombia, the CRC acted in 2023 to facilitate expansion of coverage of services based on the use of infrastructure from other sectors such as pipelines and transportation systems, poles and highway pipelines, public lighting poles, traffic lights and bus stops.

← 2.  See in particular Article 3 in Regulation (EU) 2024/1309 of the European Parliament and of the Council as of 29 April 2024, on measures to reduce the cost of deploying gigabit electronic communications networks, amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Directive 2014/61/EU (Gigabit Infrastructure Act), available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401309.

← 3.  ODA flows to countries and territories on the List of ODA Recipients (low- and middle-income countries that are eligible to receive ODA) and to multilateral development institutions are:

i. provided by official agencies, including state and local governments, or by their executive agencies

ii. concessional (i.e. grants and soft loans) and administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as the main objective.

The DAC List of ODA recipients is updated every three years and is based on per capita income. Military aid and promotion of donors’ security interests are not ODA. For further information on ODA, see www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/official-development-assistance.htm.

← 4.  Calculations of ODA support to digital-related infrastructure and policy are drawn from the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System, to which DAC member countries report their spending on an annual basis and classified by type of activity. ODA support to digital-related infrastructure is the sum of ODA to two purpose codes 22020 (Telecommunications, including telephone networks, telecommunication satellites, and earth stations) and 22040 (Information and communication technology, including computer hardware and software, and internet access). ODA support to digital-related policy is ODA to purpose code 22010 (Communications policy and administrative management including communications sector policy, planning and programmes, institutions capacity building and advice). Further information on CRS codes can be found at www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/dacandcrscodelists.htm.

← 5.  The term “mobilisation” (or leveraging) refers to the ways in which specific mechanisms stimulate the allocation of additional financial resources to particular objectives; it requires a demonstrable causal link between finance made available for a specific project and the leveraging instrument used. Data on mobilised private finance are collected for the leveraging mechanisms known to be used by development co‑operation providers: syndicated loans, guarantees, shares in collective investment vehicles, direct investment in companies, credit lines, project finance and simple co-financing arrangements. Further information can be found at http://www.oecd.org/development/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/mobilisation.htm.