Newsmaker: Why our broadband policy's still a mess

Broadband is booming, DSL prices are dropping and cable modem speeds are increasing without additional charge.

But to Michael Copps, one of two Democrats on the five-member Federal Communications Commission, that's not enough. As a policy-maker, Copps is outraged that the United States isn't near the top of countries with broadband penetration. While admitting the difficulty in comparing the United States with Japan, Korea or Norway, Copps also voices the growing restlessness of government officials who fret about the private sector's ability to ensure that all Americans get access to broadband.

Big changes are reshaping the telecom industry. Giant mergers--SBC Communications acquiring AT&T, Verizon Communications swallowing MCI--raise huge questions about how consumers will be affected. More local-government efforts to create their own broadband networks are facing fierce resistance from the Baby Bells and cable companies such as Comcast.

Calling broadband "the most central infrastructure challenge facing the country right now," Copps is wrestling with how to turn the United States into the most connected country in the world. Can private industries do it themselves, or will it take a regulatory prod to get there? Copps recently spoke with CNET News.com about these issues, as well as the recent complaints of Internet phone service Vonage that it's not getting a fair shake from local phone companies.

Looking at the state of broadband from the consumer perspective, is adoption at a good point right now?
Well, if I was a consumer I would say, "Why in the hell is the United States No. 13 and heading south in broadband deployment? Why are folks in Korea and Japan maybe getting 10 times the capacity at a half or a third or a quarter of the price? I am paying for the slow setup I've got--that is called high-speed broadband?"

I don't think there is that much satisfaction with the situation we're in...I think we may be probably the only industrial country on the face of God's green earth that doesn't have a national plan for broadband deployment. We recently got a commitment on a goal, on an objective. But an objective and a strategy are two vastly dissimilar things.

What makes sense in terms of a national broadband policy?
I think Congress is going to have to work through that. If we are going to fix the Universal Service system, which is predicated on the idea that everybody should have access to comparable communications at comparable and reasonable prices, we have to ask, is our advanced telecommunications part of that or not? Is broadband a part of that or not? So before we start fixing every little problem with universal service I think we ought to have some kind of a philosophical or national purpose or national objective discussion about where does broadband fit in.

I think we may be probably the only industrial country on the face of God's green earth that doesn't have a national plan for broadband deployment.

And when I talk about central-infrastructure challenge, you know it seems like each generation faces an infrastructure challenge. Before the Civil War, we had infrastructure challenges and building internal improvements of highways and turnpikes and canals. After the Civil War, it was building transcontinental railroads. With the Eisenhower years, we built the national highway system. I think our (challenge) is broadband.

At the same time, the state legislature in Indiana recently shot down a bill that would impose significant restrictions on municipalities for launching their own broadband infrastructure services.
It's not an easy thing if you're the leader of a hard-pressed, cash-strapped municipality--as all of them are in this day and age--to take on additional burden of providing broadband to your people.

I think we do a grave injustice in trying to hobble municipalities. That's an entrepreneurial approach, that's an innovative approach. Why don't we encourage that instead of having bills introduced--"Oh, you can't do this because it's interfering with somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace." And then the marketplace is not functioning in those places.

The Bells say that government should not be competing with the private sector.
They are not out there trying to put broadband in the municipality. Where is the competition?

The Bells also say they're trying to protect residents from being unfairly taxed if such an infrastructure were to go belly-up.
Well, a municipality is a democratically run institution. They can make their own decisions. They don't need the Bells. They don't need the Administration, and they don't need me telling them what kind of decision they should be making.

So, is this a state-by-state, locality-by-locality issue or is this more of a federal issue? Or do you think this could become a federal issue?
I suppose it could. I think in the first instance, that's a municipal and a state thing. That's why you have state legislatures planning and deciding on this. But that doesn't mean that it's beyond the imagination.

Well, that also brings up the question of the digital divide. A lot of the efforts going on in Philadelphia, according to that city's CIO, Dianah Neff, are to really offer affordable broadband to people in lower-income areas.
Absolutely. I have seen some of what they are doing up there.

What is your take on it?
I think anybody getting broadband to the inner-city and to all segments of the population is performing a public service.

You've been very outspoken about network neutrality. You had some comments about that today, during your speech.
I've been outspoken about the principle of nondiscrimination. I think that's the first step we have to take and for everybody to agree on that. I spoke about this a year or two ago. I was happy to see (FCC Chairman Michael) Powell give similar remarks and commitment to that principle of nondiscrimination--open access or network neutrality. I think Chairman Powell talks a lot about best practices and voluntary guidelines and things like that, and you'd like to hope that that would be sufficient.

But then you read something in the paper, like the complaint that Vonage may file with the commission, and you realize that maybe there is a problem out there and maybe we ought to ask ourselves a question: Is all this really going to take care of itself without some sort of more imaginative or innovative approach from the commission?

Have you actually spoken directly with Vonage about this issue?
Not the particular complaint, no.

Is this something that the FCC is looking to?
I'm not going to talk about where we are. I guess Chairman Powell said we were on the case the other day, but I haven't seen the complaint.

Do you believe that the AT&T-SBC and MCI-Verizon proposals are good for competition? Are they good for consumers?
I can't comment on a specific merger. Those mergers are going to be before the commission and my duty is to look at the record, look at the environment and when it's time, come to a decision.

Will I look at them seriously? Yes. Will I look at the impact upon competition? Yes. Will I look at all of the economic effects that this might have? Yes.

Final question. What's the time frame for digital television and spectrum and the conversion of analog to digital?
I think we are going to have to hear from Congress on that. We have a hard date now but then you also have the 85 percent contingency in there. I don't think there is sentiment on Capitol Hill to discuss the idea of a hard date. I think there are those who want to do that, and there are also those who are still thinking about digital television and getting high-definition TV in vogue. So we are just going to have to see how that plays out in the year 2005.  

More Newsmakers

[ntrsource]

WOW AMERICA THIS IS A MUST READ!

OH MY, OH MY...

FINALLY someone stood up and spoke out.
We that choose to live in America have NO IDEA what hispeed or broadband is all about.
Coming from Denmark, knowing that EVERYONE in less than five years now has close to 10 GM per second for less than $10 per month can only smile when you hear that broadband and fast speed is being offered in America for close to $100 per month and then only receive between 500 KB to 800 KB per second.

The speed we are transmitting in, in America is laughable and we are being run over by Countries that saw the importance of technology being delivered to everyone.
They, the other countries stood up to the plate, paid the price and watch them how they are bypassing the US in education for generations to come.
Watch the kids in Korea, Japan, India and throughout Europe. Look at their scorecards,
look at what is being studied and see how it is being supported by their governments.

Folks we always said "Greed id good" and it was, EXCEPT it has to stop or this country will be run over. We need to think of the future, share the wealth and invest in the future.
Spending money on elections, super balls, football, basketball, and you name it OH MY
where is all this ending up. The youth are going straight down the trashcan because some lawmakers are not willing to step up to the plate telling the telecom companies enough is enough and putting demand on them to stop being greedy and give this county what it needs.... BROADBAND.
Pay the price USA. Hire Korean's and let them put up a satellite system throughout the United States so everyone in every single corner will be able to receive FAST SPEED with transmission rates of up to 8 GB per second for less than $10 per month.
It is doable and is being done right now throughout the world except we the lawmakers
in America are still busy trying to tell everyone else how to do things while not doing it here at home.
What else is new? EXCEPT this time we are being run over.

Are you ready for the latest news?
How about FREE Local and Long Distance calling
How about FREE Coupons when you want them.
How about FREE streaming Movies.

Folks it is all coming and close to being delivered directly from <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.NTRSource.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.NTRSource.com</a>

Wake up America.... you only have two more years to enjoy stupidity and then you will have to face reality, but this time it has nothing to do with being strong or macho this time it has something to do with education of our youth.

[michaelkpate]

Population Density

Comparing the United States to islands in the Pacific, ancient Asian countries, and old Europe nations really serves zero purpose. For instance, Denmark has a population of 5,413,392 in an area of 43,094 sq km. Meanwhile, the county I live has a population of 91,051 in an area of 2,663 sq km. Therefore, Denmark has a density of 125 while here we have one of 34.

Increasing broadband access is an important consideration but to attempt to achieve it in the same way as other countries is incredibly naive.

[domcelyea]

Broadband for Everyone

What really ticks me off is that all the new technology is going to the cities. WIFI is abundant in most cities, broadband is abundant in most cities. We the people of the rural areas are still stuck with dialup or a 60 or 90 dollar a month fee from the Direcway for internet. The connection is in the toilet most of the time, page loads are not that fast, uploads are atrocious.
We the people of rural areas want broadband be it wireless, cable, fibre optic.

[Atomic2Mod]

Nothing has changed - 1 2/3 years later now

I keep reading about all these countries that have affordable broadband internet EVERYWHERE - and yet we here in the US are still behind the times in this. Heck, I don't even get decent phone service where I live. The nearest cell tower is over 8 miles away - so no dice there. The only phone company that services the land lines here charge outrageous fees for it with no bells or whistles to get. And when it comes to internet, we have to shell out the big bucks as well, for very restricted and mediocre service.
If anyone here knows of any resources, where us countryfolk can speak with one voice to those who can make the difference for us, please let me know!!

[teakilla]

BROADBAND FOR EVER ONE

NUMBER ONE I DONT THINK ANY ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL PEOPLE HOW TO CONNECT TO THE WEB OR ONLINE OF ANY KIND THIS IS A PLOY TO GET MORE MONEY OUT OF PEOPLE AND I FOR ONE DONT LIKE IT I THINK THE GOVERMENT SHOULD GET INTO THIS AND STOP ALL THE PHONE COMPANYS AND THE CABLE COMPANYS AND ALSO THE ONE THAT HAS LIKE DIRECTTV AND ALL OF THESE COMPANYS FROM CHEETING AMERICANS INTO HOOKING UP WITH THEM ALL OF THEM IS SO HIGH AND PEOPLE CANT
AFFORD TO PAY A WAR PRICE TO HOOKUP WITH THEM AND IT SHOULD BE FREE ANY WAY BECAUSE GOD MADE THE UNERVICE AND NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE MONEY ON IT AS FAR AS IM CONCERN ALL THESE PEOPLE WANT IT TO RIP MORE PEOPLE OFF AND IM TIRED OF IT AND I REALLY THINK IT SHOULD STOP NOW BESIDE IF IT WAS FREE TO GET BROADBAND PEOPLE WOULD SIGN UP FOR IT AND THE PHONE COMPANYS WOULD STILL MAKE MORE MONEY EVER TIME PEOPLE ORDER FROM ANY COMPANY ON LINE THEY GET PAID FOR THAT TO SO WHY NOT MAKE IT FREE IF THEY REALLY WANT EVER ONE TO HOOK UP WITH BROADBAND THEY SAY WE ARE HELPING PEOPLE WELL YOU ARE RIPPING THEM OFF AND YOU DONT CARE HOW MUCH YOU HURT PEOPLE YOU ARE JUST THINKING OF YOUR SELFS SO LAY OFF AND LEAVE US ALONE IF WE WANT IT WE WILL ASK FOR IT BUT NOT AT YOUR PRICES SO THINK BEFORE YOU LEAP

[dusher]

Copp's Opinions Void of Strategy

Copp thinks government can accelerate broadband deployment but never says how or at what cost. He implies broadband should be part of a new definition of Universal Service. The old social contract for Universal POTS Service required a monopoly with a hugely complex system of internal subsidies and tremendous regulatory costs at the state and federal level. Without offering a strategy for 'broadband everywhere,' Copp's words are nothing more than useless ranting.

[Flushls]

USF & Broadband

I think we need to be careful about USF &#38; Broadband because now in many areas you have small companies deploying it ie wireless etc. and the Crybaby bells have not then the bells step in with USF sub in hand and destroy these companies who took the risk in the first place. so it would not be fair to those companies who have already stuck their necks out and deployed while the crybaby bells whined.

[ccie5000]

Universal Broadband Service?

It seems Commissioner Copps is trying to spin Universal Service to cover broadband. The Universal Service system is not "predicated on the idea that everybody should have access to comparable communications". It is predicated on the idea that everybody should have access to basic communications.

The Universal Service system is fundamentally broken. It costs less to build infrastructure in high population density areas. Poor families in high density urban areas are subsidizing service for well off families in low-density suburban areas.

New technologies such as voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) have already made possible unlimited long distance calling within the United States for $25 per month. This would never have been possible under the 100 year old, regulated infrastructure.

Universal Broadband is something we as a nation should pursue, but not by imposing regulatory burdens and economic inefficiencies. Let's not strangle the goose laying the golden eggs.

Thank you,
Jerry J. Anderson, CCIE #5000

Broadband Solutions

Here in rural Oregon the cities of Monmouth and Independence have partnered to create an ORS190 corporation to manage our fiber network, MINET. With Monmouths conection to Bonneville Power Administration through our city owned power utility, we were able to connect to their fiber with the help of NoaNet. We have had the fiber system in place since 2001, connecting our city services, schools and some of our larger businesses. In 2003 the decision was made to move forward on our fiber to the home build-out. The cities looked to the state Economic Developement Department and were extended loans to cover the cost of the FTTH installation. Through our feasibility studies we have determined there is minimal to no risk to the tax payers. All of the costs involved will be covered by our subcribers as they pay of the services. At the current time our services will be better than existing services; internet, cable and telephone. Our rates will be better or competitive.
The comment about competing was right on. As a city we approched Qwest and Charter to improve our services for faster internet and were told that it wouldn't be profitable from their perpsective. We offered to give them money to reduce their expenses, they turned us down. What else were we to do but look to our own solution. Charter Cable Co. has told us for the last 7 years that cable internet would be available to us "with in the next year." If the big telcom and cable companys want to keep cities out of there business they should do there business and provide us services.

BROADBAND

I so enjoyed this article and after 3 a.m. late night speedS on my COMDCAST cable provider of 664.5 and 248.4, I would welcome government intervention or some competent competition. We pay 42.95/month and receive mostly poor and inconsistent broadband connectivity. I just wish we consummers knew how to rattle the cages more. Speaking to the "only game in town" is useless. Thank you.

Broadband NOT for everyone?

Commissioner Copps is spot-on in trying to find solutions for speedier broadband expansion, though we shouldn't be too congratulatory of other countries for their broadband achievements unless willing here to have public money used for broadband to the curb as some countries' governments have done. I have 2 concerns about government managed broadband deployment: 1) not everyone wants it or would use it at this time; and 2) some can claim that one reason broadband is slower here is that government regulation might well have imposed higher costs on the major providers by way of mandatory access to competitors and wholesale price controls.

Full open access at the switch can be a solution if government is willing to spin off the central office from a for-profit carrier and "postalize" the switch. It's only a temporary solution, however, in that technology will increasingly dilute the switch's importance and then all our government might have accomplished is the speedier collapse of another group of companies.

Telecom Pennsylvania Legislation-Kutztown

I read your article and it is right on the mark. The funny part about this is, when we at Kutztown tried to advise the Legislators, no-one listened. A blind eye sort of speak, Comments from Legislators like, "Competing with the Private Sector, could cause problems". Not one State Representative, Senator or even a member of the Governors Office called to ask a single question about the Kutztown System before HB30 was adopted. How could they understand, they never looked at the "other" side of the story. PA has been crippled by this Legislation and it NEVER should have been handled by the STATE to make the decision..
Frank Caruso
Director of Information Tehcnology
The Borough of Kutztown

You left out a country doing more poorly than the US in the broadband area

Hi, i'm in australia and we have even less competition than america. we have one partially owned telecommunications and broadband ISP called Telstra and another one Optus which leases lines of Telstra along with every other ISP. Our speeds are so poor and so expensive that no one can afford to host internet games or a site we pay an average of $70 - 100 AU dollars just to get enough bandwidth to scrape through the month to check mail and download soem video clips or play some online games. Our DSL is more expensive than cable, the cable is faster though you are very limited to monthly usage the DSL is horribly slow as i am paying $100 for unlimited downloads and with a speed of 512/128 kilobits per second. I cant upload pictures to friends because they block it off to prevent viruses, i cant have voice communication with friends in my area because the upload speed is so poor even with cable which is 128 kilobits per second and it has been liek this for a few years now, the speeds and bandwidth have become much lower than they were originally and also teh prices are increasing yet bandwidth from what i have read in Europe and US is much cheaper than it was originally. We are actually so far behind teh US and EU and Asia that most luxuries or purposes of what the internet was supposed to bring to us is totally out of our reach. :( very angry with our government especially since they fund and support two channels that show things that the other commercial stations would never dare broadcast and are more educational. i wish our government would take more control over its cities and suburbs and show more care and see more potential in fast information access to all residents of this country through the internet, instead of showing no care and placing more restrictions on the private companies that are cleary robbing us from the services that we rightfully deserve for teh ammount we are paying and ease the expense of leasing the government lines to smaller ISP's.