FCC discusses barriers to national broadband plan

The Federal Communications Commission met Wednesday to discuss obstacles to enacting a national broadband policy that will provide high-speed Internet access to every American.

President Obama has made universal broadband access a key goal. Grants and loans for helping make universal broadband access a reality have already started being doled out as part of Congress' economic stimulus package.

In an effort to ensure that new programs and policies work toward achieving the same goal, the FCC has been tasked with developing a national broadband plan to help direct policy makers in getting affordable broadband to every American. A task force, headed by Blair Levin, who had been chief of staff for former FCC chairman Reed Hundt, is developing the plan that will be presented to Congress on February 17, 2010.

Levin and his staff appeared before the FCC Wednesday to present what they see as gaps or obstacles that must be overcome to develop clear recommendations and policy for universal broadband.

Levin said that commissioners and policy makers must consider the broadband ecosystem if they hope to achieve the president's goals. This means taking into account not only consumer needs but also considering the needs of the industry, which will likely fund the bulk of the $20 billion to $350 billion that will be needed to build new infrastructure and develop new programs for spreading broadband throughout the country.

In considering these needs, Levin said it is important to identify and come up with ways to overcome some hurdles that stand in the way for achieving the ultimate goal of providing broadband to every American.

Obstacles to universal broadband access
One major issue has to do with the Universal Service Fund, a program funded through extra charges on consumers' phone bills. The USF was originally designed to provide subsidies to pay for phone service in rural communities. But the task force believes that more of the $7 billion that is allocated each year from the fund should also be used to help subsidize the cost of deploying broadband in rural areas.

Today, most of these funds are used for voice services and not broadband, the task force reported. And of the money that is used to subsidize broadband, the group noted it is often used inefficiently so that gaps in broadband deployment are still not filled.

The task force also reported that there is still a high level of disparity in income levels between people who subscribe to broadband service and those who do not. Nearly 90 percent of families with incomes of $100,000 or more subscribe to broadband services, compared to 35 percent with incomes of $20,000 or less. Rural households are less likely to subscribe to broadband service than urban households. About 65 percent of white households subscribe to broadband, while only 40 percent of Hispanic households subscribe to broadband and 46 percent of African-American households have broadband.

Another issue that was brought up by the task force during the meeting is the fact that broadband service providers tend to favor higher-income regions in more populated areas over low-income areas.

The data suggests that many low-income people in these parts of the country are offered only one broadband service option. The data also suggests that these consumers who have only one option tend to pay higher prices for service.

What this means is that lower-income people, who have less disposable income, are often the ones forced to pay higher prices, while people who have more money pay lower prices for service.

Deployments in rural areas are often affected by the high cost of building infrastructure and providing service. The task force noted that "middle mile" costs are almost three times higher than general network operations costs. This high cost is often a serious barrier to rural broadband deployments, the group said.

Blair Levin, head of the task force developing a national broadband policy for the FCC.

This "middle mile" infrastructure consists of equipment and fiber that connects local cable head-ends or telephone company central offices with bigger points of presence that connect those networks to nationwide networks. The task force said there was a lack of efficient coordination when carriers or other utility providers dig trenches for fiber infrastructure. The group also noted that these deployment gaps don't only affect rural consumers, but many residential neighborhoods and small business marketplaces as well.

As the Internet and television markets converge, the task force also noted that a lack of innovation exists in the TV set-top box market. Specifically, the majority of consumers today use set-top boxes provided through their subscription TV providers. And only a very small number of devices are even available to purchase at retail. By comparison, there are hundreds of devices available in the mobile phone market. Due to a lack of competition, innovation has been stifled. And the task force recommends the FCC adopt policies to encourage a retail market for such devices.

That said, the FCC has tried to encourage the consumer electronics industry to develop set-top boxes that could be bought separately from cable services, but so far the efforts have largely failed.

More spectrum needed
On the wireless side, the key barrier is a lack of spectrum, the task force said. The problem is simple, as demand for mobile broadband increases, there is a need for more spectrum to support these services. Demand for these services comes from the rapidly growing market for smartphone wireless devices and Netbooks. By 2011, smartphone sales are expected to overtake standard mobile phones.

The task force said it is critical for the FCC to identify and reallocate available spectrum as soon as possible. The group said the nation could face a spectrum shortage as soon as 2013 or 2015, if nothing is done today.

The wireless trade group CTIA and the Consumer Electronics Association support this claim. And the groups sent a letter to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski on Tuesday urging him to investigate using broadcast TV spectrum for mobile Internet use.

The measure is opposed by the broadcast TV industry. But the FCC task force noted that as the need for wireless broadband spectrum increases, the need for broadcast TV spectrum is actually decreasing. Specifically, smartphone subscriptions have increased by 690 percent since 1998, while over-the-air TV viewership decreased by 56 percent. This proposal is already generating criticism from lawmakers supporting the TV broadcast industry.

Levin and his staff acknowledged there are many other barriers that exist in providing affordable broadband access to every person in the U.S. Levin said his staff is on track to meet its February deadline, but he said the process will remain open throughout the remaining 90 days that are left to incorporate new ideas. He also emphasized the fact that the ultimate success or failure of the national broadband plan will be in the hands of Congress and policy makers who must remain committed to implementing the plan.

"In my experience and seeing what has worked in other countries, you can plan all you want, but there really needs to be a long-term commitment for such plans to succeed," he said.

Also as part of the meeting, the five-member FCC unanimously voted to impose a "shot clock" for wireless tower applications to speed up the time it takes for wireless operators to deploy new cell phone networks.

Chairman Genachowski promised last month at the CTIA tradeshow in San Diego that the Commission would do what it could to speed up this process. And the Commission's vote solidified that promise.

"Tower siting is a vital piece of our industry," CTIA president and CEO Steve Largent said in a statement. "It enables mobile services, including voice and broadband, for consumers, public safety, and businesses. Both Congress and the Supreme Court recognized the importance of taking concrete steps to ensure that the zoning process does not become a barrier to the reasonable deployment of, and competition among, diverse wireless networks."

[giovanijones]

When did the internet become a right and not a luxury?

[ilsthey]

When it has become practically impossible to apply for a job without an internet connection.<br /><br />As more and more basic services are provided primarily or solely through the internet, it become important that we do not create a class of people who can not access those services.<br /><br />The internet is not all You Tube and porn, it just seems that way

[sanenazok]

@ilsthey: what are "basic services?" Geez I thought it was power and water. Either one of these come over the internet? For now, people have choices. If you want to live off the grid, then you should be able to. I live in the city, ergo I pay city taxes and get services available in high-density areas. This isn't hard once you think it through.

[giovanijones]

Then I want the government to play for my next car since its near impossible to get to a job without driving. I want them to pay for my contact lenses so I can steer my car, because its near impossible to drive that car when your near sided. No wait, just pay for my Lasik then. <br /> <br />Government is not the answer to every problem.

[ilsthey]

No the government is not the solution to every problem, but neither are they the bane for every problem<br /><br />I don't know you, but in these two posts at least, you did not complain about the network of roads built by the government for you to drive that car on.<br /><br />Is it really such a stretch that we as a people also come together to build a digital network accessible to everybody in this country, just as we did with roads? Or do you really want every road to be a privately owned toll road like they where in the 18th and 19th centuries?<br /><br />You will notice that the highways and interstates are free to use but you have to buy the car them. Making sure there is broadband network 'roads' available to everybody does not mean you don't still need to buy the computer i.e. car, to use them.

[sandraleesmith46]

I live in a rural area, and have a low, fixed income, but I live in an area where RV parks, which also serve as home to many low-income people these days, are putting in wireless internet access as part of the amenities they offer residents and visitors alike. It's how I can afford and access the internet, and if broadband goes nationwide, I think the FCC need to seriously consider going wireless with it. In many places the towers are already in place. Where I am, in the high Arizona desert with the nearest cities of any size being Flagstaff, or Prescott, each 50 miles away, give or take, and Phoenix 100 miles, getting any broadband in this area would almost have to be wireless. For those like myself, who live in RV parks, there aren't even lines in for phone in most spaces, or for cable TV. You use cell phones and satellites, and wireless web or do without..

[kewell82]

Just start installing Fiber Optics everywhere.

[aj37]

The biggest obstacle to affordable Internet access is that several huge communications companies are making a nice chunk of change providing NOT-very-affordable Internet access. And they've got enough political clout to make sure that their gravy train doesn't get knocked off the tracks.

[giovanijones]

Are you kidding about afforability? <br /> <br />My 1.5 DSL at one time was $50 a month. I now pay $45 for 12meg DSL. The 1.5 service is now at $15 a month.

[ilsthey]

But where do you live? Some place with lots of choice for broadband? Competing companies? All the good stuff?<br /><br />Should everybody in America move in next door?<br /><br />Or do you not realize that there are many many many places where your DSL experience is not true?

[ilsthey]

@givoanijones<br /><br />Where do you live? Is there lots of broadband competition there? Would you like everybody in America to move in next door to you? Or do you not realize that there are lots of places where your DSL experience is not true.

[WulfTheSaxon]

@giovanijones <br />Or, if you lived in the UK, you could get 50Mb/s cable for not much more than your 12Mb/s plan. Prefer DSL? How about 24Mb/s for about $25/month? And the UK thinks *its* broadband is bad.

[nicmart]

You can be forgiven for thinking that we live in Mussolini's Italy. Call it corporatism or fascism, it still boils down to state control, and it is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

[ddesy]

Just look where corporate control has gotten us. Do you really think it is the answer?

[Lerianis3]

For some things, yes, it is supported by both parties. But unfortunately, usually that is only for non-necessities in the case of the Repukians, and for necessities in the case of the Democrats.

[giovanijones]

I have 2 options, Qwest or Comcast...I don't consider that lots of choices. But if I wanted I have choices such as a Broadband card from Verizon, AT&#38;T and Sprint or HughesNet Satellite. <br /> <br />I'm just saying that internet is not a right that government should get involved in providing. Government is not there to provide a level playing for everyone. Its not my issue or the governments problem that someone has decided by their own right to live in a location that may not be accessible with high speed internet. <br /> <br />There are reasons that companies don't provide high speed internet to certain locals...its too expensive or not enough return for the investment. What makes you think it will be so much cheaper if a government entity goes out there lays the fiber or puts up the poles for wireless? Its going to cost much more for the government, because nothing is ever cheaper when government gets their fingers in the pie.

[ilsthey]

And every one of your argument apply to the interstate and road system.<br /><br />Accept without those roads commerce does not flow. In the twentieth century, building roads everywhere, even the less populated places, the economy growth was tremendous.<br /><br />Many believe internet broadband is the twenty first century interstate system. Build the network and the money can flow.<br /><br />What Governments are good at are doing projects that are *too* large to be done by any smaller group of people. Such paving a ribbon of asphalt and concrete from San Fransisco to New York, including all the places in between.<br /><br />Where you see entitlement and waste, I see a foundation for future growth that I don't want to wait for AT&#38;T, Verizon and Sprint to get around to finishing when they feel like it.

[darkebinary]

@ ilshey <br /> <br />Actually the interstate road system was built to speed transportation (and troop deployment in war) between metropolitan areas. It was never meant to grant people high speed access to the middle of nowhere. This is why America is full of abandoned rural roads. What you?re suggesting is we spend money on running cable or installing towers in those places that have all the abandoned roads. Using your anology we should abandon the rural areas and build high speed connections between cities. If the rural areas are big enough we might let them tap into the line as it passes nearby. If they are too far away, then too bad.

[SergeM256]

Among other things, government spends money to stimulate economy. In 1930's government would spend on roads and bridges, now it spends on broadband - not because we really need broadband but because they have to spend money somewhere. It doesn't really matter where they spend money - when they spend money, they create jobs, people get their paycheck and buy some goods, manufactures of these goods get money and create even more jobs, etc. - thats how economical stimulus works (at least supposed to work).

[WulfTheSaxon]

@giovanijones <br />(See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/us-internet-is-slow-expensiveand-the-fcc-has-proof.ars for a nice chart showing world broadband price vs. speed.)

[ThinkBeforeYouPost]

It is not state control, it is private monopoly control. I live in the middle of Silicon Valley, but I can only get 1.5Mbps DSL because I am just a little too far from the CO to get a whopping 3Mbps. And it still costs ~$50/mo. There is no alternative to the incumbent telco, so they have no reason to invest to improve the service. I have friends in Europe (in some of them so called socialist countries) who get 30Mbps for $30/mo. Only because the government does not protect de facto monopolies under the pretense of letting the free market function. The only free market there is the one that sets the price of the politicians.

[ddesy]

Thank you for one of the best comments I've seen! Finally someone who understands that the "free market" is a joke.

[martin_c_e]

The government task force is chock full of nonsense. Where I live, only Comcast has broadband at $57.95 plus modem cost plus fees and taxes: about $72.50 a month. AT&#38;T won't bring in dsl because of the 1996 Telecom Act that made dsl just POTS service which forced the Bells into revenue sharing with telco competitors (Blair Levin was part of that). This is a suburb, not rural area. <br /><br />Now the government wants to give more Broadcast TV spectrum to the wireless companies so that they can watch tv on their cell phones. The FCC already has figured out that it would cost only $9 Billion to eliminate broadcast tv and force everyone onto a subscription service. <br /><br />It isn't just poor or rural folks who don't have broadband or cable tv. A sizable number of well educated and middle/upper middle class have no need for either; but might prefer a reasonably priced broadband deal without being forced to take a video package.

[sanenazok]

These sort of comments are soooooo tiresome. You moved out in the suburbs, pay one tenth in taxes that city people do, get decent schools sans shootings, living space - in other words things caused by living in a low-density area. At the same time you want the same internet choices as someone living in a highrise downtown. Too darn bad. Take the money you are saving by living in suburbia and get yourself that $72 cable connection. Everything has downsides kiddies.

[Lerianis3]

1/10th? Think again, sanenazok. We are paying about the SAME AMOUNT in taxes as people who live in the cities do, and population for population, have the SAME AMOUNT OF SHOOTING AND MURDERS! I didn't want to believe that myself.... but after looking at the murder statistics for my area and comparing them to Baltimore, I realized that person for person, we have the same or EVEN HIGHER murder rate than Baltimore does, once you take out the OBVIOUSLY drug related ones, which would go away if drug dealing was made legal.

[sanenazok]

@Learnis: so who or what exactly forced you to live where you do? You moved out to the burbs and now you get to live there with all the good and bad that comes with it.

[theboyr]

This will never happen. The ILECs are going to take their sweet as time upgrading already profitable areas to fiber connections that they can mux for whatever they need to deliver. Cox and Comcast are investing so much money into that new Coax technology that won't be nearly as good and drives my bill nearly every 2-3 months it seems. <br /><br />The problem is that the government has made no mandates to get the carriers off copper last miles. City, state or federal.. they need to start mandating that new buildings cannot have copper last miles. New homes too. The thing is with the way technology advances now.. even if we did start a huge migration to Fiber... in 30 years, it's obsolete again. However, Fiber last miles will probably be the last physical mile before somebody comes up with an extremely good wireless system for transporting HUGE amounts of data with an absurd amount of encryption.

[sanenazok]

The biggest obstacle to nationwide broadband should be that the FCC is not empowered to do this sort of thing. The most they should be able to do is force cable cos to allow different set top boxes, but even that is very stupid. Setting national agendas is not part of the FCC regulatory role, and unless congress changes it, they have no business wasting money on this bloated study.

[Lerianis3]

Actually, part of doing 'regulatory things' is setting a national wireless agenda. Setting an agenda = regulating, for anyone but the most stupid of the stupid out there.

[sanenazok]

I disagree. Agenda setting=legislating. It would be different if Congress said, FCC give us your thoughts on broadband delivery so we can change the laws that created you. Once some unelected appointee gets to set the country's wireless agenda, might as well not have Congress to begin with. Policy should not be set by self-serving bureaucrats that will *ALWAYS* decide that 1. their office needs more responsibility to solve grave problems, and 2. oh that's going to take more money and more government involvement.<br /><br />Basically, a while ago the FCC said that every dtv tuner had to have broadcast flag no-record compatibility. Sounds like good policy, right? Part of agenda setting, right? Well, the courts didn't agree. There have to be limits on unelected officials and agencies, especially in setting any sort of "national" plans.

[azaliagirl]

I have broadband to my home via a T1 in an area that doesn't offer Postal Delivery (we have to pick the mail up at a local store), running water (we have water trucked in), natural gas (we use propane) or any type of cable TV (we use satellite). My board band cards from ATT&#38;T and Verizon work fine at home too. SO I think the nationwide broadband problem may already be solved by free market competition and broadband cards... less regulations - less taxes.