Category Archives: Technology

How India Can Teach HBCUs And African America To Build Its Own Silicon Valley

Posted on January 20, 2026 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

In the late 1990s, Bangalore wasn’t just a city—it was a story. A warm, chaotic tapestry of engineers coding in rented apartments, of global tech giants betting on untapped talent, and of policymakers quietly scripting India’s biggest soft power play. Two decades later, the city now dubbed the “Silicon Valley of India” commands global tech respect, home to startups valued in the billions and engineers powering the backends of everything from WhatsApp to NASA’s Mars missions. The rise of Bangalore wasn’t just a fluke of economics—it was a proof of concept.

And now, that proof has meaning beyond India. It’s a beacon for another global demographic long denied its shot at innovation supremacy: African America. Specifically, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and the tech-ready minds they house. What if Atlanta, Raleigh, or Houston could do what Bangalore did? What if the lessons learned across oceans and caste lines could ignite the next Black-led tech renaissance?

It’s easy to forget, in the blinding glow of app IPOs and TED Talks, that Bangalore’s rise began with a simple premise: educate the best minds in technical skill and keep them connected. Post-independence India was dirt poor, but visionary. It seeded a string of engineering temples—the IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology)—and gave them one directive: create elite minds for a future not yet written. By the 1980s, the global economy began tilting toward software, and India’s bet on technical education paid off. Bangalore, strategically located and flush with graduates, attracted IBM, Texas Instruments, and eventually Microsoft and Google. Infrastructure followed policy. Ecosystem followed talent. And Bangalore turned into a tech vortex.

So why hasn’t something similar happened in Black America? In many ways, the African American and Indian narratives share some DNA. Centuries of marginalization. Outsized cultural contributions. Underutilized brainpower. But where India had the state-backed machinery of nation-building, HBCUs were born out of necessity. Underfunded, segregated, and often geographically sidelined, these institutions have long produced brilliance in spite of their conditions—not because of them. Still, the potential is staggering.

HBCUs produce 25% of all African American STEM graduates. Yet, most lack the kind of venture pipelines, incubator culture, and big-tech partnerships that turn skills into unicorns. India’s tech sector shows what happens when education is backed by policy, investment, and cultural mission. That trifecta is what HBCUs need to replicate—on their own terms.

First, HBCU campuses must become startup colonies. India didn’t wait for venture capital to fall from the sky. It built software parks—zones with tax incentives, broadband access, and office infrastructure. These became hotbeds for early startups and outsourcing deals. HBCUs can do the same. Howard’s Innovation Center is one of the few early experiments: a co-working space and incubator embedded on campus. But it’s not enough. Imagine Prairie View A&M spinning up a “Black Code Foundry” with dorm-hackathon hybrids, investor demo days, and embedded alumni venture scouts. Picture Southern University hosting a summer startup accelerator focused on agri-tech for Black farmers. The infrastructure doesn’t need to be perfect—India’s wasn’t—but it needs to exist.

Second, the alumni diaspora must become an angel army. Here’s the dirty secret behind India’s rise: the real money and mentorship came from abroad. Indian engineers who moved to Silicon Valley in the 1980s and 90s didn’t forget home. They wired money, built companies back in India, and sent their kids to the IITs they graduated from. Bangalore became an offshore brain extension of Palo Alto. HBCUs need the same loyalty loop. Black technologists at Google, Meta, and Apple shouldn’t just donate to alma maters—they should embed, invest, and mentor. A reverse brain trust—Black diaspora talent reinvesting in the pipeline they came from—could supercharge the entire system.

Third, code plus culture equals competitive advantage. India’s strength isn’t just in code. It’s in context. The best Indian tech products, from Flipkart to Paytm, were designed for the specific quirks of their users: cash-only commerce, slow networks, multilingual markets. That’s the play for African American tech, too. What if HBCUs trained developers not just in Python, but in designing fintech apps for unbanked Black users? Or telehealth tools for historically underserved zip codes? Black America has problems Silicon Valley doesn’t understand—and that’s a market advantage. Building for community isn’t charity. It’s a trillion-dollar design edge.

Fourth, policy must follow performance. One reason India succeeded is that its government saw tech as national strategy. It rolled out Special Economic Zones, offered tax holidays for startups, and treated engineering education as sacred. African American political leadership must adopt similar postures. Imagine a federal “Black Innovation Act” that grants funding to HBCU-based incubators, supports Black-owned VC firms, and protects patents developed at minority institutions. More tangibly, cities with large Black populations and HBCUs should offer land, broadband, and zero-interest loans to Black founders. If Chattanooga can build a public gigabit network, so can Tuskegee. Policy isn’t optional. It’s foundational.

Fifth, this requires narrative, not charity. India’s rise wasn’t framed as aid—it was ambition. It wasn’t “helping the poor.” It was “backing the next global power.” HBCUs and Black tech should be framed with the same boldness. The next Amazon might come from Alabama A&M. The next Oracle from Morgan State. What’s needed isn’t pity—but placement. African American founders shouldn’t be exceptions—they should be expectations. Tech journalism, film, and digital storytelling can help here. Highlight the successes. Build the lore. Change the perception.

Sidebar: What HBCUs Can Build Now

Move	Description	Potential Impact
Campus Incubators	On-site startup hubs with mentorship and funding access	Trains 1,000+ founders annually
Black Tech Diaspora Network	Online and in-person platform linking alumni with current students	Cross-generational capital + experience
Community-Centric Product Labs	Build tech for African American problems (e.g., finance, health, education)	Monetizes underserved user segments
Policy Consortium	HBCUs jointly lobbying for innovation policy with state + federal officials	Unlocks $1B+ in tech zone funding
Cultural Storytelling Units	Cross-discipline media studios to tell Black tech success stories	Shifts perception of HBCUs from “legacy” to “launchpad”

In a way, India’s tech story was never just about tech. It was about self-respect. About telling the world that brown minds could be global minds. That the future didn’t need to be imported. For African America, the stakes are the same. HBCUs are already proving grounds for cultural genius—music, politics, social theory. Tech should be next. A Black Silicon Valley doesn’t need to mimic the old one. It just needs to learn the playbook, remix the rhythms, and code to its own beat.

The next tech capital might not be in Cupertino or Shenzhen—but in the back streets of Atlanta, lit by the glow of laptop screens in an HBCU dorm room. Because somewhere out there, a kid from Jackson State is already building the future. All they need is the infrastructure—and the imagination—to finish the job. If India’s story is a testament to what happens when a nation believes in its brainpower, then the African American tech future will depend on whether HBCUs and their communities can believe in theirs—loudly, structurally, and unapologetically. Not for permission. But for power.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI and ChatGPT

VentureX & The Biotech Boom: Lessons in Innovation Strategy for HBCUs from UTMB’s Institutional Pivot

Posted on August 8, 2025 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

“The future is not a place we are going. It is one we are inventing.” — John Schaar

While many HBCUs still seek validation in a PWI-centered research ecosystem, the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) is doing something more audacious: redefining the rules of engagement. With its inaugural VentureX Summit, UTMB isn’t merely seeking grant money—it’s building an innovation economy. And HBCUs, if bold enough, could do the same.

In a summer dominated by political unrest and macroeconomic uncertainty, the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) in Galveston, Texas, quietly launched what may prove to be one of the most strategically significant higher education events of the decade. The VentureX Summit, hosted on July 17, 2025, marked UTMB’s formal entrance into the growing arena of translational innovation—a sector where science, venture capital, and state-backed institutional development converge to shape the 21st-century economy.

For HBCUs, often relegated to the margins of federal and philanthropic investment in research, the implications of UTMB’s maneuver are profound. Not because UTMB is a peer—it isn’t. But because it offers a roadmap.

UTMB President Dr. Jochen Reiser didn’t mince words in his summit address. Education, research, and patient care were no longer enough. A “fourth pillar”—innovation—was now essential to institutional longevity, impact, and sovereignty. By formally integrating innovation into UTMB’s strategic framework, the institution is doing something few public universities in the South have dared: turning research into economic infrastructure.

This isn’t a rebranding exercise. It’s a full-throated shift in power orientation. UTMB’s Office of Technology Transfer has been reborn as the Office of Innovation & Commercialization, while the Life Science Incubator, adjacent to its research facilities, is being marketed as a landing zone for biotech startups, investors, and licensing agents alike.

Compare this with the strategic inertia found at most HBCUs. While many tout research agendas, few have even minimal infrastructure for commercialization. Fewer still think in terms of venture scalability or intellectual property portfolios. UTMB’s pivot exposes this gap—not as a deficiency of talent, but of institutional courage and vision.

The VentureX Summit focused heavily on kidney therapeutics—a seemingly narrow domain until you recognize that kidney disease costs the U.S. healthcare system nearly $130 billion annually, and disproportionately affects African Americans.

UTMB highlighted three major innovations during the summit: suPAR science, a biomarker-driven immune research platform that reframes the way inflammation and chronic disease are treated; anti-miR-17 for ADPKD, a therapy targeting polycystic kidney disease, recently acquired by Novartis; and Atacicept, a biologic aimed at IgA nephropathy, another major kidney condition with limited treatment options.

Each of these originated at UTMB and moved through stages of clinical validation, patent protection, startup spin-out, and either acquisition or venture partnership. The fact that these stories are not one-off flukes but institutionalized outputs is a direct result of UTMB’s realignment around innovation.

For HBCUs with schools of pharmacy, biology, or public health—particularly those serving communities with high chronic disease rates—this is a flashing neon signal. Owning the intellectual property that treats your community’s disease burden is not just good science. It’s power. It’s capital. It’s destiny.

A painful truth: HBCUs receive less than 1% of NIH research funding. The reasons range from grant-writing disparities and institutional size, to deeper systemic racism in peer review and proposal evaluation.

But what the VentureX Summit revealed is that institutions no longer need to center their R&D portfolios on NIH alone. The venture capital ecosystem—especially in biotech—is beginning to bypass the traditional federal-funding pipeline. Startups and scientists are courting angel investors, family offices, and strategic pharma partnerships earlier than ever.

This trend is significant for HBCUs because it decentralizes capital—opening doors beyond federal gatekeeping; rewards translational impact over pedigree; and allows for mission-aligned ventures—especially in diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and sickle cell that disproportionately affect African Americans.

Imagine a Howard University or Xavier University of Louisiana spinout that secures $5 million in seed capital to develop a culturally tailored mental health AI app. Or a consortium of HBCU researchers patenting an algorithm for early-stage dementia detection among Black elders. With the right infrastructure—IP management, deal-flow coaching, investor networks—this is no longer fantasy. It’s overdue.

That UTMB chose to host VentureX in Galveston, a city more often associated with hurricanes than high finance, is symbolic. It was not at the Texas Medical Center, nor at the flashier campuses of Austin or Dallas. Instead, UTMB used the summit to stake Galveston as a regional biotech innovation node, a move that builds on Houston’s recent success as a Brain Capital hub with Rice University and the Texas Medical Center Innovation Institute.

For HBCUs, particularly in the South, this strategy is critical. The clustering of biomedical and tech innovation around coastal cities like Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle has created access and visibility challenges. But regional clustering, especially when supported by state policy and university systems (as in Texas), creates a new terrain—one that Southern HBCUs like Meharry, Tuskegee, Florida A&M, or Prairie View A&M could dominate.

The key is not just research. It’s the integration of policy, capital, and narrative—what UTMB has shown is possible.

Let’s imagine that a group of HBCUs—say, North Carolina A&T, Howard, Jackson State, and Xavier—joined together to create an annual Black HealthTech Innovation Summit.

Its components could mirror VentureX: showcasing translational research in diabetes, maternal health, cancer, and neurodegeneration; pitch competitions where researchers and student-founders present to Black-owned VCs, foundations, and corporate venture arms; investor speed networking to build relationships beyond the conference walls; and policy roundtables with state legislators to promote technology transfer tax incentives and university IP protections.

This could be rotated annually among campuses, forming the basis of a HBCU Tech Transfer Consortium, modeled after the University of California’s system-wide innovation strategy or Texas’s CPRIT (Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas) fund.

Beyond optics, such a summit would provide a platform to rewrite the power structure of Black health, wealth, and innovation. It would signal to both the federal government and philanthropic sector that HBCUs are not just asking for funding—they are offering investable opportunity.

One of the less discussed but perhaps most important takeaways from UTMB’s summit was the sheer willingness to claim space in the innovation economy. While other universities remain passive, waiting for “innovation” to emerge organically, UTMB made clear that innovation is a designed outcome, not an accidental one.

This is where many HBCUs fall short. The fear of failure, of overreach, of stepping outside the traditional academic role, looms large. But UTMB’s leadership—and the state of Texas—are demonstrating that academic institutions can be architects of economic infrastructure, not just participants.

This is a mindset shift.

For HBCUs to replicate UTMB’s success, they must invest in tech transfer offices staffed with professionals who understand patents, licensing, and venture capital—not just compliance officers; build research parks and incubators that bridge the university with startup ecosystems; champion internal innovation competitions where faculty and students propose scalable solutions to community problems—with funding and follow-up; and cultivate industry partnerships that go beyond recruiting to include co-development and revenue-sharing IP agreements.

The VentureX Summit offered a model of regional self-determination wrapped in a biotech suit. But for African American institutions, it carries heavier implications. Innovation, in this context, is not just about research prestige. It’s about ownership, equity, and the future of Black health and wealth.

Just as land ownership, education, and voting rights were once the battlegrounds of civil rights, ownership of innovation ecosystems must become a new frontline. Because if we are not at the table—writing the patents, launching the startups, leading the trials—then we will once again find ourselves as the subject, not the author, of the future.

HBCUs must now ask: Are we ready to hold a summit of our own? Or will we remain an afterthought in the innovation economy we helped build?

From Classrooms to Cleanrooms: What HBCUs Must Do to Compete with PWIs in Deep Tech and Semiconductor Innovation

Posted on July 11, 2025 by hbcumoney | 1 comment

“A lot of kids growing up today aren’t told that you can be whatever you want to be. I am living proof you can do that. If you have the talent and the passion, you can build the future.” – Mark Dean, Black IBM engineer and inventor who co-created the personal computer and holds three of IBM’s original nine PC patents

In late June 2025, HEXAspec—a Rice University spinout—captured a $500,000 National Science Foundation (NSF) Partnership for Innovation grant for its breakthrough work in thermal management for GPUs. In a tech world grappling with the environmental and efficiency challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) and high-performance computing, the achievement turned heads across academic, investment, and scientific communities alike. Yet amid the applause lies a hard truth: not one HBCU was remotely close to competing for that same prize. Not because HBCUs lack talent, but because they lack the systemic infrastructure to harvest, incubate, and capitalize on that talent.

The chasm between HBCUs and predominantly white institutions (PWIs) in deep tech commercialization is as wide as it is worrisome. Deep tech—defined by transformative innovation in areas like semiconductors, quantum computing, and climate technology—requires long-term capital, robust research infrastructure, and high-trust, high-dollar partnerships with government and industry. These are precisely the things HBCUs have historically been denied or underinvested in. The question now is not whether HBCUs can catch up—but whether they will prioritize institutional shifts necessary to stop losing by default.

The Innovation Economy: The New Gateway to Power

Today’s innovation economy is no longer driven by consumer startups hawking mobile apps. Instead, it is being shaped by semiconductors, AI infrastructure, clean energy technologies, and advanced materials. These domains form the core of what the Department of Commerce calls “national critical capabilities”—a short list of sectors that will dictate U.S. competitiveness in the coming century.

The federal government, through the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and NSF initiatives like the Engines program, has made clear where it will direct its attention—and money. However, most of that funding has flowed to elite PWIs like MIT, Stanford, and Rice. Why? Because those institutions have built systems that convert faculty research into startups, license technologies to Fortune 500 companies, and aggressively pursue government grants through dedicated offices with seasoned staff and alumni connections.

HBCUs, by contrast, often find themselves trapped in subsistence mode—juggling shrinking state funding, donor droughts, and outdated infrastructure. Even when they do produce brilliant scientists and engineers, they are often siphoned off by PWIs, venture capital firms, or federal labs where their IP contributions enrich other institutions.

The goal for HBCUs is not just to get a slice of the pie—it is to own the bakery.

Why HBCUs Are Losing in Deep Tech (And How To Fix It)

1. No Institutionalized Commercialization Pathways

Rice University’s HEXAspec didn’t win a grant because of luck. It emerged from the university’s Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Lilie), which exists solely to help faculty and students translate research into viable companies. Most HBCUs do not have such a lab—or even a dedicated Office of Technology Transfer.

To compete, HBCUs must institutionalize commercialization in their mission. This means establishing:

Internal seed funding mechanisms for promising research
Technology transfer offices with experienced patent lawyers and startup advisors
Accelerator programs targeting deep tech verticals
Alumni angel networks to fund spinouts

Without these, ideas will remain trapped in the lab—and the economic fruits will go elsewhere.

2. Lack of Research Infrastructure in Key Industries

Semiconductors, materials science, and energy storage require state-of-the-art labs, cleanrooms, and expensive machinery. These are multi-million-dollar commitments most HBCUs currently lack. But waiting for philanthropy or state generosity to fund them is a losing strategy.

Instead, HBCUs should pursue regional consortia to co-own such infrastructure. For example, a Deep South Semiconductor Consortium could bring together Jackson State, Tuskegee, Southern University, and Prairie View A&M to jointly invest in fabrication labs, wafer testing facilities, and AI research clusters. Land-grant HBCUs have both the land and the federal designation to attract such funding—if they are organized and bold.

3. Underleveraged Alumni Networks

MIT alumni fund startups before most even have a name. At HBCUs, alumni often wait for a call to contribute to scholarships or athletic departments. There is little systemic cultivation of alumni as early-stage investors, strategic partners, or board members in research spinouts.

This must change. Institutions like Howard, Morehouse, and NC A&T should be grooming alumni with industry experience to invest in campus spinouts. HBCU endowments should allocate a small percentage to internal venture capital—seeding their own companies instead of investing in white-led VC funds that ignore Black founders.

4. Faculty Incentives and Sabbaticals

Many HBCU faculty juggle overwhelming teaching loads, with little time or incentive for research commercialization. Unlike PWIs, where professors routinely take sabbaticals to commercialize research or sit on startup boards, HBCUs rarely support such flexibility.

Presidents and provosts must restructure faculty contracts to reward commercialization, encourage patent filings, and support teaching reductions for faculty leading deep tech ventures. Faculty must become institutional entrepreneurs, not just employees.

Federal Funding Alone Won’t Save Us

Yes, HBCUs have been historically underfunded. Yes, they face structural racism. But federal funding, when it comes, should meet us halfway—not pull us from the basement. Competing for NSF grants requires grant writers, internal review committees, and aggressive outreach. When Rice University wins NSF money, it’s because the institution has a playbook.

HBCUs need a playbook. The White House’s Initiative on HBCUs can fund technical assistance centers focused on grant acquisition, proposal design, and intellectual property strategy. These centers should live at HBCUs, not just be managed by consulting firms and retired PWI administrators with no stake in HBCU sovereignty.

Deep Tech is a Strategic Asset. HBCUs Must Treat it as Such.

In 2025, global supply chains are being rewritten. Semiconductor control is no longer just an industry issue—it is national security. Nations are forming tech alliances. Cities are building innovation districts. And investors are backing companies with decade-long R&D timelines because the rewards are generational.

HBCUs must enter this arena with the same clarity and urgency as any geopolitical actor. The institutions that helped engineer Black America’s ascent during segregation must now help engineer Black America’s role in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. That means going far beyond DEI rhetoric and focusing on institutional capital, not just human capital.

What a Competitive HBCU Ecosystem Could Look Like

Imagine this:

Howard University launches a Deep Tech Lab with funding from Black-led venture capital firms.
NC A&T, already a top producer of Black engineers, builds a quantum computing facility co-owned with MIT Lincoln Lab, with graduates flowing into DARPA-backed projects.
Fisk University, with its elite physics tradition, leads a semiconductor materials initiative funded through an HBCU Engines grant from NSF.
HBCU United, a new consortium of 30 HBCUs, pools $100M in alumni capital to invest in research commercialization, faculty sabbaticals, and patent acquisition.

This is not fantasy. It is simply the result of what happens when HBCUs start behaving like institutions of power—not institutions asking for inclusion.

Compete or Be Colonized (Again)

The innovation economy is not just about startups and science. It is about who will own the 21st century. If HBCUs do not build internal capacity to compete in the deep tech space, they will become labor farms—training brilliant Black minds who will go on to build white wealth.

Rice University’s HEXAspec is a signal — and a threat. It tells us what’s possible. The question is whether HBCUs will treat it as a wake-up call or another missed opportunity.

In the words of Frederick Douglass, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” It’s time HBCUs demand more—of themselves and of the systems they are meant to challenge. The lab coats may be new, but the game remains the same: compete, or be colonized.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

1 Comment

Posted in Technology

Tagged AI infrastructure HBCUs, Black STEM leadership, Black tech entrepreneurship, deep tech HBCUs, HBCU engineering innovation, HBCU innovation, HBCU research funding, HBCU startups, HBCU tech strategy, HBCU technology ecosystem, HBCU venture capital, hbcu vs pwi, NSF grants HBCUs, semiconductor research, tech commercialization HBCUs

Has The Internet Become A Utility? No, But It Is Close

Posted on June 17, 2025 by hbcumoney | 1 comment

Opportunity has power over all things. — Sophocles

I have constantly made the argument that just because you put someone on a nuclear submarine does not mean they will innately figure out how to pilot it. In fact, disaster is more likely to happen. Just giving someone access to information does not mean they will automatically know how to better themselves unless that portal is strictly designed to do so. However, the internet is filled with as much junk (if not more) than useful information. People will therefore gravitate to what they have learned to comprehend. There is the argument that having water in your home is better than not, but what if that water is more toxic than clean. The faucet becomes deadly, not helpful.

What is a utility? The dictionary defines a public utility as “a business enterprise, as a public-service corporation, performing an essential public service and regulated by the federal, state, or local government.”

Based on this definition, the internet does not quite fit the criteria of a public utility—at least, not yet. While the internet has certainly become an essential service in modern society, it lacks the same level of regulation and universal accessibility that defines traditional utilities like electricity, water, and gas. These utilities are tightly controlled to ensure consistency, affordability, and access for all, regardless of socioeconomic status. The internet, by contrast, is still largely managed by private corporations that set their own prices, establish service areas, and determine the quality of the connection users receive. This has led to disparities in access, with high-speed broadband readily available in affluent urban areas while rural and lower-income communities often struggle with slow or unreliable connections.

One of the biggest distinctions between the internet and traditional utilities is the role of regulation. Electricity and water services are heavily regulated because they are deemed necessary for survival and public welfare. In contrast, the internet operates in a more laissez-faire environment. While governments have attempted to introduce regulations such as net neutrality—intended to ensure equal access to all online content—these efforts have faced pushback from major telecommunications companies. The debate over whether the internet should be classified as a public utility is an ongoing one, with proponents arguing that universal access is a fundamental right in an increasingly digital world, while opponents fear overregulation could stifle innovation and increase costs.

Despite these challenges, the internet has become nearly indispensable in daily life. It is the backbone of modern communication, education, commerce, and entertainment. Job applications, telehealth services, remote work opportunities, and access to government resources all depend on a reliable internet connection. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored just how vital internet access is, as schools transitioned to online learning and businesses adopted work-from-home models. Those without reliable internet were left at a severe disadvantage, further exacerbating existing inequalities.

Another factor to consider is infrastructure. Traditional utilities operate on a centralized infrastructure model, where a single provider (often a government-regulated entity) manages distribution to all consumers. The internet, however, consists of a decentralized network of private providers, each controlling different segments of the infrastructure. While this decentralization has allowed for rapid innovation and expansion, it has also led to fragmentation, where service quality and pricing vary widely based on geographic location. In areas with limited competition, internet providers can charge high fees for subpar service, leaving consumers with little recourse.

Cost is another key element in the utility debate. Utilities like water and electricity are subject to price regulations to prevent excessive charges. The internet, however, remains largely unregulated in this regard, with broadband costs in the United States being some of the highest in the world. Many low-income households cannot afford high-speed internet, effectively locking them out of opportunities that require online access. This digital divide reinforces socioeconomic disparities, as those with consistent internet access gain educational and economic advantages over those who are disconnected.

Moreover, the quality of the internet experience is not uniform. Unlike water, which is expected to be safe to drink regardless of where you live, the internet experience varies widely based on available bandwidth, provider policies, and regional infrastructure. Some communities suffer from data caps, throttling, and unreliable service, while others enjoy ultra-fast fiber-optic connections. This inconsistency highlights another major difference between the internet and true public utilities.

If the internet were to become a public utility, significant changes would need to occur. Governments would have to step in to ensure equitable access, set fair pricing standards, and improve infrastructure in underserved areas. Public broadband initiatives, such as municipal networks, have already been proposed and implemented in some areas, offering lower-cost, high-speed options as an alternative to private ISPs. However, these efforts are often met with legal and political challenges, as existing providers fight to maintain their market dominance.

The argument that the internet should be classified as a utility stems from its necessity in modern life. Just as society determined that water, electricity, and gas are essential for a functioning household, the internet is increasingly seen as an essential service. Many believe that access to the digital world should not be a privilege but a right. However, until regulations catch up with this reality, the internet remains in a gray area—essential, but not yet universally protected and regulated like a true public utility.

To enhance the discussion on the internet’s status as a utility, it’s essential to examine the digital divide—the gap between those who have access to modern information and communication technologies and those who do not. Despite advancements in global connectivity, significant disparities persist both within the United States and worldwide.

Global Perspective

As of 2022, approximately 2.7 billion people, or one-third of the world’s population, remained without internet access. Additionally, 53% lacked access to high-speed broadband, limiting their ability to engage fully in the digital economy.

The divide is more pronounced between high-income and low-income countries. In high-income nations, internet usage stands at about 93%, whereas in low-income countries, only 27% of the population is online. This discrepancy highlights the infrastructural and economic challenges faced by developing regions in achieving digital parity.

Gender disparities also contribute to the global digital divide. Globally, 70% of men use the internet compared to 65% of women. Women account for a disproportionate share of the offline population, outnumbering male non-users by 17%. This gap underscores the need for targeted initiatives to promote digital inclusion among women.

United States Perspective

In the United States, while 95% of adults use the internet and 90% own a smartphone, only 80% have high-speed internet at home. This indicates that a significant portion of the population still lacks reliable broadband access, affecting their ability to participate fully in digital activities.

Income disparities significantly influence internet access. In 2019, 44% of adults in households earning below $30,000 annually did not have broadband services. This lack of access can hinder opportunities for education, employment, and access to essential services.

Educational attainment also plays a role in digital connectivity. Adults with higher education levels are more likely to have internet access, highlighting the intersection between education and digital inclusion.

Racial and ethnic disparities further exacerbate the digital divide. In 2021, 71% of White non-Hispanics used a PC or tablet, compared to 57% of African Americans and 54% of Hispanics. These differences can perpetuate existing inequalities in education and employment opportunities.

Implications

The digital divide has far-reaching consequences. Individuals without reliable internet access face challenges in job applications, accessing healthcare, and participating in educational opportunities. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, students without home internet struggled with remote learning, exacerbating educational inequalities.

Addressing the digital divide is crucial for ensuring equitable access to information and opportunities. Potential solutions include investing in infrastructure to expand broadband access, implementing affordable internet programs, and enhancing digital literacy initiatives. Bridging this gap is essential for the internet to be considered a true utility, accessible and beneficial to all.

The digital divide—the gap between those with access to modern information and communication technologies and those without—profoundly affects various sectors, notably entrepreneurship and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

Impact on Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurs rely heavily on digital tools for marketing, sales, communication, and operations. Limited access to high-speed internet and digital technologies hampers business growth and innovation.

Rural Entrepreneurs: In the United States, rural small businesses face significant challenges due to inadequate broadband access. This deficiency restricts their ability to expand customer bases through online sales and reduces operational efficiencies. Research indicates that limited broadband access correlates with reduced business innovation in rural areas, as it impedes the adoption of cloud-based technologies essential for modern business operations.
Women Entrepreneurs in Developing Countries: The high cost of mobile data and unreliable internet connectivity disproportionately affect female entrepreneurs in developing nations. A survey across 96 countries revealed that 45% of women in business lack regular internet access due to expense and connectivity issues, hindering their capacity to market products, communicate with customers, and receive payments.
General Entrepreneurial Challenges: The digital divide limits access to digital finance, reducing diversified funding sources for disadvantaged groups. This constraint affects the ability to engage in open innovation processes, as individuals without access to information and communication technologies (ICT) cannot participate effectively in the digital economy.

Impact on HBCUs

Historically Black Colleges and Universities play a crucial role in providing higher education to African American communities. However, many HBCUs face challenges related to the digital divide.

Infrastructure Limitations: A significant number of HBCUs are located in areas with limited broadband access, often referred to as “broadband deserts.” This lack of high-speed internet hampers the institutions’ ability to offer digital learning resources and affects students’ educational experiences.
Funding and Resources: HBCUs have historically been underfunded, limiting their capacity to invest in necessary digital infrastructure and technology. This financial constraint exacerbates the digital divide, affecting the quality of education and the institutions’ competitiveness.
Digital Literacy and Inclusion: Despite these challenges, HBCUs are actively working to bridge the digital divide by fostering digital literacy and inclusivity. Initiatives include collaborative assignment designs and amplifying student voices to enhance digital learning experiences.

Efforts to Bridge the Gap

Addressing the digital divide requires concerted efforts from governments, private sectors, and educational institutions.

Investments in Infrastructure: Allocating funds to improve broadband infrastructure in underserved areas is crucial. For instance, federal agencies have directed significant financial support towards technology initiatives in HBCUs to enhance digital equity.
Public-Private Partnerships: Collaborations between corporations and educational institutions can lead to substantial improvements in digital infrastructure. Such partnerships aim to enhance technology access and digital literacy among students and the broader community.
Policy Initiatives: Governments can implement policies to reduce the cost of mobile data and internet services, making them more affordable for entrepreneurs and educational institutions. Such measures are vital in developing countries where the cost remains a significant barrier.

The digital divide significantly impacts entrepreneurship and HBCUs by limiting access to essential digital tools and resources. Addressing this issue is critical for fostering economic growth, innovation, and educational equity.

Ultimately, the question of whether the internet should become a utility comes down to societal priorities. If we agree that digital access is fundamental to education, employment, healthcare, and civic engagement, then steps must be taken to ensure it is available to all, regardless of income or location. This may mean rethinking current regulatory frameworks, expanding public broadband initiatives, or enforcing stricter oversight of internet service providers. Until then, the internet remains on the verge of utility status—vital, but not yet universally accessible or regulated in the way that other essential services are.

1 Comment

Posted in Technology

Tagged digital literacy, entrepreneurship, green infrastructure, infrastructure, internet, it infrastructure, public good, public-private partnerships, rural entrepreneurship, technology gap, technology policy, utility, women entrepreneurs

Can NFTs Help HBCUs Close The Endowment Gap?

Posted on January 3, 2022 by hbcumoney | Leave a comment

Black people lived right by the railroad tracks, and the train would shake their houses at night. I would hear it as a boy, and I thought: I’m gonna make a song that sounds like that. – Little Richards

The individual, familial, community, and institutional wealth gaps between African America and all other groups continues to widen. Despite the consequential donations from Mackenzie Scott and Michael Bloomberg in 2020 to HBCUs it is simply not enough consistently and overwhelming enough to put out the fire. That fire being the HWCU-HBCU endowment gap, which is over $100 to $1 – and widening. Ironically, African America is often standing there with a water hose in their hand watching their house burn while waiting on their neighbor to bring a bucket of water over and help. Why do we say African America has the water hose? By HBCU Money estimates, African America’s tuition revenue value to all colleges is worth $60 billion annually – only $6 billion of that goes makes it way to HBCUs. There are 100 plus HBCUs, but only two have institutional banking relationships with African American owned banks. In other words, there are things that if we just looked inwardly there would be substantive change happening. Instead, we continue to wait for the “lottery” of other’s grace to befall upon us. And to that point, one of the greatest financial opportunities of our lifetime maybe falling upon us to use a resource within our institutions – our creativity.

It is no secret that African American creativity drives American culture. African American creativity has and is often exploited to the social and financial benefit of other groups. There maybe no greater example of that than hip-hop (and the music industry in general) where African American musicians created a genre of music that is now global in reach, but very little of it is actually owned by African Americans. Enter, the internet. Enter, NFTs. The internet is not flat nor is it democratized – after all even on the internet all of the mediums like Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, Twitter, Square, etc. none are owned by African Americans. However, there is an increasing amount of decentralization that seems to be taking root in pockets of the World Wide Web where opportunities can be staked out. For instance, had an HBCU endowment in July 2011 purchased 5,000 bitcoins which at the time were $13.91 for a total of $69,550, then that HBCU today would have a value of $330 million today. To the best of our knowledge, there are no HBCUs holding bitcoin or any other cryptocurrencies in their portfolio. And while there is still plenty of time to add cryptocurrencies to the portfolio, there is also a new opportunity that one could easily argue is the equivalent of buying cryptocurrencies ten years ago. The NFT.

NFTs or non-fungible tokens are “Non-fungible” more or less means that it’s unique and can not be replaced with something else. For example, a bitcoin is fungible — trade one for another bitcoin, and you’ll have exactly the same thing. A one-of-a-kind trading card, however, is non-fungible. If you traded it for a different card, you’d have something completely different.”, says Mitchell Clark from The Verge. NFTs also work off the Ethereum blockchain, Ethereum being a cryptocurrency and blockchains are a digital distributed, decentralized, public ledger that exists across a network. So what can be a NFT? Again, Mitchell Clark from The Verge, “NFTs can really be anything digital (such as drawings, music, your brain downloaded and turned into an AI), but a lot of the current excitement is around using the tech to sell digital art.” NFTs are already showing their potential. A 14-year old girl made over $1 million from selling 8,000 NFTs according to Business Insider. The most expensive NFT sold to date went for $69 million at Christie’s. An amount that would still be greater than any donation ever given to an HBCU. Now imagine unlocking the creativity that exist on HBCU campuses with students, faculty, and staff.

This could ultimately be a win-win for everyone involved if setup properly. HBCUs can provide the space, hardware, infrastructure, and other support needed while students, faculty, and staff can provide the immense creative capital that we know. Unlocking African America creativity on campuses could quite literally means tens if not hundreds of billions into African American families, communities, and HBCUs. The incentive for HBCUs to invest in this infrastructure is simple. Financially more stable graduates, improved retention rates, potentially higher alumni donor rates, and a new stream of income for endowments.

Students could see themselves earning enough to reduce or eliminate student borrowing costs. An immense hinderance to HBCU graduates creating generational wealth for themselves and their family. This barrier to wealth also is something that it could be argued contributes to poor alumni donor giving at HBCUs. HBCU donations of significance often come from older HBCU alumni who tend to wait and give a large donation either at the end of life or through their estate once they have passed on. HBCU students on a whole as reflecting in HBCU Pell Grant numbers are coming from far more low-income backgrounds their PWI counterparts. Brookings reports that almost 60% of HBCU students expect $0 in family contributions (graph below) to their education as opposed to less than one-third for non-HBCU students. On the other end less than 6 percent of HBCU students expect their family to contribute at least $19,300 to their education versus over 20 percent of non-HBCU students. This means that despite HBCUs on average costing significantly less than their PWI counterparts, HBCU students are still more likely to graduate with student loan debt and significant student loan debt loads. The most recent HBCU Money report showing that 86 percent of HBCU graduates finish with debt and a median of over $34,000 in student loan debt versus 40 percent and $24,000 in student loan debt for those coming from Top 50 endowed colleges and universities.

For HBCUs, the previous mentioned is great for their long-term sustainability, but in this case there is a huge financial reward to be had by HBCU endowments today. By providing the infrastructure, helping ensure the intellectual property rights, and more – HBCUs can create financial partnerships with students, faculty, and staff. This means that in the same way there is NIL (name, image, likeness) happening in collegiate sports, HBCUs too could use these partnerships as a means to recruit more African American faculty who often cringe at the pay rates at HBCUs. It also means that if a student, faculty, or staff produces an NFT for example that sells for $100,000, then potentially on a 50-50 split that the HBCU’s endowment just increased by $50,000. There is also the opportunity to have a foray into the entrepreneurship that is already taking root in the NFT as well as the supporting properties that will support it as an industry and asset class. As we mentioned, intellectual property attorneys in this new age will become even more valuable. There are currently six HBCU law schools who could create a focus on both IP and on digital IP in particular and those schools would be rewarded handsomely by being at the forefront of the curve. Simply put, there is just too much opportunity and money that has yet to even scratch the surface of value for HBCUs to not get involved in NFTs.

The acute importance of closing the endowment gap must be at the forefront of HBCU alumni conversations if our institutions are to be sustained into the next Millenia. It must be if we are to take serious the closing of the individual and institutional wealth gaps for African America. More importantly if HBCUs are to move beyond simply surviving and into empowered institutions that are truly able to serve the social, economic, and political interest of African America and the Diaspora, then having the institutional wealth and endowments necessary to do so is paramount. Climbing this mountain will be no easy task, but we can simply look at the wealth that has been created by our labor and our creativity as an enduring possibility of possibility. This time we must be the ownership of that creativity and protect its ownership at all costs.