On August 12, the Federal Communications Commission hosted the second in a series of staff-led workshops on the creation of the National Broadband Plan mandated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Wednesday focused on broadband deployment and was split into three sessions -- wired, wireless, and unserved/underserved areas and groups. Outside the workshops, however, the FCC was facing criticism for over-relying on the perspective of traditional industry infrastructure providers in the day's discussion.
Harold Feld, the legal director at public interest group Public Knowledge, issued a statement warning that "an extremely inaccurate picture of our national broadband infrastructure" could result if the FCC excludes non-commercial providers and public interest experts from the discussion of deployment, investment, and ensuring robust competition. The Media and Democracy Coalition -- a collaboration of more than 30 public interest groups (including the Benton Foundation) concerned about communications policies -- followed up with a letter to FCC commissioners saying, "Discussing issues such as fixed and wireless broadband and deployment, unserved and underserved, as well as rural broadband issues without public interest or consumer rights representation amounts to talking about issues without hearing from those directly affected by them. Industry groups alone can¹t speak to all of the facts regarding the subjects the FCC plans to cover."
A look at the participants at Wednesday's first two sessions highlights the groups concerns. Verizon and Cox had representatives giving presentations at both sessions. Panels also included representatives from Level 3 Communications, Alcatel-Lucent, T-Mobile, Ericsson, FiberNet, Becthtel, Allied Fiber, and other companies. Sanford Bernstein's Craig Moffett was included, he noted, to provide the perspective of Wall Street.
Mark Wigfield, the FCC's spokesperson for the National Broadband Plan initiative, responded to Public Knowledge's concerns reiterating that the FCC is "committed to compiling a full record from across the spectrum of providers, public, private and non-profit alike." He noted that the recently-launched initiative is already the most open, transparent and participatory process in the FCC's history. He noted that the FCC has already heard from Fort Wayne, Indiana mayor Graham Richard, the Personal Democracy Forum, and the Sunlight Foundation.
Wigfield also noted that the scope of the process of creating a National Broadband Plan, including the workshops, is so large and the timetable so short -- it is due to Congress in February -- that the FCC will be constantly revising and improving how it gathers and analyzes information. He also revealed that the FCC will devote an entire workshop to state and local issues, which will include participants discussing the range of options available to municipal leaders, including municipal broadband and other non-traditional providers.
I. Fiber all the way?
Wednesday's first session focused on wired broadband deployment. And although the conversation often strayed to include wireless infrastructure even then participants came back to one word: fiber. There was general consensus that fiber infrastructure is a foregone conclusion for providing backbone access -- even connecting cell towers to networks. But there's no national plan for building and using fiber infrastructure.
Wordle created from the session:
Panelists from Cox Communications and Verizon touted their companies' investments in broadband. Sanford Bernstein's Craig Moffett talked about the need to focus on the return-on-investment for the industry - cable operators especially are in real trouble. He cited there areas of concern: 1) The cost of broadband deployment is high for wireline companies; 2) Wireless broadband providers are having a hard time competing with terrestrial providers; and 3) He wondered who ever thought it was a good idea to build two pipes to every home if only one is to be used.
Rural areas need greater Internet access because of isolation from city services and amenities; demand in rural areas will be higher because of this. One panelists said that geography is a major factor standing in the way of achieving ubiquitous broadband in the US. Microwave, he said, has to be part of the solution.
Asked what the government can do to drive higher adoption rates, panelists offered:
- PCs in every home; start with schools and libraries
- Allow managed service: let customers pick and choose from an array of applications
- Deal with the literacy problem - computers require the ability to read. Illiteracy is higher here than in most other OECD countries. This is one of several deep social impediments for the 30-35% who don't use BB.
- We need a plan to get infrastructure into unserved areas.
- We need a public awareness campaign to let people know how they can benefit from broadband.
II. Barriers to wireless deployment
The workshops' second session explored the extent to which wireless broadband -- as currently deployed or expected to be deployed -- is, or could become, a substitute for fixed broadband. In part, panelists from the early panel noted the physical limitations on wireless that prevent it from being a complete substiture. However, mobility requires wireless technology -- and, for some consumers, mobility may be more important than capacity or will remain important enough to complement a fixed service.
Wordle created from the session:
The panel tried to identify some barriers for wireless broadband:
- Density or lack of it in rural areas isn't the issue - bigger challenge is if there are vertical assets available
- Some smaller service providers aren't able to deliver quality services
- With wireless, the most unstable link is the last mile, between the cell site and the user's device, so the challenge is shortening that link as much as possible.
- Increased bandwidth demand is a major challenge.
- Current pricing structure does not allow providers to charge users fairly on usage - everyone gets the same charge, and it isn't fair to the small bandwidth user.
- Community groups increasingly vocal about building more towers.
- Spectrum management - there is a lot unused spectrum but no way to access it.
- Irregular distribution of population in rural areas poses a challenge for investment.
- There is increased traffic globally on the Internet, but not a corresponding growth in revenue, so new business models need to be developed.
- Battery technology needs to evolve.
- Over-regulation prohibits innovation.
- Environmental issues - no end-of-life planning for electronic components. What do we do with old devises?
- Increasing complexity of devices - need to focus on harmonization.
III. Fix special access, panelists tell FCC
The day's final session explored what it means to be unserved or underserved with respect to broadband access, why such areas or groups are unserved and underserved, and what actions the United States should take to help stimulate broadband deployment in these areas.
Wordle created from the session:
Perhaps Mark Cooper, Director of Research at the Consumer Federation of America, answered this most distintly. He offered that any home that does not subscribe to and use the Internet is unserved and that any home that does not subscribe to and use broadband is underserved. He conceded that this is not the matrix that the FCC nor industry folks usually use: they usually talk about homes passed by a particular service. But the real problem is not just access, he said, but actual use.
Cooper identified availability and affordability as the main reasons why most households do not subscribe to and use the Internet and broadband services. He said these people will be increasingly disadvantaged and disenfranchised in a society that continually moves online. Cooper identified the National Broadband Plan and the advancement of universal broadband service as the most important task for the FCC. He noted the language in opening lines of the Communications Act -- to promote adequate networks at reasonable charges -- as the FCC's mandate. And he identified Sec 254, concerning universal service, of that same law as the main tool at the disposal of the FCC.
Asked about the barriers to deploying broadband to the 10% (or so) of American households that still don't have access, panelists offered:
- Small, independent, Internet service providers in rural areas need improved access to spectrum, to capital, and to Internet backbone (that is, access points to fiber networks that already run through these unserved areas)
- Telecom providers in these areas need to shorten the distance between customers and central offices, making it easier to provide broadband services
- The FCC must issue an order in the "special access" proceeding
On this last point Cooper and Dave Burstein -- the Editor and Publisher of DSL Prime -- were in agreement. The FCC, they said, must admit that there is market failure in access to "middle mile" networks -- the connections between ISPs and the "Internet cloud." Cooper noted that the FCC has a complete record in this proceeding and a clear message: fix the problem.