Way Past Time for a National Broadband Policy

Setting aside the divisive topics of War and Terrorism for the moment, there is no denying the theme of Change in the air. This presidential campaign, and the myriad lesser campaigns that we will see waged next year, represent an opportunity for our nation to finally have a discussion on a broadband policy and strategy for the United States. Despite President Bush's call in 2004 for ubiquitous broadband by the end of 2007 (and that goal has not been achieved, by the way), we're no closer to having a strategy to build such a national infrastructure, or even consensus on a policy to provide us a more principle-centered debate.

Commissioners Copps and Adelstein the other day called for a National Broadband Summit to bring that focus. While that's a good start, I'm not sure that will be enough - we're so far behind (see this slide deck on Canada's National Summit on Broadband Deployment III in October 2004). There remains the need for considerable education of both the body public and governmental leaders at all levels. We need a full court press, one that might start with a Summit, but would need follow-on national, state, and local incentives to raise this issue up and ratchet up the priority levels.

It's not for lack of trying. Witness the recent letters sent by the Community Broadband Coalition to both chambers of the U.S. Congress on September 23, representing the collective view of 25 different organizations and companies, ranging from the American Library Association and the National Association of Counties to Google, Intel, and EarthLink.

The letters urge passage of Senate Bill 1853, the Community Broadband Act of 2007 introduced by Senators Frank Lautenberg, Gordon H. Smith, John Kerry, John McCain, Claire McCaskill, Olympia J. Snowe, Ted Stevens, and Daniel K. Inouye and of House Bill 3281, which was introduced by Representatives Rick Boucher and Fred Upton. The letters urge Senators and Representatives to co-sponsor the legislation. Community coalition pushes for national broadband policy

These are steps in the right direction, but we will need more than that to stimulate change - we need a very public debate - the time has come for a fair and balanced discussion at all levels of society.

I admit it's a challenge. The current ideas and discussion by leaders in broadband innovation and creativity and thought leaders in the emerging alternative broadband industries cover a wide spectrum. Unfortunately, the alternatives to the status quo of the incumbents and their supporters in government often fall on deaf ears, or the message becomes mixed. When we hear "MuniFi Fails" as we have over the past month, instead of "Progressive experiments move the ball forward," which is the nature of experimentation, the wrong message is conveyed. Policy makers need to hear a louder voice with a clear concise vision as an alternative to the de facto broadband policy we have had for the past decade: the incumbent view of evolutionary change.

Let's take a look at the The Status Quo, (which I admit is not necessarily all bad, just not what it needs to be). Broadband has experienced explosive growth over the past five years, both worldwide and in the US, as Internet access increasingly has come to mean broadband, rather than dial-up. The lion's share of broadband in the US (> 98%) is provided as a premium service by our nation's large telecom and cable companies over their existing infrastructure (telecom's twisted-pair copper for DSL, cable's coax for its broadband service), an extension to the other voice, data and entertainment services they traditionally provide.

The Supreme Court and the FCC in the summer of 2005 made rulings that enabled these companies to close off their networks to third-party providers, effectively securing their market dominance in providing critical broadband access.

Whether a policy of building on the status quo, relying on incumbents and freeing them from regulatory constraints, will truly serve our nation well in the long run is in the end a matter of perspective. For better or worse, the current momentum of Internet development and broadband policy is heavily weighted towards the viewpoint of incumbent telecoms and cable companies. They have tremendous cash reserves, dominant political power, and the benefit of pre-existing infrastructure as a sunk cost, not to mention the institutional momentum and market inertia they have on their side.

Clearly, the incumbent telecoms and cable companies believe the system is working and that it should continue on its present course. And as huge, important industries, they have the ear of powerful politicians and government leaders, where they focus their considerable resources for influence at the local, state and federal level, the better to maintain their economic dominance. If there is to be a discussion on national broadband policy, they plan to control it and influence it to reflect their interests, and they have a proven track record in modern history of successfully controlling the debate when it comes to telecommunications policy.

There is, however, a small but growing challenge to the status quo when it comes to broadband. Consumer groups, high tech companies, and local governments, and others are giving voice to a competing view, raising the complaint that a) the infrastructure is inadequate to meet future demand, which will require fiber optics instead of copper and coax; b) bandwidth and speeds offered in the US are inadequate to meet the needs of up and coming applications, much less present day needs, and the gap is widening; and c) the prices paid in the US are kept artificially high due to the lack of competition and choice. To make their case, critics of the status quo point to the growing demand for capacity (e.g., the coming Exaflood) and the inadequacy of broadband infrastructure. They cite broadband progress in other countries and the declining position of the US in worldwide rankings of broadband penetration (from 4th in 2002 to 15th in 2007).

It's time for a Second Opinion to gain a louder voice. Whether one sides with the current champions (the incumbents and their supporters) to continue the status quo, who see the need for less regulation to free up the incumbents, or the challengers (those agitating for change) to support an alternate path, who see the need for greater diversity of options, it is hard to dispute the growing importance of broadband to our nation's digital economy.

The critical nature of this infrastructure to our 21st century economy demands a broader more open debate. To continue down the present path of outsourcing strategic decisions on broadband infrastructure, services, and pricing to the present incumbents is to hand the keys to our future to a group of powerful corporate interests that have competing loyalties. It's time for the patient to seek a second opinion, the current treatment is not curing the disease.

In 1955, GM Chairman and CEO Charlie Wilson made a famous proclamation: "What is good for General Motors is good for America." Whether that statement was ever true, it reflected national sentiment about the world's largest corporation at the time. And in that era, AT&T was dominant on the telecommunications front.

It would seem that our de facto broadband policy of supporting incumbent strategies continues in that tradition 50 years later, still looking to large corporations to steer our economic future. But even though we could pause and marvel at technological progress over the ensuing six decades, our current broadband situation challenges continuing with the predominate regulatory approach - today, one could easily say: "What's good for telecom and cable incumbents is not necessarily what's good for America."

At a minimum, we should have this debate and arrive at a policy that is good for all of America, not just for incumbent interests. If we are to remain competitive with other nations forging ahead with broadband, we must be better informed, we must listen with an open mind to a second opinion that challenges the status quo, we must weigh our options, and we must come together to chart a middle path. The direction we take should honor and build on the best of what the incumbents still have to offer us, while accommodating and adding in new and innovative thoughts, technologies and approaches to optimize our national broadband prospects. We must crack open the closed windows of policy making to let in fresh air and new thoughts.

A Second Opinion is needed to provide policy makers with background facts on how the rising broadband Internet is changing the rules of the telecommunications industry. We need an examination of new digital and radio technologies that challenge the current method of regulating spectrum, for instance. We need a fresh look at what is currently happening out in the laboratories of innovation across the United States.

We need to listen more to those who are actively working to make a difference for our broadband future, if on a small scale at present. These innovators are the voices of the future. If we truly desire to compete in the global market, we cannot continue to hold up the industries of the past at the expense of the industries of the future. That path is a recipe for mediocrity and gradual decline, and the preliminary results are already in on that strategy. Let's recognize that fact, leverage our considerable advantages (including both the incumbent strengths and the diversity of innovation) and mobilize to do something about it. Like I've said before, anything interesting starts with a conversation.

Let's start talking about National Broadband Policy and a Winning Strategy, so we can broaden the debate and enlist all the energy now sitting on the sidelines. We need to build a 21st century digital infrastructure for the US to support a better future for all citizens in the US.