Everybody agrees. Let’s have bigger broadband and more of it. But who pays for greater access, how networks will get updated, and what aspects of the industry should be regulated are much gnarlier questions. These were some of the central points of debate in a New America Foundation event yesterday featuring Blair Levin, former FCC commissioner and project lead on the national broadband plan, and industry analyst Craig Settles.
The panel discussion was a lively one, moderated by GigaOM‘s Stacey Higginbotham and The Wall Street Journal‘s Amy Schatz, and it led me to several new thoughts on government broadband strategy. First, I gained new appreciation for the care and consideration that went into crafting the broadband plan. There are a lot of trade-offs that have to be made, and – whether or not you agree with the results – the options appear to have been examined carefully as the plan was drafted. As one example, the plan aims for speeds of 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream everywhere. Beyond financial and application considerations (which are significant), part of the rationale for this is because it makes mobile broadband a viable service competitor in rural areas. The more providers you have, the more downward pressure there is on prices.
Second, while the broadband plan does put a stake in the ground with goals for access and speed minimums, it doesn’t do enough to outline a technology upgrade path beyond those set goals. DSL may satisfy today’s plan requirements, but it doesn’t scale for the future. That has a serious impact on potential network investment returns.
Third, we need to do more to create incentives for building deeper fiber networks. It’s not possible to mandate fiber everywhere unless people agree to higher taxes (which they won’t), but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be looking at creative ways to encourage both providers and communities to invest in driving fiber closer to the home.
Fourth, broadband competition is both highly desirable, and nearly impossible to legislate. The barriers to entry in this business are so high, that creating competition necessarily means putting a burden on the providers that make the initial network investments. I am all in favor of open access rules in theory, but practically speaking, they don’t create incentives for ongoing network upgrades. In other words, if the people who invest in building networks then have to share the rewards in a significant way with others who didn’t invest, they aren’t too likely to want to keep investing in those networks.
The liberal in me cringes at this argument. After all, we should just mandate continued upgrades, right? Sounds great, but the devil is most decidedly in the details. What technology should be used and how should it be implemented? What financial risk is reasonable, and what isn’t? How do you ensure the consistency of upgrade requirements, and specifically consistency across the time it takes to implement upgrades, when political control and political will is subject to rapid change? And on, and on, and on. In a perfect world, broadband providers would be motivated by more than just money. But that’s not the world we live in.
I came away from the event both inspired and disheartened. On the one hand, there are people who see the big picture and want to make an effort to improve broadband in this country. On the other hand, there are so many necessary trade-offs that it’s hard to register the victories we have achieved and will continue to achieve along the way. Maybe it’s all in your frame of mind. What we have today dwarfs the Internet service we had five years ago. And what we have five years from now will likely put today’s broadband to shame. It’s a bumpy road, but it is the road to progress.
“It’s not possible to mandate fiber everywhere unless people agree to higher taxes (which they won’t)”
Well, someday they will, in some form.
It took a while, but we eventually got universal phone service with government involvement. And we’ll eventually get universal fibre to the home. It’ll just take a while, and as you say, be a bumpy road.
Fiber?!
I’d settle for copper or coax. DSL or Cable, or wireless.
All I have now is dial-up & I don’t live in the sticks. 30 miles from Washington DC.
Peekup- That really is abominable. With all the hullabaloo over AOL recently, dial-up has been on my mind. It’s been 10 years since I got broadband at home. I can no longer imagine life without it.
Where outside of DC are you?
Mari,
Loudoun county VA. Not far from AOL’s old headquarters.
Maybe that’s why this county has stuck with dial-up ;)
Hard to believe that living 30 miles from the White House in DC, I live with Internet service worse than most 3rd world countries…
The cities have broadband, but many developments do not. The county does nothing to regulate ISPs & let’s them freely cherry-pick where they want to provide service.
It does help business for coffee shops – I go every day to do what I need online.
Peekup, – don’t you have wireless options? Fixed-line is not likely to be the future method of broadband connection. What about satellite or wireless 3g/4g connections?
Given the population growth in northern VA, I can’t believe there’s not more of an uproar. Coffee shop lobby?
LJ,
I actually bought a router that works with 3G. 3G speed is very poor here. Dial-up is almost as fast, and a lot more consistent. Also imagine trying to run a home network with current 3G usage caps. Wireless service follows wired – providers cherry-pick the highest home density areas only. Without any regulation to encourage wider coverage (like electricity & phone service in the past) , you can’t blame them.
I also tried a local hack wireless provider that has antennas & repeaters scattered about on hilltops houses & trees. It cost $100 a month, never hit 1mbs, and was down more than it was up.
I find that home dial-up, and real access with my morning coffee at a local shop or at work, turns out the best currently.
Sad to see the US falling behind the rest of the world these days. Deregulated telecommunications is wonderful…
This is odd… Where in Loudon county? Are you in a new development, older housing, something else? I have several friends and family members in Loudon with high speed Internet. I’m in Fairfax and have both FiOS and Cox available to me. Maybe we can get the attention of someone.
Dave,
Western Loudoun. The eastern part of the county is heavily populated and has fine services. Once you get west of Leesburg, Internet services end. Whole developments have no internet service. Some areas do not even have paved roads, despite being 30 miles form downtown DC!
Good luck trying to change this – a LOT of people in this area have tried for years. We’ve been to Verizon, Comcast, and the county board of supervisors. The county supervisors get elected with money from the real estate and business developers in the eastern county and largely ignore the west, which is zoned for lower density residential. (except for mailing tax bills).
Comcast and Verizon signed sweet monopoly deals with the county that had fine print saying that they only had to wire areas with a certain number of homes “per mile” of cable. When we argued that we were at over twice that density, they sent maps that included a lot of rural back roads bundled in, and then did the math on the whole bundle, making the density just below the contract requirement. We offered to pay for connection to our development and got a ridiculous price. An offer to hire our own contractor to do the wiring was also rejected.
This is what the un-regulation of utilities has gotten us to.