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.
