The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently published its study, “Closing Broadband Connectivity Divides for All: From Evidence to Practice.” For those unfamiliar with the organization, the OECD is an intergovernmental body that brings together 38 countries, mainly developed economies, to foster dialogue and cooperation among its members. It aims to promote public policies that improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world. Its critics, however, often describe it simply as a “club of rich countries,” of which Mexico is a member.
Returning to the broadband connectivity study, it analyzes the persistent disparities in broadband access between urban and rural areas, both within OECD member countries and globally. Among its “findings” is the unsurprising fact that even in countries with LTE PRO and 5G networks, download speeds and service quality remain significantly lower in rural areas. This is, of course, a “discovery” akin to stating that water is wet or fire burns—but now that it comes from the OECD, it becomes a quotable and official fact.
For example, the study notes that in the fourth quarter of 2024, the average 5G download speed in rural areas of OECD countries was 173.5 Mbps, compared to 222.6 Mbps in urban areas. This gap also persists outside the OECD, such as in the G20, where average urban speeds (63.8 Mbps) outpace rural ones (48.5 Mbps).
Once again, the study reminds us of something we’ve been hearing for over three decades: differences in connectivity between rural and urban areas not only affect user experience but also limit economic development, education, and access to essential digital services for millions of people.
Anyone who has visited rural parts of their country knows that the available infrastructure is far from comparable to that of cities. One also notices that residents’ purchasing power isn’t on par with urban populations, and the companies providing basic services are often unknown and frequently lack competition.
All of this describes an environment that is clearly at a disadvantage compared to urban areas, especially in the eyes of public policymakers. In such a context, it’s logical to assume that residents of these zones—generally poorer than their urban counterparts—are much more sensitive to pricing. It would be surprising if telecommunications services were consumed at identical levels in rural and urban settings.
As with any good story, after a revealing diagnosis comes the prescription—the medicine that promises to remove obstacles that perhaps local shortsightedness had previously failed to see. Accordingly, the report emphasizes the need to adopt strong and context-sensitive public policies to ensure high-quality, affordable connectivity for all. These policies should focus on reducing market entry barriers, facilitating infrastructure deployment, and efficiently managing radio spectrum, all within a competitive environment that encourages private sector investment.
Now, brace yourselves: among the suggested remedies is something quite disruptive—formulating public-private partnerships (PPPs) with community-driven approaches and direct funding as key tools.
Looking at Latin America, the PPP story has been rocky, with several initiatives failing to meet their goals, like national fiber optic networks in Colombia and Peru. In Mexico, one project is viewed as either a success or a failure depending on who you ask. Meanwhile, a second initiative in Peru, supported by Meta, the IDB, and until recently Telefónica, has become the go-to rural success story repeated endlessly at Latin American telecom events.
But this isn’t exactly a groundbreaking formula. One could even argue that the Dutch East India Company was an early form of PPP. If that historical example feels too obscure, we can skip to 1992 London and the launch of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Still, we must be realistic: the point isn’t how new the solution is, it’s whether it works and solves the problem.
Other topics covered in the report include the value of shared infrastructure and open-access models, especially in regions facing economic or geographical limitations. For instance, neutral fiber networks are highlighted to expand coverage without undermining competition. The need for connectivity maps is also stressed to identify underserved or poorly served areas accurately.
Finally, the study underscores the importance of having a strong institutional framework to support the development of digital technologies. The OECD is quite explicit in recommending that regulatory authorities be strengthened, that their independence be guaranteed, and that excessive power concentration, especially without technical checks and balances, be avoided.
The main value of the study is that it was published by the OECD, which gives it credibility among various stakeholders in the telecom sector. Another relevant aspect is that it offers updated data to modernize a narrative that’s now roughly 40 years old. Neither the connectivity gaps nor the proposed solutions are new or unknown—they’ve just been republished in 2025 to refresh the institutional memory of policymakers and remind them that there’s still work to be done.
Now comes the hard part, the usual part, the part that doesn’t earn applause after a nice PowerPoint: working to connect remote and rural areas but doing so by listening to them and considering the voices of those who live and invest in these areas and knowing them better than any city-based official and allocating budgets, conducting public consultations, involving mayors, governors, civil society, academia, and the private sector, and trying to build consensus and continuing to work so that the project becomes self-sustainable. That’s what’s missing; that’s the part that makes you sweat because it’s hard to achieve.
Without that final piece, the OECD’s latest report is just another reference book, cited to repeat the same problems and offer the same conclusions. No wonder the great urge to dance by Godot.
