New York Times Editorial: A Plan for Broadband/Washington Post Editorial: The FCC's visible hand

New York Times Editorial: A Plan for Broadband
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: March 20, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21sun1.html?th&emc=th


The Federal Communications Commission’s broadband strategy comes not a moment too soon. High-speed Internet is on its way to replacing the telephone as the nation’s primary means of communication.

But the United States is woefully behind in building the physical systems to support this transformation. That will require federal money, incentives to private businesses, and updates in the regulatory system.

Fewer than 27 out of every 100 Americans have broadband service, compared with 33 in South Korea and 38 in the Netherlands. The average advertised download speed is 8 megabits per second; in France, it is 51. And according to a study by the F.C.C., the average download in the United States occurs at about half the advertised speed. Meanwhile, the poor, the elderly and other vulnerable groups remain cut off from broadband technology, and therefore from such things as online government services, medical advice and jobs.

The F.C.C.’s blueprint offers a feasible path to address these lacunae, unleash investment in the broadband network and foster competition among service providers. The core goal is to bring broadband to 100 million homes at download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second by 2020, and to vastly expand broadband over the airwaves.

The ambitious plan is likely to attract hostility from corporations — like TV broadcasters and telecommunications companies. They have legitimate concerns, but, in general, Congress should provide all the assistance the F.C.C. needs to achieve its goals.

A likely flashpoint is the F.C.C.’s determination to foster competition. Lack of competition is perhaps the main reason broadband prices remain so high and speeds so low, especially compared with other countries.

Lack of competition allows big wire-line telecom companies to charge big fees to carry the signals of mobile providers over their wires. Telecom companies argue, with reason, that competition goes beyond wires — that many other companies that are unregulated also are intrinsic to the development of broadband access.

Congress has to sort this out. The F.C.C.’s authority to police broadband is already limited and is being challenged in court. Congress may need to clarify the F.C.C.’s authority. Other parts of the commission’s plan will also require specific legislation.

For instance, the F.C.C. needs Congress to approve a plan to repurpose 120 megahertz of surplus TV spectrum for mobile broadband, to meet the mushrooming demand from powerful new wireless devices like iPhone or Google’s Droid. Congress must give the go-ahead so the commission can entice broadcasters to relinquish spectrum by offering them a slice of the revenue of the auction of airwaves to broadband providers.

The F.C.C. also needs Congress’s approval to spend money on a new wireless broadband network for use by emergency services, and to repurpose about $8 billion a year from the Universal Service Fund, established decades ago to ensure phones got to hard-to-reach places, to do that with broadband Internet access.

These goals are long overdue, but that makes them no less essential to taking full advantage of the Internet’s promise to improve American competitiveness.



Washington Post Editorial: The FCC's visible hand
Copyright by The Washington Post
Sunday, March 21, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002711.html


BY THE Federal Communications Commission's own account, broadband use in the United States has exploded over the past decade: "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."

So it is curious that the FCC's newly released National Broadband Plan faults the market for failing to "bring the power and promise of broadband to us all" -- in reality, some 7 million households unable to get broadband because it is not offered in their areas. Such an assessment -- and the call for government intervention to subsidize service for rural or poor communities -- is premature, at best. (Disclosure: The Washington Post Co. has interests in broadcast and cable television and businesses that depend on the Internet, all of which could be affected by FCC action.)

The FCC report, required under last year's stimulus package, equates the campaign for high-speed Internet with the government's earlier efforts to link all American households with telephone service and to subsidize service for the poor through user fees. Broadband has become for many an important staple of everyday life and business, but it is not a necessity akin to telephone service, which provides immediate access to emergency services such as police and fire.

The report also likens the need to build out the "broadband infrastructure" with the past century's push to advance commerce and mobility through creation of the nation's highway system. But broadband networks have been built with billions of dollars from companies in the private sector with a legitimate right to extract profit from well-placed investments. These initiatives -- and yes, the profit motive -- have resulted in remarkable leaps in a few short years. No one can reasonably predict what innovations lie ahead, including those that may make service to rural and poor communities more accessible -- without the need to entice companies with public dollars to service these markets.

To urge government caution is not the same as favoring complete inaction -- and the FCC plan is longer on aspiration than specific policy intentions, so in many areas it's hard to be sure what the agency has in mind. Certainly the FCC is right to monitor information about rates and accessibility and to explore how to make more efficient use of the airwaves. Government subsidies may become essential to fulfill public purposes, such as providing broadband to rural schools. It is useful to continue to mark America's standing in these matters in comparison to that of other nations. But it is hard to see in this field the signs of gross market failure.