Over the last year, the “network neutrality”
debate has re-emerged with a vigor reminiscent of the fiery rhetoric of 2010.
While the FCC dithers on definition and incumbents
battle to maintain either their freedom to tier or their freedom to “ride” (depending
on the nature of the incumbent), the President last week entered the fray in a
related call for more broadband competition and coverage, particularly in rural
and underserved areas.
Summing up the President’s proposed initiatives,
The Financial Times quoted the White House: “Every American should have options for better, faster broadband…Broadband
is no longer a luxury. It’s a necessity. It’s a necessity for businesses, for
families, and for our national competitiveness.”
True.
Very true.
Indeed, in 2012, 2013 and 2014, the New America Foundation’s Open Technology
Institute released sequential ”Cost of Connectivity” studies, reviewing the
cost of consumer broadband services in 24 cities around the world. In each year, the results showed that, in
comparison to their international peers, Americans in major cities such as New
York, LA, and DC pay higher prices for slower Internet service.
Reports from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and other public and private or public-private organizations have made similar findings.
Reports from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and other public and private or public-private organizations have made similar findings.
It is widely anticipated that we will hear more
about the President’s broadband initiatives in his State of the Union speech
tomorrow. But, in short, what he proposed last week, with
a special focus on local and community broadband, includes: Eliminating State
laws which stymie local broadband competition; Expanding local public-private and
R&D-oriented partnerships focused on broadband; Launching a new Commerce
Department initiative called BroadbandUSA to promote deployment and adoption; Unveiling
new grant and loan opportunities for rural providers; and Removing regulatory barriers and improving investment incentives.
That’s a whole lotta motherhood and apple pie. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it. There is no acceptable reason that the nation
that once occupied the cradle of the Internet should now be camped out in a lean-to.
But let’s take a closer look at that last one: Removing Regulatory Barriers and Improving
Investment Incentives…
According to the White
House Fact Sheet on the President’s Broadband plans announced last week, “The President is calling for the Federal
Government to remove all unnecessary regulatory and policy barriers to
broadband build-out and competition, and is establishing a new Broadband
Opportunity Council of over a dozen government agencies with the singular goal
of speeding up broadband deployment and promoting adoption for our citizens.”
To these points, speaking in Cedar Falls, Iowa
last week at the unveiling of his suite of broadband initiatives, the President
said: "In too many places across
America, some big companies are doing everything they can to keep out
competitors…Today, I'm saying we're going to change that. Enough's enough."
True.
Quite true.
Now, let’s take a moment to ensure contextual
clarity: The President’s comments about competition, as well as the focus of
the broadband agenda he outlined last week, as well as the general gist of the
ongoing network neutrality debate at the FCC, are about the provisioning of
Internet services and content.
But broadband competition takes place on
multiple levels.
Last week I posted on a separate laundry list
of Presidential initiatives unveiled last week (it’s that time of year) - a
suite of cybersecurity-related policy and legislative proposals. The gist of my January 14 post (linked)
was that the success of the proposed activities – all domestically-focused - might
be limited in the absence of broader global initiatives to address truly
fundamental and global challenges.
Similarly, the President’s broadband initiatives,
at least as outlined last week, are also, um, “half-fast” (thanks Verizon –
clever campaign, by the way), at least in terms of addressing the establishment
of a more competitive market environment for American broadband.
(Regular readers, you know where this is
going).
The New American Foundation, OECD, ITU and
other reports on the relative cost of broadband across markets at some point or
another – conscious or not – end up depicting some sort of juxtaposition of the
European situation vs. the American situation.
It seems, fixed data-speeds and 4G wireless
deployment schedules notwithstanding, that Europe has the lead over the U.S. in
terms of the average cost of broadband to the average consumer. One reason, it would seem, is the
fact that consumers, even in rural or far-flung areas, have the option to
choose among broadband suppliers, which in turn forces those service providers
to competitively price their offerings.
In contrast, as the President said in Iowa last
week: "Tens of millions of Americans
have only one choice for that next-generation broadband. So, they're pretty
much at the whim of whatever Internet provider is around.”
But Europe has had the benefit of other
competitive pressures as well, pressures that have had not just an impact in
terms of lower cost broadband, but also in terms of more innovative broadband.
In short, Europe has been open to investment
and innovative new technologies on a market-based basis, including solutions
from world-leading Huawei Technologies, a $47 billion company doing business in
over 170 countries, which happens to be headquartered in China.
Such competition has driven innovation and
more rational, market-based pricing of telecommunications equipment across
Europe, driving down costs and extending broadband to everyday consumers.
(Perfunctory
disclaimer, again: Huawei is my employer, but this blog is my own, the content
unvetted, uncleared by any third party).
U.S. Internet and telecommunications service
providers have been routinely pressured by the U.S. Government to eschew Huawei
gear, based on never-substantiated concerns associated with the company’s
heritage in China, concerns which fly in the face of a very important pair of facts: 1)
Huawei is deployed by nationwide service providers in virtually every OECD
country without incident; 2) All of Huawei’s “Western” competitors are, like Huawei,
conducting R&D, building and coding on a global basis, including in China. To the extent that such presents potential vulnerabilities,
they are commonly shared across the industry.
Now, let’s look at a case study that would seem
relevant to the President’s initiative to introduce more competition and more
broadband in rural markets:
In October of 2012, 60
Minutes profiled Huawei (not terribly accurate, balanced or even
responsible journalism, but I guess that’s a matter of one’s perspective).
During the program, the 60 Minutes
correspondent interviewed the President and General Manager of a small local telecommunications carrier who communicated his goal of reaching as far as possible
into rural areas, and his observation that “the new Huawei network delivers some of the fastest Internet speeds in
the country.”
The carrier President told 60 Minutes that
he had been pressured by “federal agents”
about Huawei, pressured to buy from someone else.
In answer to a subsequent question from the 60
Minutes correspondent, the carrier President said he was upset by the visit
because he “saw it as interference in our
operations. If we're not able to buy the very best equipment and deploy it in
an efficient manner, then everybody suffers.”
Notably, 60 Minutes concluded this
segment of its program asking the obligatory question about American bidders on
the project, to which the carrier President replied: “I don't know of any American companies that makes this equipment.”
The intervention featured on this particular
news program was not an isolated incident.
Indeed, it was an example of a pattern of behavior. It was indicative of a “policy.”
So yes, Mr. President, by all means, and in the
words of the White House, let’s call “for
the Federal Government to remove all unnecessary regulatory and policy
barriers to broadband build-out and competition.”
All of them.
And, if for whatever reason there is someone
somewhere within the Administration or otherwise that would purport that market-distorting
barriers to preclude competition from select companies based on their country
of heritage - in an industry that has eclipsed national borders – is “necessary,”
then, in the name of the very competition the President seeks, they should be
compelled to justify that finding, and publicly.
No comments:
Post a Comment