Blueprint for a national broadband policy

by: Ben Scott

Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 18:28


If you're reading this post, there is a good chance that you're aware of the battle over "Net Neutrality" in 2006. That showdown in the Congress over the future of the Internet pitted telephone and cable companies against a strange-bedfellows coalition of consumer groups, political activists, technology companies, and millions of everyday people. This grassroots effort ended in a draw - which in these political times is a big win for the little guy.

That victory should inspire us to think big. The legislative fight in 2006 was really the beginning of a paradigm-shifting moment in U.S. media policy. As all media technologies (text, audio, video) rapidly converge onto an Internet platform, the legal framework we've used (which is largely based around different technologies) is no longer functional. The impending demise of the old model has triggered major changes as each industry jockeys for the most advantageous position in the new regulatory universe. The Net Neutrality debate brought the public into this arcane but incredibly important process for the first time.

But Net Neutrality is not an end in itself. It is a beginning. It is the fundamental principle that underlies open networks like the Internet. It must be the cornerstone of any future communications policy that serves the goals of free speech and free markets. But it is not, by itself, a solution to our policy problems. Net neutrality cannot, by itself, close the digital divide and bring high-speed, low-cost broadband to all Americans. For that, we need a genuine national broadband policy....

Ben Scott :: Blueprint for a national broadband policy
The vision for our national broadband policy should be bold and comprehensive. The problems in the marketplace will not be solved by tweaking around the edges. We need to reject the conventional political wisdom and embrace policy ideas that will put our broadband future back on track. Now is not the time to make artificial declarations that some ideas are off the table and narrowly focus on particular proposals. No one policy idea is the silver bullet. It will require many different initiatives aimed at different levels of the broadband market to accomplish our goals.

Here is a short list of ideas for discussion. Each would require a lengthy treatment to explain properly, but I hope these will trigger thoughtful comments and useful insights.

Blueprint for a National Broadband Policy


  • Allocate the public airwaves to create a viable wireless broadband competitor to DSL and cable. We should approach policy opportunities like the auction of 700 MHz spectrum with this goal as the make-or-break litmus test.

  • Expand unlicensed public spectrum. The greatest success of recent broadband policies is Wi-Fi, which uses unlicensed spectrum. We should expand the availability of unlicensed spectrum into lower frequencies by opening up the unassigned television channels (also known as "white spaces") for wireless broadband.

  • Reform and transition the federal universal service programs to broadband. We should move our valuable USF programs into the 21st century with targeted subsidies and accountability benchmarks to support broadband deployment.

  • Guarantee reasonable and nondiscriminatory interconnection between facilities-based providers. Since the Internet is nothing more than a global network of interconnected private and public networks, it is imperative that each interconnects with one another to maximize the efficiency and utility of the overall network.

  • Reintroduce "intramodal" competition into the broadband market. Though recent FCC decisions have moved away from this model of competition policy, intramodal competition (with many providers competing on a single platform) through open access to network infrastructure has been the hallmark of international broadband successes. We should embrace open access plans in the licensing of the 700 MHz band and establish policies to bring competition back in the wireline space.

  • Explore financial incentives to expand broadband capacity in the last mile. Successful policies overseas have included direct government investment in wiring public facilities, low-interest loans for public and private broadband projects, tax incentives for networking equipment, accelerated depreciation, debt guarantees and other targeted investments in our digital future.

  • Authorize and protect the right of local governments to provide broadband services. Municipalities have led the charge in recent years to fill gaps in the broadband market and build services that exceed those offered by commercial incumbents.

  • Collect data and map the broadband market on an ongoing basis. We cannot solve problems that we do not understand. Our current state of broadband data collection is unacceptable. The FCC should be instructed to collect more accurate information on service availability as well as price and speed data on all broadband connections.

  • Make Net Neutrality the cornerstone of broadband policy. We should protect an open market for speech and commerce on the Internet for consumers, citizens and businesses alike. To do this, we should apply nondiscrimination safeguards to the broadband ramps leading onto the Internet, prohibiting owners of the physical layer of the network from being gatekeepers to the applications layer of the network.

  • Apply Carterfone rules to the wireless broadband platform. We should recognize and remedy the contradictions in fostering an open market for wireless broadband on a platform emerging from the closed networks of cellular telephony. The walled garden of the PCS world should not be permitted to cripple the potential of mobile wireless broadband. All devices, applications and services that do not harm the network should be allowed to use it.

  • Pair broadband expansion with digital inclusion programs. Bringing broadband to underserved areas will do no good if local communities lack the computers and training necessary to access the network. We should design and support social programs to bring technology and skills to communities and work with local leaders to establish meaningful connections.

  • Facilitate ongoing research into network traffic and data management. The dearth of reliable information about what is happening on the Internet cripples our efforts to address some of the most pressing problems in the application layer: spam, cyber-security, privacy and traffic management. Policymakers should seek to make available the tools researchers need to provide the best available answers to these problems.

What's clear is that the status quo is unacceptable. If we watch and wait, trusting that today's artificially constrained marketplace will magically solve our broadband problems, we will see the United States slip farther behind the rest of the world and widen the digital divide-both domestically and internationally. The consequences are too severe to continue down this narrow path.

It's time to think big. It's time to break out of the current paradigm and create a new one. It's time for the people to take hold of Internet policy, just as they have the Internet, and make it their own.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
rural broadband (0.00 / 0)
Can you talk about ConnectKY?

Also, how would you frame broadband access?  Is it a civil right?  Is it a consumer right?  Do you reject the rights-based framework?


Internet = "Post Roads" (4.00 / 1)
In terms of the fundamental framing of the issue, I keep finding myself coming back to Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, which grants Congress powers to raise taxes, etc., including "to establish post offices and post road."  I wonder what the rationale for that was, and how it applies to today's world, and that it arguably gives Congress the power to "establish electronic post roads," especially those that employ publicly owned spectrum.  Are there any Constitutional scholars among us?  Maybe this is totally off base, but it seems to me that its always helpful to have a Constitutional basis for policy positions...and that maybe this is one. 

Why were post roads so important that they got mentioned in the Constitution?  Is there a parallel in today's world, in terms of that fundamental importance?  And, if so, would it not be a non-profit open Internet infrastructure that delivered IP packets at cost?


[ Parent ]
Great Analogy (4.00 / 1)
It's worth remembering that the Federalists (esp. Hamilton) and later the Whigs -- our original "conservative" parties -- were very big on this part of the Constitution.  "National Improvements" were understood to be an important part of what we needed to do in order to build up the United States as a country.

Efforts made during the New Deal to make both electrical power and telephone service more widely available are also the same sort of Article I / Sec. 7 improvements.

Back in 1787, no one had even invented the word "socialism".  That did not happen until the 1830s.  But the "pro business" party in US politics understood the role that governments can have in promoting the public welfare, and facilitating the development of the economy.

Rural internet access unquestionably falls into the same category.


[ Parent ]
connect KY (0.00 / 0)
Connect KY is an interesting model of public-private partnership that the state of KY set up.  The idea was to organize local leaders to press the broadband carriers to build out to unserved areas.  It had no legal authority to force them to do anything.  But the project pressured and hugged the telcos into expanding DSL service.  They did that by demonstrating where consumer demand existed and persuading the carriers to give them service territory maps so that they could show where KY had broadband and where it didn't.  It was effective in a state where at the start of the program only around 50% of phone lines were DSL capable.

But the program is not a panacea for the nation's broadband problems (though it is often touted as such on Capitol Hill).  It is a tool that helps identify the problems.  But it doesn't measure speed or price, just availability.  And it doesn't help with the lack of competition.  And it could really benefit from federally collected data that gives the public a much more granular look at who has broadband, who doesn't, how much it costs, and how fast it is.

Do I see broadband as a civil right?  I think it is an appropriate frame.  If we are going to talk about reducing the economic, racial, and political inequalities in this country, then we have to include a discussion of information inequality.  Broadband access is squarely in that debate.


[ Parent ]
Re: "Collect data and map the broadband market on an ongoing basis" (0.00 / 0)
I agree with this part of your blueprint, but you've only asked for supply-side data.  We need to know more about demand -- what are people using the bandwidth for, and where are the barriers to accelerated adoption?  We should have an affirmative social goal of expanding use, not just availability, if we beleive that these transformative technologies are becoming essential to broader and deeper participation.

Re: "Pair broadband expansion with digital inclusion programs." (0.00 / 0)
"Underserved" means more than rural and low income communities.  The largest category of underserved potential users are people with disabilities.  Inaccessible applications and poor business practices render these citizens invisible to the 21st century online communities we are building.

Visit COAT to see how to address this inequality: http://www.coatacces...


What (0.00 / 0)
about redefining the speeds you have to be providing to call it broadband?

Best "Manifesto" Of Policies I've Seen (0.00 / 0)
Ben,

This blueprint is about the best and most pointed list of what needs to get done I've seen.  I hope I keep hearing about it.






USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS