Introduction
On February 17, 2009 (this author’s 29th Birthday), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed into law. One component of this legislation was to designate funding to develop broadband infrastructure with the goal of increasing broadband access to all Americans. Specifically, “[t]he law contains $7.2 billion of new spending on broadband infrastructure deployment and related broadband matters, of which $4.7 billion will be administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and $2.5 billion will be administered by the Rural Utility Service (RUS), a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).” (EN1) While the grant money is to be distributed by the NTIA and RUS, congress simultaneously charged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with monitoring the use of these government subsidies as well as with developing a “national broadband plan “to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability.” (EN2)
The FCC submitted its national broadband plan (referred to herein as “the plan”) on March 16, 2010 (EN3) and last week began “the essential transition from planning to implementation.” (EN4) FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski reported yesterday that his agency has recently “releas[ed] a detailed agenda laying out a schedule for Commission proceedings and actions over the next year....” (EN5) While it is clear that the FCC is moving forward with the plan, the path to actual implementation will not be as smooth as some would have hoped. The recent DC Circuit decision, Comcast v. FCC (WL 1286658), reminds us that the FCC’s authority to regulate Internet communication remains murky. It is therefore important to keep in mind, should the FCC require additional powers to carry out any aspect of the plan, that some lawmakers have resisted calls to increase the FCC’s authority in this area. (EN6)
I will be dividing this discussion into two parts and it will therefore span the course of two blog posts. My first entry will detail why the plan is necessary as well as provide a brief overview of how the plan is structured. I will also explore how a national broadband plan will benefit the development and expansion of social networking. My second post will consider the possible impact of the Comcast ruling on the plan itself as well as its broader effect on FCC authority in general.
Why a national broadband plan?
According to the plan itself, “nearly 100 million Americans do not have broadband today[,]…[while] fourteen million Americans do not have access to broadband infrastructure that can support today’s and tomorrow’s applications.” (EN7) Moreover, “there are significant gaps in the utilization of broadband for other national priorities” (EN8) such as healthcare, education, national defense and law enforcement activities. To remedy this disparity in access and to facilitate more efficient broadband uses, the FCC focuses on two core principals: innovation and inclusion.
As the United States continues to fall further and further behind other nations with respect to the quality and access of broadband services (EN9) it is imperative that we update our aging infrastructure. This modernization is essential if we are to “[maintain] the greatest tradition of innovation and entrepreneurship in the world—one that combines creativity with engineering to produce world-leading applications, devices and content, as well as the businesses that bring them to market.” (EN10) It is also important that we take measures to ensure affordable broadband access to all Americans so as to prevent inequality, facilitate the dissemination of information and to encourage political and civic participation:
“Absent action, the individual and societal costs of digital exclusion will grow. With so many Americans lacking broadband access or the skills to make it matter, the Internet has the potential to exacerbate inequality. If learning online accelerates your education, if working online earns you extra money, if searching for jobs online connects you to more opportunities, then for those offline, the gap only widens. If political dialogue moves to online forums, if the Internet becomes the comprehensive source of real-time news and information, if the easiest way to contact your political representatives is through e-mail or a website, then those offline become increasingly disenfranchised.” (EN11)
A comprehensive plan is therefore necessary to guarantee that the United States remains a leader in twenty-first century communications both technologically and collectively (ie. as a people). We must ultimately work to develop an increasingly rich and complex network of voices to facilitate the exchange of ideas.
National Broadband Plan Overview
I will briefly describe the proposed structure of the plan (note that the plan is incredibly detailed so I will try to avoid getting bogged down in minutiae).
Part 1 - Innovation and Investment: The FCC begins this section by outlining four areas where it believes government intervention is likely to advance the title objectives. The agency first proposes examining the broadband ecosystem – a system comprised of networks, devices and applications – in order to develop recommendations designed to maximize “competition for value across the ecosystem.” (EN12) Such recommendations include developing data-driven competition policies, increasing transparency for consumers and facilitating competition as between wholesale broadband providers. Second, the FCC looks to free up more spectrum. (EN13) “By ensuring spectrum is allocated and managed as efficiently as possible, the government can help reduce the costs borne by firms deploying network infrastructure, thus encouraging both competitive entry and increased investment by incumbent firms.” (EN14) Thirdly, the FCC proposes lowering infrastructure costs by regulating particular resources, such as “pole attachments and rights of way.” (EN15) Finally, the FCC seeks to [invest] directly through research and development (R+D). In other words, the government will directly finance certain R+D projects.
Part II - Inclusion: Here, the FCC “makes recommendations to ensure that any American who wants to subscribe to broadband can get the service.” (EN16) This section is divided into two chapters, eight and nine. “Chapter eight sets a path to providing broadband to all Americans by extending the network through public investment in privately owned infrastructure.” (EN17) The agency proposes increasing availability by implementing a three-stage process to “reform…universal service (EN18) and intercarrier compensation.” Much in the way the Federal government seeks to provide basic healthcare for all Americans, the FCC sets forth target dates by which ISPs are to provide broadband service at minimum threshold download speeds accessible to all Americans (ie. the FCC is setting a floor). “Chapter 9 examines the barriers many Americans face in adopting broadband—such as cost, digital literacy and relevance—and considers specific programs to reduce these barriers.” (EN19)
Part III - National Purposes: This section addresses how developing broadband service will improve particular “areas…vital to the nation’s prosperity.” (EN20) These areas include: healthcare; education; energy and environment; economic opportunity; government performance; civic engagement; public safety. According to the FCC, “[t]he plan includes recommendations designed to unleash increased use, private sector investment and innovation in these areas.” (EN21)
Benefits to Social Networking
At a fundamental level, one’s social networking experience is shaped by the breadth and quality of the individual computer users who constitute the network. My former Telecommunications professor, Arturo Gandara, described this phenomenon as the most important justification for the expanding the definition of universal service (supra) to include so-called “information services” such as Internet communications. Professor Gandara believed that the FCC could effectively bridge the “digital divide” (EN22) - which currently effects millions of Americans - through this action. The notion is that everyone connected to the network adds value to the network. Therefore, the more people who join the network, the greater the value.
This idea is bolstered by the fact that the network, itself, is shaped by the network users. Take technological advancement, for instance. According to Gandara, “[i]nnovation often emerges from usage, and the subsequent evolution of a technology is shaped jointly by users and providers…[Moreover, t]he true economic benefits of a particular technology can only be discovered and understood through sustained use and experimentation by a variety of different users.” (EN23) This principal applies with equal force to the development of a broadband ecosystem (supra). The more people who access and utilize a particular network the greater the likelihood that they will expose network inefficiencies. Such exposure typically leads the user’s service provider to take action or perhaps leads the consumer, herself, to invent some way around the problem.
If we are serious about promoting innovation and increasing access, users and providers, alike, must engage in a reciprocal “give and take” so as to improve network efficiency and increase the network’s value to network users. Social networkers stand to benefit in this regard should the FCC implement the various policies set forth in the national broadband plan, as more people would ultimately participate in this "give and take." However, it is unclear whether the agency has the explicit authority to carry out such measures in toto.
TO BE CONTINUED…
------ End Notes -------
EN 1 - http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.akingump.com%2Ffiles%2FPublication%2F14e0d53d-5f82-477d-a8a5-253dcc56feaa%2FPresentation%2FPublicationAttachment%2Fa2b51243-39fa-4a08-9871-2701be0d484a%2FBroadband%2520Funding%2520in%2520American%2520Recovey%2520and%2520Reinvestment%2520Act%2520of%25202009.pdf&ei=oTPDS5G9NoPTnAfMqaD5CQ&usg=AFQjCNHEFruyTlq5WDSB-oNkSdQM8tXUvQ&sig2=DD3NkiU6OrqePVuRL3lWOg
EN 2 - 6001(k)(2): “The national broadband plan required by this section shall seek to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability and shall establish benchmarks for meeting that goal. The plan shall also include:
•(A) an analysis of the most effective and efficient mechanisms for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States,
•(B) a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and service by the public,
•(C) an evaluation of the status of deployment of broadband service, including progress of projects supported by the grants made pursuant to this section, and
•(D) a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.”
EN 3 - http://www.montereyherald.com/technology/ci_14683784
EN 4 - Written Statement of Julius Genachowski, FCC Chairman, submitted to the Senate Commerce Commitee on April 14, 2010: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297494A1.pdf
EN 5 - http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297494A1.pdf
EN 6 - http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/86189-ensign-regulating-the-internet-a-qmajor-mistakeq
EN 7 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 3
EN 8 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 4
EN 9 - Chairman Genachowski details this trend in his written statement submitted to the Senate Commerce Committee referred to above: “First, studies place the U.S. as low as 18th when it comes to important attributes of broadband adoption and speeds. Our record shows roughly 65% adoption in the U.S. compared to significantly higher adoption percentages – up to 90% or more -- for some countries in Asia and Western Europe. One study ranks the U.S. 6th out of 40 industrial countries in innovative competitiveness – and 40th out of the 40 in “the rate of change in innovative capacity.” http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297494A1.pdf
EN 10 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 4
EN 11 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 5
EN 12 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 35
EN 13 - This term refers to the electromagnetic spectrum. The office of Engineering and Technology, one of eleven FCC staff offices, is charged with “manag[ing] the electromagnetic spectrum, specifically frequency allocation and spectrum usage.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
EN 14 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 29
EN 15 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 29
EN 16 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 129
EN 17 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 129
EN 18 - Universal service is a federally mandated program established pursuant to the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The goal of Universal Service is to provide affordable “telecommunications services” to all Americans. According to § 254(c)(1) of the statute, “universal service is an evolving level of telecommunications services that the Commission shall establish periodically under this section, taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services (emphasis mine). Note that the definition of universal service will change over time. The FCC is currently seeking to expand universal service to include broadband technology as a basic “telecommunication service.” This move would ensure that broadband service be made accessible to every citizen throughout the land.
EN 19 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 129
EN 20 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 129
EN 21 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” Executive Summary (p. xiii)
EN 22 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide
EN 23 - 33 Wake Forest L. Rev. 107, 121-122
On February 17, 2009 (this author’s 29th Birthday), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed into law. One component of this legislation was to designate funding to develop broadband infrastructure with the goal of increasing broadband access to all Americans. Specifically, “[t]he law contains $7.2 billion of new spending on broadband infrastructure deployment and related broadband matters, of which $4.7 billion will be administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and $2.5 billion will be administered by the Rural Utility Service (RUS), a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).” (EN1) While the grant money is to be distributed by the NTIA and RUS, congress simultaneously charged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with monitoring the use of these government subsidies as well as with developing a “national broadband plan “to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability.” (EN2)
The FCC submitted its national broadband plan (referred to herein as “the plan”) on March 16, 2010 (EN3) and last week began “the essential transition from planning to implementation.” (EN4) FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski reported yesterday that his agency has recently “releas[ed] a detailed agenda laying out a schedule for Commission proceedings and actions over the next year....” (EN5) While it is clear that the FCC is moving forward with the plan, the path to actual implementation will not be as smooth as some would have hoped. The recent DC Circuit decision, Comcast v. FCC (WL 1286658), reminds us that the FCC’s authority to regulate Internet communication remains murky. It is therefore important to keep in mind, should the FCC require additional powers to carry out any aspect of the plan, that some lawmakers have resisted calls to increase the FCC’s authority in this area. (EN6)
I will be dividing this discussion into two parts and it will therefore span the course of two blog posts. My first entry will detail why the plan is necessary as well as provide a brief overview of how the plan is structured. I will also explore how a national broadband plan will benefit the development and expansion of social networking. My second post will consider the possible impact of the Comcast ruling on the plan itself as well as its broader effect on FCC authority in general.
Why a national broadband plan?
According to the plan itself, “nearly 100 million Americans do not have broadband today[,]…[while] fourteen million Americans do not have access to broadband infrastructure that can support today’s and tomorrow’s applications.” (EN7) Moreover, “there are significant gaps in the utilization of broadband for other national priorities” (EN8) such as healthcare, education, national defense and law enforcement activities. To remedy this disparity in access and to facilitate more efficient broadband uses, the FCC focuses on two core principals: innovation and inclusion.
As the United States continues to fall further and further behind other nations with respect to the quality and access of broadband services (EN9) it is imperative that we update our aging infrastructure. This modernization is essential if we are to “[maintain] the greatest tradition of innovation and entrepreneurship in the world—one that combines creativity with engineering to produce world-leading applications, devices and content, as well as the businesses that bring them to market.” (EN10) It is also important that we take measures to ensure affordable broadband access to all Americans so as to prevent inequality, facilitate the dissemination of information and to encourage political and civic participation:
“Absent action, the individual and societal costs of digital exclusion will grow. With so many Americans lacking broadband access or the skills to make it matter, the Internet has the potential to exacerbate inequality. If learning online accelerates your education, if working online earns you extra money, if searching for jobs online connects you to more opportunities, then for those offline, the gap only widens. If political dialogue moves to online forums, if the Internet becomes the comprehensive source of real-time news and information, if the easiest way to contact your political representatives is through e-mail or a website, then those offline become increasingly disenfranchised.” (EN11)
A comprehensive plan is therefore necessary to guarantee that the United States remains a leader in twenty-first century communications both technologically and collectively (ie. as a people). We must ultimately work to develop an increasingly rich and complex network of voices to facilitate the exchange of ideas.
National Broadband Plan Overview
I will briefly describe the proposed structure of the plan (note that the plan is incredibly detailed so I will try to avoid getting bogged down in minutiae).
Part 1 - Innovation and Investment: The FCC begins this section by outlining four areas where it believes government intervention is likely to advance the title objectives. The agency first proposes examining the broadband ecosystem – a system comprised of networks, devices and applications – in order to develop recommendations designed to maximize “competition for value across the ecosystem.” (EN12) Such recommendations include developing data-driven competition policies, increasing transparency for consumers and facilitating competition as between wholesale broadband providers. Second, the FCC looks to free up more spectrum. (EN13) “By ensuring spectrum is allocated and managed as efficiently as possible, the government can help reduce the costs borne by firms deploying network infrastructure, thus encouraging both competitive entry and increased investment by incumbent firms.” (EN14) Thirdly, the FCC proposes lowering infrastructure costs by regulating particular resources, such as “pole attachments and rights of way.” (EN15) Finally, the FCC seeks to [invest] directly through research and development (R+D). In other words, the government will directly finance certain R+D projects.
Part II - Inclusion: Here, the FCC “makes recommendations to ensure that any American who wants to subscribe to broadband can get the service.” (EN16) This section is divided into two chapters, eight and nine. “Chapter eight sets a path to providing broadband to all Americans by extending the network through public investment in privately owned infrastructure.” (EN17) The agency proposes increasing availability by implementing a three-stage process to “reform…universal service (EN18) and intercarrier compensation.” Much in the way the Federal government seeks to provide basic healthcare for all Americans, the FCC sets forth target dates by which ISPs are to provide broadband service at minimum threshold download speeds accessible to all Americans (ie. the FCC is setting a floor). “Chapter 9 examines the barriers many Americans face in adopting broadband—such as cost, digital literacy and relevance—and considers specific programs to reduce these barriers.” (EN19)
Part III - National Purposes: This section addresses how developing broadband service will improve particular “areas…vital to the nation’s prosperity.” (EN20) These areas include: healthcare; education; energy and environment; economic opportunity; government performance; civic engagement; public safety. According to the FCC, “[t]he plan includes recommendations designed to unleash increased use, private sector investment and innovation in these areas.” (EN21)
Benefits to Social Networking
At a fundamental level, one’s social networking experience is shaped by the breadth and quality of the individual computer users who constitute the network. My former Telecommunications professor, Arturo Gandara, described this phenomenon as the most important justification for the expanding the definition of universal service (supra) to include so-called “information services” such as Internet communications. Professor Gandara believed that the FCC could effectively bridge the “digital divide” (EN22) - which currently effects millions of Americans - through this action. The notion is that everyone connected to the network adds value to the network. Therefore, the more people who join the network, the greater the value.
This idea is bolstered by the fact that the network, itself, is shaped by the network users. Take technological advancement, for instance. According to Gandara, “[i]nnovation often emerges from usage, and the subsequent evolution of a technology is shaped jointly by users and providers…[Moreover, t]he true economic benefits of a particular technology can only be discovered and understood through sustained use and experimentation by a variety of different users.” (EN23) This principal applies with equal force to the development of a broadband ecosystem (supra). The more people who access and utilize a particular network the greater the likelihood that they will expose network inefficiencies. Such exposure typically leads the user’s service provider to take action or perhaps leads the consumer, herself, to invent some way around the problem.
If we are serious about promoting innovation and increasing access, users and providers, alike, must engage in a reciprocal “give and take” so as to improve network efficiency and increase the network’s value to network users. Social networkers stand to benefit in this regard should the FCC implement the various policies set forth in the national broadband plan, as more people would ultimately participate in this "give and take." However, it is unclear whether the agency has the explicit authority to carry out such measures in toto.
TO BE CONTINUED…
------ End Notes -------
EN 1 - http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.akingump.com%2Ffiles%2FPublication%2F14e0d53d-5f82-477d-a8a5-253dcc56feaa%2FPresentation%2FPublicationAttachment%2Fa2b51243-39fa-4a08-9871-2701be0d484a%2FBroadband%2520Funding%2520in%2520American%2520Recovey%2520and%2520Reinvestment%2520Act%2520of%25202009.pdf&ei=oTPDS5G9NoPTnAfMqaD5CQ&usg=AFQjCNHEFruyTlq5WDSB-oNkSdQM8tXUvQ&sig2=DD3NkiU6OrqePVuRL3lWOg
EN 2 - 6001(k)(2): “The national broadband plan required by this section shall seek to ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability and shall establish benchmarks for meeting that goal. The plan shall also include:
•(A) an analysis of the most effective and efficient mechanisms for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States,
•(B) a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and service by the public,
•(C) an evaluation of the status of deployment of broadband service, including progress of projects supported by the grants made pursuant to this section, and
•(D) a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.”
EN 3 - http://www.montereyherald.com/technology/ci_14683784
EN 4 - Written Statement of Julius Genachowski, FCC Chairman, submitted to the Senate Commerce Commitee on April 14, 2010: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297494A1.pdf
EN 5 - http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297494A1.pdf
EN 6 - http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/86189-ensign-regulating-the-internet-a-qmajor-mistakeq
EN 7 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 3
EN 8 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 4
EN 9 - Chairman Genachowski details this trend in his written statement submitted to the Senate Commerce Committee referred to above: “First, studies place the U.S. as low as 18th when it comes to important attributes of broadband adoption and speeds. Our record shows roughly 65% adoption in the U.S. compared to significantly higher adoption percentages – up to 90% or more -- for some countries in Asia and Western Europe. One study ranks the U.S. 6th out of 40 industrial countries in innovative competitiveness – and 40th out of the 40 in “the rate of change in innovative capacity.” http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297494A1.pdf
EN 10 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 4
EN 11 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 5
EN 12 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 35
EN 13 - This term refers to the electromagnetic spectrum. The office of Engineering and Technology, one of eleven FCC staff offices, is charged with “manag[ing] the electromagnetic spectrum, specifically frequency allocation and spectrum usage.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
EN 14 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 29
EN 15 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 29
EN 16 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 129
EN 17 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 129
EN 18 - Universal service is a federally mandated program established pursuant to the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The goal of Universal Service is to provide affordable “telecommunications services” to all Americans. According to § 254(c)(1) of the statute, “universal service is an evolving level of telecommunications services that the Commission shall establish periodically under this section, taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services (emphasis mine). Note that the definition of universal service will change over time. The FCC is currently seeking to expand universal service to include broadband technology as a basic “telecommunication service.” This move would ensure that broadband service be made accessible to every citizen throughout the land.
EN 19 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 129
EN 20 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” p. 129
EN 21 - “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” Executive Summary (p. xiii)
EN 22 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide
EN 23 - 33 Wake Forest L. Rev. 107, 121-122
Posts
1 comments:
Great post, Daniel - I learned a lot from it and look forward to the second installment. It is really interesting to see the theme of innovation that runs through nearly every Obama program, including healthcare reform. Here the idea that we need universal broadband access so that all individuals can become participants in innovation and making our political and technological culture is revolutionary. The focus is not simply on providing access to knowledge to all, but on empowering users to become producers of knowledge themselves.
Post a Comment