Update Categories

---

Events
Exaflood
Newsletters
Regulation
Telephony
Video
Wireless

National Broadband Plan is a Step in the Right Direction

A few weeks ago the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the National Broadband Plan. CCW commends the FCC for its work on creating the Plan.

Increasing broadband adoption and ensuring broadband access to every American is a goal we all share. At CCW we believe that extending broadband services to more people will create jobs; lead to the development of new products and consumer services; fuel economic growth; connect more Americans to educational opportunities; open the door to better, less expensive health care; reduce environmental impacts; and much more. 

This Plan establishes the groundwork that will encourage greater innovation and the development of new technologies by ensuring investment and innovation can continue to flourish.  The future, in part, depends on transitioning from a copper-based telecommunications infrastructure to a fiber-based based one that is more capable of supporting the applications, devices and hardware/software of the 21st century. With the proper leadership and regulatory environment, millions more will realize the benefits of broadband technology by 2020. We encourage the FCC to continue furthering the goals in this plan with fact-based decisions that encourage more high-speed Internet for more people and supporting public policies that will bring 100% broadband to America. 

Executive Summary from Broadband.gov

Table of Contents:

• Introduction
• Fulfilling the Congressional Mandate
• The Plan
• Long-Term Goals
• Budget Impact of Plan
• Implementation

Visit www.broadband.gov more information on the National Broadband Plan.

Broadband is the great infrastructure challenge of the early 21st century.

Like electricity a century ago, broadband is a foundation for economic growth, job creation, global competitiveness and a better way of life. It is enabling entire new industries and unlocking vast new possibilities for existing ones. It is changing how we educate children, deliver health care, manage energy, ensure public safety, engage government, and access, organize and disseminate knowledge.

Fueled primarily by private sector investment and innovation, the American broadband ecosystem has evolved rapidly. The number of Americans who have broadband at home has grown from eight million in 2000 to nearly 200 million last year. Increasingly capable fixed and mobile networks allow Americans to access a growing number of valuable applications through innovative devices.

But broadband in America is not all it needs to be. Approximately 100 million Americans do not have broadband at home. Broadband-enabled health information technology (IT) can improve care and lower costs by hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decades, yet the United States is behind many advanced countries in the adoption of such technology. Broadband can provide teachers with tools that allow students to learn the same course material in half the time, but there is a dearth of easily accessible digital educational content required for such opportunities. A broadband-enabled Smart Grid could increase energy independence and efficiency, but much of the data required to capture these benefits are inaccessible to consumers, businesses and entrepreneurs. And nearly a decade after 9/11, our first responders still lack a nationwide public safety mobile broadband communications network, even though such a network could improve emergency response and homeland security.

Fulfilling the Congressional Mandate

In early 2009, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop a National Broadband Plan to ensure every American has “access to broadband capability.” Congress also required that this plan include a detailed strategy for achieving affordability and maximizing use of broadband to advance “consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, employee training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.”

Broadband networks only create value to consumers and businesses when they are used in conjunction with broadband-capable devices to deliver useful applications and content. To fulfill Congress’s mandate, the plan seeks to ensure that the entire broadband ecosystem—networks, devices, content and applications— is healthy. It makes recommendations to the FCC, the Executive Branch, Congress and state and local governments.

The Plan

Government can influence the broadband ecosystem in four ways:

• Design policies to ensure robust competition and, as a result maximize consumer welfare, innovation and investment.
• Ensure efficient allocation and management of assets government controls or influences, such as spectrum, poles, and rights-of-way, to encourage network upgrades and competitive entry.
• Reform current universal service mechanisms to support deployment of broadband and voice in high-cost areas; and ensure that low-income Americans can afford broadband; and in addition, support efforts to boost adoption and utilization.
• Reform laws, policies, standards and incentives to maximize the benefits of broadband in sectors government influences significantly, such as public education, health care and government operations.

1. Establishing competition policies. Policymakers, including the FCC, have a broad set of tools to protect and encourage competition in the markets that make up the broadband ecosystem: network services, devices, applications and content. The plan contains multiple recommendations that will foster competition across the ecosystem. They include the following:

• Collect, analyze, benchmark and publish detailed, market-by-market information on broadband pricing and competition, which will likely have direct impact on competitive behavior (e.g., through benchmarking of pricing across geographic markets). This will also enable the FCC and other agencies to apply appropriate remedies when competition is lacking in specific geographies or market segments.
• Develop disclosure requirements for broadband service providers to ensure consumers have the pricing and performance information they need to choose the best broadband offers in the market. Increased transparency will incent service providers to compete for customers on the basis of actual performance.
• Undertake a comprehensive review of wholesale competition rules to help ensure competition in fixed and mobile broadband services.
• Free up and allocate additional spectrum for unlicensed use, fostering ongoing innovation and competitive entry.
• Update rules for wireless backhaul spectrum to increase capacity in urban areas and range in rural areas.
• Expedite action on data roaming to determine how best to achieve wide, seamless and competitive coverage, encourage mobile broadband providers to construct and build networks, and promote entry and competition.
• Change rules to ensure a competitive and innovative video set-top box market, to be consistent with Section 629 of the Telecommunications Act. The Act says that the FCC should ensure that its rules achieve a competitive market in video “navigation devices,” or set-top boxes—the devices consumers use to access much of the video they watch today.
• Clarify the Congressional mandate allowing state and local entities to provide broadband in their communities and do so in ways that use public resources more effectively.
• Clarify the relationship between users and their online profiles to enable continued innovation and competition in applications and ensure consumer privacy, including the obligations of firms collecting personal information to allow consumers to know what information is being collected, consent to such collection, correct it if necessary, and control disclosure of such personal information to third parties.

2. Ensuring efficient allocation and use of government-owned and government-influenced assets. Government establishes policies for the use of spectrum and oversees access to poles, conduits, rooftops and rights-of-way, which are used in the deployment of broadband networks. Government also finances a large number of infrastructure projects. Ensuring these assets and resources are allocated and managed efficiently can encourage deployment of broadband infrastructure and lower barriers to competitive entry. The plan contains a number of recommendations to accomplish these goals. They include the following:

• Spectrum is a major input for providers of broadband service. Currently, the FCC has only 50 megahertz in inventory, just a fraction of the amount that will be necessary to match growing demand. More efficient allocation and assignment of spectrum will reduce deployment costs, drive investment and benefit consumers through better performance and lower prices. The recommendations on spectrum policy include the following:
  • Make 500 megahertz of spectrum newly available for broadband within 10 years, of which 300 megahertz should be made available for mobile use within five years.
  • Enable incentives and mechanisms to repurpose spectrum to more flexible uses. Mechanisms include incentive auctions, which allow auction proceeds to be shared in an equitable manner with current licensees as market demands change. These would benefit both spectrum holders and the American public. The public could benefit from additional spectrum for high-demand uses and from new auction revenues. Incumbents, meanwhile, could recognize a portion of the value of enabling new uses of spectrum. For example, this would allow the FCC to share auction proceeds with broadcasters who voluntarily agree to use technology to continue traditional broadcast services with less spectrum.
  • Ensure greater transparency of spectrum allocation, assignment and use through an FCC-created spectrum dashboard to foster an efficient secondary market.
  • Expand opportunities for innovative spectrum access models by creating new avenues for opportunistic and unlicensed use of spectrum and increasing research into new spectrum technologies.
• Infrastructure such as poles, conduits, rooftops and rights-of-way play an important role in the economics of broadband networks. Ensuring service providers can access these resources efficiently and at fair prices can drive upgrades and facilitate competitive entry. In addition, testbeds can drive innovation of next-generation applications and, ultimately, may promote infrastructure deployment. Recommendations to optimize infrastructure use include:
  • Establish low and more uniform rental rates for access to poles, and simplify and expedite the process for service providers to attach facilities to poles.
  • Improve rights-of-way management for cost and time savings, promote use of federal facilities for broadband, expedite resolution of disputes and identify and establish “best practices” guidelines for rights-of-way policies and fee practices that are consistent with broadband deployment.
  • Facilitate efficient new infrastructure construction, including through “dig-once” policies that would make federal financing of highway, road and bridge projects contingent on states and localities allowing joint deployment of broadband infrastructure.
  • Provide ultra-high-speed broadband connectivity to select U.S. Department of Defense installations to enable the development of next-generation broadband applications for military personnel and their families living on base.

3. Creating incentives for universal availability and adoption of broadband. Three elements must be in place to ensure all Americans have the opportunity to reap the benefits of broadband. All Americans should have access to broadband service with sufficient capabilities, all should be able to afford broadband and all should have the opportunity to develop digital literacy skills to take advantage of broadband. Recommendations to promote universal broadband deployment and adoption include the following:

• Ensure universal access to broadband network services.
  • Create the Connect America Fund (CAF) to support the provision of affordable broadband and voice with at least 4 Mbps actual download speeds and shift up to $15.5 billion over the next decade from the existing Universal Service Fund (USF) program to support broadband. If Congress wishes to accelerate the deployment of broadband to unserved areas and otherwise smooth the transition of the Fund, it could make available public funds of a few billion dollars per year over two to three years.
  • Create a Mobility Fund to provide targeted funding to ensure no states are lagging significantly behind the national average for 3G wireless coverage. Such 3G coverage is widely expected to be the basis for the future footprint of 4G mobile broadband networks.
  • Transition the “legacy” High-Cost component of the USF over the next 10 years and shift all resources to the new funds. The $4.6 billion per year High Cost component of the USF was designed to support primarily voice services. It will be replaced over time by the CAF.
  • Reform intercarrier compensation, which provides implicit subsidies to telephone companies by eliminating per-minute charges over the next 10 years and enabling adequate cost recovery through the CAF.
  • Design the new Connect America Fund and Mobility Fund in a tax-efficient manner to minimize the size of the broadband availability gap and thereby reduce contributions borne by consumers.
  • Broaden the USF contribution base to ensure USF remains sustainable over time.
• Create mechanisms to ensure affordability to low-income Americans.
• Expand the Lifeline and Link-Up programs by allowing subsidies provided to low-income Americans to be used for broadband.
  • Consider licensing a block of spectrum with a condition to offer free or low-cost service that would create affordable alternatives for consumers, reducing the burden on USF.
• Ensure every American has the opportunity to become digitally literate.
  • Launch a National Digital Literacy Corps to organize and train youth and adults to teach digital literacy skills and enable private sector programs addressed at breaking adoption barriers.

4. Updating policies, setting standards and aligning incentives to maximize use for national priorities. Federal, Tribal, state and local governments play an important role in many sectors of our economy. Government is the largest health care payor in the country, operates the public education system, regulates many aspects of the energy industry, provides multiple services to its citizens and has primary responsibility for homeland security. The plan includes recommendations designed to unleash increased use, private sector investment and innovation in these areas. They include the following:

• Health care. Broadband can help improve the quality and lower the cost of health care through health IT and improved data capture and use, which will enable clearer understanding of the most effective treatments and processes. To achieve these objectives, the plan has recommendations that will:
  • Help ensure health care providers have access to affordable broadband by transforming the FCC’s Rural Health Care Program.
  • Create incentives for adoption by expanding reimbursement for e-care.
  • Remove barriers to e-care by modernizing regulations like device approval, credentialing, privileging and licensing.
  • Drive innovative applications and advanced analytics by ensuring patients have control over their health data and ensuring interoperability of data.
• Education. Broadband can enable improvements in public education through e-learning and online content, which can provide more personalized learning opportunities for students. Broadband can also facilitate the flow of information, helping teachers, parents, schools and other organizations to make better decisions tied to each student’s needs and abilities. To those ends, the plan includes recommendations to:
  • Improve the connectivity to schools and libraries by upgrading the FCC’s E-Rate program to increase flexibility, improve program efficiency and foster innovation by promoting the most promising solutions and funding wireless connectivity to learning devices that go home with students.
    • Accelerate online learning by enabling the creation of digital content and learning systems, removing regulatory barriers and promoting digital literacy.
    • Personalize learning and improve decision–making by fostering adoption of electronic educational records and improving financial data transparency in education.
• Energy and the environment. Broadband can play a major role in the transition to a clean energy economy. America can use these innovations to reduce carbon pollution, improve our energy efficiency and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. To achieve these objectives, the plan has recommendations that will:
  • Modernize the electric grid with broadband, making it more reliable and efficient.
  • Unleash energy innovation in homes and buildings by making energy data readily accessible to consumers.
  • Improve the energy efficiency and environmental impact of the ICT sector.
• Economic opportunity. Broadband can expand access to jobs and training, support entrepreneurship and small business growth and strengthen community development efforts. The plan includes recommendations to:
  • Support broadband choice and small businesses’ use of broadband services and applications to drive job creation, growth and productivity gains.
  • Expand opportunities for job training and placement through an online platform.
  • Integrate broadband assessment and planning into economic development efforts.
• Government performance and civic engagement. Within government, broadband can drive greater efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery and internal operations. It can also improve the quantity and quality of civic engagement by providing a platform for meaningful engagement with representatives and agencies. Through its own use of broadband, government can support local efforts to deploy broadband, particularly in unserved communities. To achieve these goals, the plan includes recommendations to:
  • Allow state and local governments to purchase broadband from federal contracts such as Networx.
  • Improve government performance and operations through cloud computing, cybersecurity, secure authentication and online service delivery.
  • Increase civic engagement by making government more open and transparent, creating a robust public media ecosystem and modernizing the democratic process.
• Public safety and homeland security. Broadband can bolster efforts to improve public safety and homeland security by allowing first responders to send and receive video and data, by ensuring all Americans can access emergency services and improving the way Americans are notified about emergencies. To achieve these objectives, the plan makes recommendations to:
  • Support deployment of a nationwide, interoperable public safety mobile broadband network, with funding of up to $6.5 billion in capital expenditures over 10 years, which could be reduced through cost efficiency measures and other programs. Additional funding will be required for operating expenses.
  • Promote innovation in the development and deployment of next-generation 911 and emergency alert systems.
  • Promote cybersecurity and critical infrastructure survivability to increase user confidence, trust and adoption of broadband communications.

Long-Term Goals

In addition to the recommendations above, the plan recommends that the country adopt and track the following six goals to serve as a compass over the next decade.

Goal No. 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second.

Goal No. 2: The United States should lead the world in mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive wireless networks of any nation.

Goal No. 3: Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills to subscribe if they so choose.

Goal No. 4: Every American community should have affordable access to at least 1 gigabit per second broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals and government buildings.

Goal No. 5: To ensure the safety of the American people, every first responder should have access to a nationwide, wireless, interoperable broadband public safety network.

Goal No. 6: To ensure that America leads in the clean energy economy, every American should be able to use broadband to track and manage their real-time energy consumption.

Meeting these six goals will help achieve the Congressional mandate of using broadband to achieve national purposes, while improving the economics of deployment and adoption. In particular, the first two goals will create the world’s most attractive market for broadband applications, devices and infrastructure and ensure America has the infrastructure to attract the leading communications and IT applications, devices and technologies. The third goal, meanwhile, will ensure every American has the opportunity to take advantage of the benefits broadband offers, including improved health care, better education, access to a greater number of economic opportunities and greater civic participation.

Budget Impact of Plan

Given the plan’s goal of freeing 500 megahertz of spectrum, future wireless auctions mean the overall plan will be revenue neutral, if not revenue positive. The vast majority of recommendations do not require new government funding; rather, they seek to drive improvements in government efficiency, streamline processes and encourage private activity to promote consumer welfare and national priorities. The funding requests relate to public safety, deployment to unserved areas and adoption efforts. If the spectrum auction recommendations are implemented, the plan is likely to offset the potential costs.

Implementation

The plan is in beta, and always will be. Like the Internet itself, the plan will always be changing—adjusting to new developments in technologies and markets, reflecting new realities, and evolving to realize the unforeseen opportunities of a particular time. As such, implementation requires a long-term commitment to measuring progress and adjusting programs and policies to improve performance.

Half of the recommendations in this plan are offered to the FCC. To begin implementation, the FCC will:

• Quickly publish a timetable of proceedings to implement plan recommendations within its authority.
• Publish an evaluation of plan progress and effectiveness as part of its annual 706 Advanced Services Inquiry.
• Create a Broadband Data Depository as a public resource for broadband information

The remaining half of the recommendations are offered to the Executive Branch, Congress and state and local governments. Policymakers alone, though, cannot ensure success. Industry, non-profits, and government together with the American people, must now act and rise to our era’s infrastructure challenge.

Technology Helping in Times of Crisis Part 2 of 3: Geeks without Borders

Tech Community Comes Together to Develop New Tools for Crisis Management

Editor’s Note: This is the second of a three-part series highlighting how technology can help in times of crisis. The first part highlighted the new trend and success of mobile giving, millions of dollars raised simply by texting “Haiti” to 90999. This part focuses on a group of high-tech programmers and managers who joined together to give technical support to relief organizations and created some helpful programs along the way. And finally, part three will show the plight of a man who was stuck in the rubble in Haiti and used his iPhone to help treat his injuries to keep himself alive while he waited to be rescued.

In the wake of a natural disaster people feel powerless as they watch the aftermath on news or read the reports over the wires. People often ask themselves “what can I do to help?”  Giving money to help relief efforts is one way, as highlighted in part 1 of this series. But for hundreds of high tech volunteers giving money to Haitian relief simply was not enough; they gave their time and expertise to create programs that could help redefine how we deal with crisis management in the future. 

“Great things are accomplished by talented people who believe they will accomplish them.”  - Warren G. Bennis

After the 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit Haiti on Tuesday, January, 12, 2010 hundreds of high tech volunteers mobilized to help disaster relief efforts in Haiti. One of the efforts was spearheaded by a group called CrisisCommons. CrisisCommon is  “an international volunteer network of professionals drawn together by a call to service. We create technological tools and resources for responders to use in mitigating disasters and crises around the world.”

Spreading the word via social networking and social media sites, high tech volunteers were directed to “CrisisCamp Haiti” in 6 major cities with the goal of using their talents to provide technical support to relief efforts on the ground in Haiti. On the first weekend more than 400 volunteers where attending a CrisisCamp. This is an unprecedented coordinated effort by tech volunteers.

Here are some of the examples of the tools that tech volunteers where able to achieve:

• software for tracking missing people;
• mapping the disaster area, including up-to-date information on new field hospitals being built and downed bridges overlaid on post-earthquake satellite images;
• a text based system that allows volunteers to translate, geotag, and categorize urgent text messages; this allowed volunteers to locate a woman who was eight months  pregnant woman and provide assistance;
• created a Creole-English dictionary for smart phones for aid workers to use on the ground to translate the native language; and
• a “We Have, We Need” database, a Craigslist of sorts, where relief workers can publicize urgent needs.

Working directly with the NGOs is a novel and focused way to direct all the positive talents of so many volunteers to deliver tools needed on the ground. CrisisCamp Haiti will serve as a model for future crises whether in the U.S. or abroad.

CrisisCamp Haiti Continues to expand. This past weekend more than 12 cities held their own. If you want to learn more about CrisisCommons you can visit their website at http://www.crisiscommons.org/

Sources:

• http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_TEC_HAITI_TECH_RELIEF?SITE=ARLID&SECTION=TECHNOLOGY&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-01-19-21-56-56
• http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-haiti-crisiscamp17-2010jan17,0,6468659.story
• http://www.crisiscommons.org/

Phoenix Center shows the FCC commissioned “Open Access” study does not withstand professional scrutiny

As part of the economic stimulus plan the Federal Communications Commission has been charged with developing a national broadband plan by early next year. The FCC commissioned a study by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. The study concluded that “concluded that open-access policies, which require existing carriers to lease access to their broadband networks to competitors, have helped foster competition and innovation in broadband markets in other countries.”¹

However, several organizations, including the Phoenix Center, question the reliability of the data in the report and have asked the FCC to give it little consideration. The Phoenix Center’s press release follows:

BERKMAN GETS IT BACKWARDS – ITS OWN MODEL SAYS "OPEN ACCESS" FAILS
Phoenix Center Says Flawed Study Undermines FCC Bid for "Data-Driven Decisionmaking"

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Phoenix Center released today a new PHOENIX CENTER PERSPECTIVE examining a recent study by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society and finds it wanting. The Berkman Study was specifically requested by the Federal Communications Commission to "conduct an independent expert review of existing literature and studies about broadband deployment and usage throughout the world." According to Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George S. Ford, because the Berkman Center incorrectly interprets the findings of its own model to draw the wrong conclusions about the impact of so-called "open access" policies on broadband consumption, the Berkman Study is so flawed that it cannot be relied upon to formulate public policy.

Dr. Ford demonstrates, using standard econometric techniques, that the "Berkman Study first improperly estimates its econometric model and then incorrectly interprets the results from it. The error in the interpretation is significant. While the [Berkman] Study’s authors verbally conclude that open access policies stimulate increased consumption of broadband, the econometric model they rely upon shows the opposite—open access reduces the consumption of broadband."

Dr. Ford said his goal was to determine whether Berkman’s statistical analysis could withstand professional scrutiny and be relied upon by policymakers. "Regrettably, the answer is no," he concludes. He said he would leave the merits of whether the FCC should reinstitute an aggressive infrastructure unbundling regime under current market conditions to other commentators. The FCC's deadline for public comment on the Berkman study is Monday, November 16th.

"The Berkman Study’s authors are befuddled by their own modeling effort. Accordingly, policymakers would be remiss to accord the Berkman Study any probative weight, particularly with regard to the positive or negative effects of unbundling policies under current market conditions," says Dr. Ford.

Dr. Ford notes, for example, that Berkman’s analysis includes a downward sloping supply curve that implies the network operators provide less broadband when prices rise. "Intuitively, this results makes little sense, violates the law of supply and muddles interpretation," he says.

“The economic and econometric analysis used in the Berkman Study to support its ‘most significant finding’ that unbundling improves broadband consumption is embarrassingly bad. The analysis is so convoluted that even the Study’s authors cannot understand the results. The Berkman Study claims that ‘open access’ stimulates broadband consumption, but the correct interpretation of its own evidence is that unbundling reduces broadband consumption,” concludes

Dr. Ford. As such, “given the multitude of technical flaws” in the Berkman Study, “how much credibility the FCC accords the Berkman Study in the end will provide a clear bellwether of the Commission’s commitment to the intellectual rigor it purports to want.”

PHOENIX CENTER PERSPECTIVE 09-05: Whoops! Berkman Study Shows “Open Access” Reduces Broadband Consumption, may be downloaded free from the Phoenix Center’s web page at: http://www.phoenix-center.org/perspectives/Perspective09-05Final.pdf.

The Phoenix Center is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that studies broad public-policy issues related to governance, social and economic conditions, with a particular emphasis on the law and economics of telecommunications and high-tech industries.

_______________

¹ National Journal Tech Daily Dose found at: http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/broadband-study-panned.php

Goldwater Institute: Net neutrality regulation violates First Amendment

Recently, the Goldwater Institute, “an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty,” issued a policy email stating that the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) so called “Net Neutrality” regulations violate the First Amendment.

In the email, Nick Dranias states:

The Federal Communications Commission wants to force network service providers—the companies that own and operate the wires, routers and computers that keep the Internet humming—to transmit streaming audio, video and anything else on terms the FCC deems “neutral” regardless of how much bandwidth the data consumes. Network providers say the regulation will eliminate their ability to manage network traffic and effectively clog up the Internet. They argue that such “net neutrality” will deter and destroy private sector investment in the Internet.

But there’s something more important than that at stake. It’s the First Amendment.

In Comcast Cablevision v. Broward County, Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks struck down a county ordinance that forced a cable company to give its competitors equal access to its communication infrastructure. Much like advocates of net neutrality argue today, the county government argued that its “open access” ordinance did not offend the First Amendment because it ensured the transmission of more, rather than less, information by more companies. Judge Middlebrooks rejected that argument, ruling that the First Amendment prohibits government from forcing owners of communication infrastructure to transmit information against their will. He also held that government has no power to force the distribution—or “circulation”—of information because “[l]iberty of circulating is not confined to newspapers and periodicals, pamphlets and leaflets, but also to delivery of information by means of fiber optics, microprocessors and cable.”

Net neutrality should suffer the same fate. Forcing network service providers to transmit information “neutrally” is actually worse than forcing “open access” on cable companies. Because unlike cable companies, network service providers typically do not enjoy government monopoly franchises. For this reason, net neutrality is even more like forcing a printer to publish books, newspapers, periodicals, pamphlets and leaflets on the government’s terms. And when it comes to government seizing command and control over freedom of the press, the First Amendment is anything but neutral.

Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute's Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

McCain is right; Internet regulation will stifle innovation and investment

On Oct. 22, the Federal Communications Commission voted to take a big step toward regulating the Internet. The same day, Senator John McCain introduced legislation designed to stop the FCC's heavy-handed move, and he made the following statements to the Washington Times:

“[T]he Federal Communications Commission will vote on whether to regulate the historically open architecture and free flow of the Internet. The commission will seek to impose "net neutrality" rules …. This government takeover of the Internet will stifle innovation, which will in turn hinder job creation.”

Senator McCain is right; the FCC is wrong. The Internet has been lightly regulated and today anyone is free to access any lawful content. That’s true net neutrality.

Now “net neutrality” has to be put in quotes because the term has been hijacked by those who favor strong federal regulation. Their push for heavy regulation is based on scare tactics and sound bites, NOT fact.

The FCC should focus on Internet buildout, so that it’s available to every home.  Regulation will hinder investment and growth. Senator McCain is correct, and he deserves public support on this issue.

Action Alert: “Join the discussion” and urge the FCC to use caution as it considers whether to regulate the Internet.

Action Alert: Contact the FCC Today

The CCW encourages you to “Join the Discussion” by visiting the FCC’s website openinternet.gov clicking on the “Join the Discussion” link. The FCC needs to hear that you want them to carefully consider before adopting any additional regulation to the Internet, which might discourage investment and innovation.

On October 22, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will consider possible new regulations  regarding “Net Neutrality.”  Every CCW member should be aware of this issue and urge the FCC to move cautiously. 

In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established Net Neutrality when it adopted its ‘Internet Policy Statement,’ which outlined four principles to “encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet.” The Commission adopted the following principles:

• [C]onsumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
•  [C]onsumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• [C]onsumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.  
• [C]onsumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Today, the term “Net Neutrality” has been hijacked by people who want to substantially expand these principles and turn them into regulations that could seriously jeopardize innovation and investment for years to come.  

It is worth noting that this is clearly not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. In recent days a very diverse group of elected leaders has asked the FCC to slow down and avoid imposing regulations that could hinder the progress and potential of the Internet. 

That is why Republican and Democrat lawmakers are urging the FCC to be careful to avoid the unintended consequences of government regulation.

A letter sent by 72 House Democrats urged the FCC to “carefully consider the full range of potential consequences that government action may have on network investment.” Furthermore the letter added, “we would urge you to avoid tentative conclusions which favor government regulation” and that “we remain suspicious of conclusions based on slogans rather than substance and of policies that restrict and inhibit the very innovation and growth that we all seek to achieve.”

Democrat Representatives from CCW states who signed the letter include: Ed Pastor (AZ-4), Ed Perlmutter (CO-7), and Jared Polis (CO-2).

According to the Wall Street Journal, at last count, there have been 11 letters from governors (a mix of Republicans and Democrats), 18 Republican Senators, House minority leadership and 72 House Democrats, which includes 18 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, 31 Blue Dog Democrats and 10 members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC.

Join the Discussion: Contact the FCC and your elected officials and let them know to keep their hands off the Internet.

The CCW encourages you to “Join the Discussion” by visiting the FCC blog at “openinternet.gov” and submitting your own comments to the FCC. Let them know that you want them to carefully consider before adding any additional regulation to the Internet, and avoid any decisions that might discourage investment and innovation.

Also, be sure to contact your elected federal representative and encourage them to oppose any burdensome regulations on the Internet.

Here are a few talking points for your consideration:

1)  Competition and innovation are thriving without additional regulations

For the past 20 years people have been sending a clear message to government regulators: “Keep your hands off the Internet.” And for 20 years government regulators have done just that, which has allowed for unprecedented opportunity and innovation. Why threaten that now when there is no clear evidence of any problem with the way Internet service is managed?

2) Applying Net Neutrality to Wireless Broadband will have serious consequences

US wireless consumers enjoy the broadest array of innovative services and devices, the highest usage levels, the lowest prices, and the most competitive choices in the world. However, wireless networks are a shared resource. If wireless providers are not permitted to manage the network then one heavy user on a cell site sector could prevent any other user from accessing the sector. Click here to see how imposing Net Neutrality on wireless could affect your wireless experience.

3) Network investment will suffer if additional Net Neutrality regulations are imposed by the FCC

A recent report by Cisco notes that the amount of traffic on the Internet in 2012 will be 75 times greater than in 2002. Internet traffic will generate 28 exabytes of data per month in 2012. You may be asking, “What exactly is an “exabyte?” One exabyte of data converted to DVD quality video would take 50,000 years to watch.  Total Internet traffic in 2012 will be six times greater than it was in 2007, and four times larger than last year. It will already take substantial investment in broadband networks to keep up with this increased demand. Now the FCC wants to prevent service providers from effectively managing their  networks. Such regulation will discourage investment and prevent expansion of broadband networks.

Additionally, in a a recent report, the FCC stated it could take up to $350 billion to achieve universal broadband. Why would the FCC consider imposing regulations that would not only discourage private investment but insure ineffective management of the broadband network?

Network companies have to be able to manage their networks to ensure the most economical and efficient use of bandwidth, and provide affordable broadband services for all users. Network management is essential for consumers to enjoy the benefits of new quality-sensitive applications and services. The FCC should not adopt rules that could stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network.

It's a Mobile Future

No it is not a ride at Disneyland, but our friends at Mobile Future released a report on wireless technology and innovation.  Welcome to the Mobile Future; How Wireless Innovation is Transforming Our Economy and Our Lives, is a great report on the past, present, and future of wireless technology that highlights some of the staggering statistics about the wireless industry. For example:

• Nearly 90% of American adults have a mobile device, and virtually all of us keep it within arm’s reach 24 hours a day;
• The wireless industry today employs nearly 2.7 million Americans—from applications developers to retail store workers to network engineers;
• 95% of the U.S. Population has the choice of three or more wireless service providers;
• There are 630 mobile devices available to U.S. consumers compared to 147 in the United Kingdom;
• There were 1 trillion text messages sent in the U.S. in 2008.

Please take a moment to download the report and take a look for yourself.

Now More Than Ever: Wireless Consumers Have More Choice

Last week Senator Herb Kohl wrote a letter to the FCC and the DOJ asking that they investigate the wireless industry and asking them “to take action to enhance competition in the market and to remove barriers to competition preventing the emergence of new competitors.”

One of the issues that Senator Kohl is concerned about is handset exclusivity. In his opinion, “[t]he practice of the large cell phone companies gaining exclusive deals to the most in-demand cell phones is a serious barrier to competition. Consumers are unlikely to obtain cell phone service from companies if they cannot obtain the desired handsets.”

I could not disagree more. Most consumers are sophisticated and make their decisions on a variety of different factors; not just whether they can get the handset they desire.  Here are just a few of the factors that I personally have used in choosing past cell phone carriers: (In no particular order.)

• Home coverage area;
• Extended coverage area/ National calling plan;
• Cost of the plan;
• Do I get reception at  home and work; and
• What additional features are available from the cell company, free nights and weekends, free network to network calling and text, etc. 

I can say on my past history that these factors were more important to me than the device I was purchasing.

I am sorry, but consumers have benefitted because of AT&T’s exclusivity contract with Apple.

There is little doubt that the Apple iPhone is a game-changer. Now, more than ever, cell companies are competing on multiple levels for business and the American Consumer is the beneficiary.  As a result of the iPhone ($199-$299) and its exclusive contract, we have seen additional innovation in the smart phone category from Verizon with the Blackberry Storm ($219), Sprint with the Palm Pre ($199), and T-Mobile with the G1 running Google’s Android ($399-$149).  A comparable device several years ago costs well over $400 with a 2 year contract.

Additionally, there is increase consumer choice in other mobile devices and plans. Check out the following article from the Boston Globe:

Cellphone savings worth research – The Boston Globe
Competition for wireless customers leads to a bewildering array of options - and a price war

The great news is that all this competition has sparked a price war of sorts. Boost Mobile recently made a splash by offering unlimited calls and text messages for $50 per month - half the price of traditional plans with unlimited minutes. Virgin Mobile countered by offering unlimited calls for $50 (or $60 if you add in text messages). Now some say their plans are even cheaper. MetroPCS charges $40-$50 for unlimited calls and text. And TracFone just launched its own $45 option called StraightTalk.

Read the entire article by going to the Boston Globe's Web site by clicking here.

Update NYT Article: What Do Cellphone Users Want Most? Cheap Service

Distracted Driving or Distracted Policy?

That’s the title of a “tech byte” from the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) that takes a deeper look at what really encompasses the term “distracted driving.” There are several bills floating around the U.S. that describe “distracted driving” as a person distracted from using a cell phone while operating a car, but IPI makes a good point that there are many other things that can distract drivers including changing the radio station, inserting a CD or applying makeup. Given that, why should cell phone technology take the fall?

House Bill 2734 in Arizona – a distracted driving bill – includes a wide range of actions that can distract drivers punishable under law. It could become a model for other “distracted driving” bills that don’t just single out cell phones. Click here to read the full IPI Tech Byte.

It's No Time To Regulate Wireless Telephony

John W. Mayo, Professor of Economics, Business and Public Policy in Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business recently released a paper titled “It’s No Time To Regulate Wireless Technology.” In it, Mayo discusses the competitive wireless environment in the U.S. and why he believes it shouldn’t be regulated. Click here to read the full study: No Time To Regulate Wireless Telephony.