Three Solutions for a Better National Telecommunications Infrastructure

by: Sascha Meinrath

Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 14:28

Thanks to everyone who has been participating these past few days -- your input, feedback, and commentary have been quite inspiring and have helped me to formulate the ideas I lay out below.  As an Illinois resident, I'm also quite proud to know that Senator Durbin is leading the charge to reform broadband service provision to maximize the public benefits of this vital communications resource.

I wear several different telecom and wireless hats and I have been involved in numerous grassroots media and technology initiatives.  I'm also the founder and Executive Director of the CUWiN Foundation, the country's foremost open source mesh wireless R&D group, and have coordinated the COMMONS Project as Director of Municipal and Community Networking for the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis.  Most recently, I joined the New America Foundation, a DC-based think tank, as the Director of Research for their Wireless Futures Program.  I also blog regularly on issues relating to telecom policy, broadband, digital inclusion, etc. at www.saschameinrath.com.

The history of telecommunications is rife with "free market" disasters -- eras when systemic corporate malfeasance went unaddressed and directly harmed customers and the general public.  The breakup of AT&T in 1984 may have been one of the more memorable corrections, but numerous other precedents where the public has been harmed exist: the anti-competitive practices of Western Union's telegraph company in the 1850-60s (which they also used to control newspaper media content through their exclusive licensing with the Associated Press); the telephone patent battles from the 1870s onward (where the Bell system stymied competition and innovation in an attempt to hold onto their technological lead, particularly following the expiration of their initial patents); the destruction of the home-rule movement around 1910 and the Kingsbury Commitment (most people don't know that over 40% of the national phone system was run by independent operators at one time); the elimination of diversity on the radio with the radical spectrum reallocations in 1927 and 1934... or jumping ahead, the privatization of NSFnet in 1995 (which eliminated much of the data collection opportunities for network researchers) or the Brand X Supreme Court decision of 2005 (which was a de facto elimination of common carriage and creates basically the same market conditions where AT&T first ran amok and led to the Kingsbury Commitment mentioned above).  What is clear is that without constant vigilance, telecommunications corporations have consistently placed profits before the public good for the past 150 years.

While some commentators may want to spin the Internet era as something entirely new and unprecedented, what's clear is that the history of telecommunications provides ample caution for those of working in the public interest.

(More in 'there's more'...)

Comments on Municipal Broadband and Unlicensed Spectrum

by: Gerald Faulhaber

Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 14:11

Gerald Faulhaber is a Professor of Business and Public Policy, and of Management, at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School.  He has written widely on telecommunications and Internet issues, most recently on spectrum policy issues, public safety radio, and file sharing.  He was Chief Economist of the Federal Communications Commission in 2000-2001.

First, a note of thanks to Sen. Durbin for hosting this online real-time blog regarding these issues critical to our nation's infrastructure.

Municipal broadband, particularly in its WiFi incarnation, has seized the headlines over the past few years, with my hometown of Philadelphia in the forefront.  The ubiquity of WiFi-enabled computers and in-home WiFi receivers, all using unlicensed spectrum in the 2.4 GHz band, has spurred interest by cities and towns to provide broadband access to all their citizens using this popular technology.  Free (or cheap) broadband for all was the watchword.

Has it worked?  Yes and no.  Towns without broadband from commercial providers have been most successful, with WiFi being deployed by municipalities directly, by municipal power companies, or by community volunteer organizations.  While many have had problems, it seems that this market most amenable to successful municipal WiFi, and I certainly applaud it.  Cities and towns where commercial providers are already present is a rather different story.  The rationale for municipal deployment is usually to provide more complete coverage (digital divide issues) or cheaper coverage.  Unfortunately, many of these systems have had coverage problems and have had difficulty pricing the service to compete with existing vendors and still cover their costs (an interesting and balanced review of the studies of municipal WiFi is in Ars Technica, at http://arstechnica.c... ).

(More in 'there's more'...)

Steps toward a high speed, affordable, ubiquitous wireless digital future

by: Harold Feld

Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 14:05

Hello all. My name is Harold Feld.  I am Senior Vice President of the Media Access Project. I also maintain a blog on spectrum and other media and telecom policy issues called Tales of the Sausage Factory (as in "people who love sausages and respect the law should not watch either being made").

In addressing Senator Durbin's question on how to use wireless (sometimes referred to as "spectrum"), we must first abandon the industry frame that this is a question of a "free market" v. "government control."  Every aspect of wireless, including the prevalence of today's business models, is a function of government regulation.  Nor is the wireline world free of "corporate welfare"-type subsidies, regulations and policies that confer advantages to one party or another.  For example, cable and DSL providers enjoy both direct monetary subsidies as well as a host of regulatory benefits (such as the right to use utility poles at regulated rates, preemption of local government control of rights of way).  We must therefore begin by setting the right public policy goal, rather than allowing incumbents to distract us with slogans such as "free market" or "level playing field."  This is economic policy about critical infrastructure, not a question about whether Barry Bonds "deserves" to break a home run record. 

(More in 'there's more'...)