wwigen's blog

It is often felt that once an issue is memorialized on paper that the real discussion and debate is already over. This may or may not be the case with the Notice of Public Rule Making (NPRM) that the FCC released yesterday, but it does make one wonder. The Republican Commissioners and AT&T in particular, are acting like the fight has just begun… but has it?  Google and Verizon made a joint statement that many areas of agreement exist, including the preservation of an “open” Internet. The old worn argument that all regulation is bad and stifles the market seems a bit foolish in the light of the recent melt down of Wall Street. As chairman Genachowski pointed out, historically, regulation has often worked to maintain competition and protect the consumer, thereby strengthening, not stifling, the market.

With the FCC poised to vote up or down on opening a rule making proceeding on net neutrality, the old battle lines are being redrawn in the press and advocates and opponents are taking their respective and predictable positions. Meanwhile, in the background, and the back rooms, calm and hopefully constructive conversations are being held. Looking backward is usually only helpful to appreciate how much we’ve learned and advanced; despite the news reports, net neutrality is not the same issue it was in 2005 or 2006.

The Broadband Breakfast Club sponsored an excellent dialogue this morning (October 13) on telehealth. Four doctors, one from the army, one from the veterans’ administration, one regarded as the “father of telehealth”, and one from Kaiser Permanente presented on what it is and why it is good. Since many of our member institutions have medical schools, I thought it would be a good place to learn something about broadband and its relationship to telehealth.  What I learned:

There were two events on September 25 that demonstrated that the Net Neutrality debate is alive and well, revived by FCC Chairman Genachowski’s speech earlier in the week. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a report, “Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate.”  It was launched with the help of its primary author, network architect, Richard Bennett, along with well-known Internet experts Christopher Yoo, John Day, and economist William Lehr. As an argument against using the end-to-end principle as a reason for net neutrality legislation, I think the presentation and viewpoints were very convincing. But about half-way through the session I began to ask myself...

The US Broadband Coalition presented its latest progress report to the FCC and to the public on September 24. EDUCAUSE has been a member of the coalition since its inception almost two years ago and has played an active role in both facilitating its work and contributing to its debate. The Coalition represents, above all else, an unprecedented effort to bring stakeholders in the National Broadband Plan (NBP) together to try and reach consensus on the myriad issues facing the development of such a proposal. Blair Levin, in charge of developing the FCC’s NBP, due to Congress in February 2010, had requested that the USBBC report be issued no later than October 1. But when Mr.

On Monday, September 21, before a full house at the esteemed Brookings Institute, the new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission made a groundbreaking announcement regarding net neutrality. Chairman Julius Genachowski had announced his support of net neutrality early in his nomination process last Spring; but his speech yesterday made it clear that he is not only a serious advocate but that he has the will to push through new rules at the Commission. The announcement proposed turning the FCC’s existing four net neutrality principles into rules (which can be clearly enforced by the Commission) and adding two new rules; one rule would prohibit broadband providers from engaging in discriminatory online behavior; the second rule would require broadband operators to be transparent about their network management practices.

It was enough to send shivers down the spine. On September 15, at a breakfast gathering sponsored by Broadband Census, Comcast Senior Vice President, Joe Waz, declared that the government got it “exactly right” in the current broadband stimulus program. Waz was referring specifically to the focus on getting broadband to the last 8% that remain “unserved”, and to stimulating adoption overall. Joanne Hovis, President-elect of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors countered the Waz statement by pointing out that much of the reason cable now reaches 92% of the population is that local governments mandated that carriers provide service to un-profitable as well as profitable regions in exchange for their franchises. She also called for lowering the barriers for municipalities to provide broadband services to fill the gaps left by commercial providers.

On September 10 the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held its second in a series of oversight hearings of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Despite the title, the hearing focused specifically on how the $7.2 billion BTOP/BIT program for stimulating broadband deployment was proceeding. Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va) led off with a now familiar refrain that the requirement that a community be “remote” (defined as 50 miles from a city of at least 20,000) is too restrictive and in fact would eliminate most of the Eastern U.S. from eligibility for the most generous grants; Rep. Eshoo (D- Calif) and Rep. Matsui (D-Calif) asked if networks connecting anchor institutions should be given higher priority, and Republicans want the program to favor states that have completed their broadband mapping.

In an effort to keep our message in front of the Federal Communications Commission, EDUCAUSE, as part of the Schools, Health, and Libraries Broadband Coalition (SHLB) recently filed in two separate proceedings.  On September 4 and September 8, comments were filed to re-emphasize the need for anchor institutions, such as colleges and universities, to have access to affordable, very high-capacity broadband to achieve their missions. Taken together, the main points of the comments were:

If current broadband adoption trends continue in the United States, we will achieve 99% penetration of broadband by 2016.  But there is a catch.  The Internet is changing. New video-based content demands bandwidth levels that will require upward of a $300 billion investment in improved infrastructure. Assuming we want to meet this demand, who is going to pay? That was the thesis upon which the study, “Towards Universal Broadband: Flexible Broadband Pricing and the Digital Divide” is based.

On September 1, Dr. Robert Shapiro introduced this new study (co-authored by Dr. Kevin Hassett) with a straightforward discussion of their research findings. In order to achieve ubiquitous broadband adoption, disparities caused by race, geography and household income must be eliminated. Yet, the price increases that are necessary to pay for new infrastructure only exacerbate this digital divide.