FCC is Catching Up

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is working on the first national broadband plan for the U.S.

Better late than never.

During yesterday's stop on the FCC Summer Tour, its new chairman, Julius Genachowski, referred to broadband as this generation's highway system. They are ambitious words ... if not original.

The same exact point was made here over 3 years ago. Again, better late than never.

There is a major difference between our broadband highway and the asphalt highways built in the 1950s to connect America. Broadband is much more important to America's future.

Broadband does not to just connect our cities; it connects our lives. Broadband reaches into every house, every business, every hospital, every school and will power endless innovations that will re-shape our lives.

And a policy of net neutrality is vital for keeping these digital roads flat and fast-moving for everyone. Without it, broadband will turn into an endless series of toll roads on which those people and companies who buy the Easy Pass move fast while the rest crawl along in the right lane.

There won't be any Cash for Clunkers program if that happens.

Categories: netneutrality, broadband, FCC

Free Highways : 20th Century as ...

Cheap cars and free highways transformed America in the 20th Century. $100 laptops and free wi-fi broadband can do the same thing for the 21st Century.

It is a simple analogy ...

Free highways : 20th Century as Free Wi-Fi : 21st Century.

The Internet is our new national highway, or it should be. Like the original highway system, it is fundamental to both our national economic and security future. There will be a direct correlation between levels of broadband penetration and a nation's capacity for innovation and growth rates. That correlation probably exists already.

It's all about highways. Asphalt highways are about getting from here to there (a far away "there") quickly. Broadband is about the same thing, only you are moving across cyberspace, and moving much faster.

The U.S. -- indeed every government -- should treat broadband Internet access as priority public infrastructure. Investing in building broadband networks is as important today as construction of the national highway system was in the 1940s.

The highway system would not have worked if only most people could drive on it. It would not have worked if a few companies controlled the on ramps, or bundled packages of roads together for a fixed access price. Anything like that would have only one effect: fewer users and less economic activity. It is the same for broadband Internet.

The debate over "net neutrality" is important. But, honestly, it is in some ways a "high class" problem, as FCC Chairman William Kennard notes in his op-ed article in today's NY Times. The bigger debate is whether government should invest in broadband Internet as public infrastructure and a national priority?

Let's face the reality that Lawrence Lessig so perfectly describes ... "U.S. broadband sucks — it is too slow, it is too expensive, and it is too unavailable." His FT piece is here.

Chairman Kennard makes some excellent points, but misses the mark in his final words. As he put it, policymakers should focus on "getting affordable broadband access to those who need it." Actually, we should focus on getting affordable broadband access to EVERYONE.

Net Neutrality Ghost Towns

You want to know what telco/cable industry FUD (or b.s. in the vernacular) about net neutrality sounds like? Here it is uncut and uninterrupted, courtesy of Jason Wright of the Institute for Liberty (a name which could only be inspired by "Brave New World" or a post-9/11 bill in Congress):

A conservative-leaning colleague from a previous life emailed today and asked if I could break down the dicey net neutrality issue in the simplest terms possible. "Sure," I replied, "it stinks." This complex issue has been simplified in recent weeks to this simple question: Who do your trust?

Do you trust MoveOn.org and their celebrity network tech experts including Moby, Alyssa Milano and rockers REM? Of do you trust every free-market and limited government advocate including think-tanks and associations?

Do you trust pro-regulation liberals like Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) or do you trust economists that have studied the issue ad nauseum and are united in their opposition to any efforts to impose government-defined net neutrality?

It's just not that complicated, fence sitters. `Net neutrality is unnecessary government tinkering in the private sector. It's an effort to wrap the web in a regulatory mess that gives Congress and the FCC the keys to its future. Excuse me, but I'd rather consumers determine what the next decade holds, not professional bureaucrats.

See how FUD works? Divert attention with labels. Celebrities vs. free market. Liberals vs. economists. Bureaucrats vs. consumers. Easy call, right? We know which ones feel right. When you see someone throwing that many labels at you, watch out ... and grab a shovel because a snowjob is coming your way.

I've blogged about the pros and cons of net neutrality. And yes, I've mentioned celebrity supporters. But don't let their celebrity distract you. Think of them as Content Creaters. Just like the people who write blogs, post photos, build websites, write articles, post comments. The difference is that these high-profile Content Creators have a lot at stake, including money. Ironically, REM and Moby would likely make more money without net neutrality. Their "content" is valuable and has huge audiences. You can bet that telcos/cables will stream their music and concert video at top speed. Why? Because millions of people are willing to pay for it, and already have. They don't need net neutrality. I do. You do.

This blogger and most people will not pay the premium price to have their non-commercial, homemade content delivered at top speed. We will be coming to you on the slower road. And people's natural instinct is to avoid the slow road. This blog will be the small town that the information superhighway passes. You could get off and visit, but most likely you won't. You'll keep going until you reach the big rest stop with all the well-known fast food places and gas stations.

And let's be clear about one more thing: Net neutrality is how the Internet has worked since Day 1. All that innovative content--websites, blogs, P2P, community spaces, photo sharing, search, streaming videos, news feeds--was created under the umbrella of a net neutral Internet. It is not new. It is not a government imposed "regulatory mess." It is the status quo, and it's worked brilliantly.

The only reason people (including legislators) are talking about net neutrality is because telcos/cables want to change how the Internet works. They want to charge extra for bringing you rich multimedia content, like movies. They are after more money, which is fine. But their desire to squeeze more revenues out of their ownership of broadband networks will have a serious impact on how the Internet works.

And it will create a whole lot of ghost towns on the Internet. Maybe even this blog.

Internet Wise Guys

Tony Soprano isn't the only wiseguy in Jersey who knows how to profit from a little leverage.

So does this guy . . . Ed Whitacre, AT&T's Chairman and CEO.

And he intends to squeeze money out of AT&T's position as one of the owners of America's broadband infrastructure.

Other people counter that there is choice in broadband access, so if a telco or cable gouges customers with expensive packages or discriminates against content that customers wants at high speed, then customers will walk and the telco will lose business. In short, the market will correct any problems.

But, the vast majority of Americans (and probably other countries) have either zero, one or two choices for broadband access. It is a highly concentrated market, and with cable it is a government-created oligopoly.

Concentration of power, as Tony Soprano will tell you, creates multiple opportunities to muscle in on business and extract money from companies afraid of having delivery of their content somehow degraded. That's the name of the game, whether it's construction, trucking or the Internet.

So, are Ed Whitacre, Verizon's Ivan Seidenberg and BellSouth’s CTO Bill Smith future Internet Wise Men or just Internet Wiseguys?

Net Neutrality: Coming to a Politician Near You

Net neutrality is fast becoming a political football in Washington. Today, Democrats in Congress hit back against a Republican-backed telecom bill for its failure to protect net neutrality.

Jay Inslee, a Congressman from Washington, put his finger right on the button:

The ones that get hurt are the young innovators, the garage innovators, the small-business innovators, the ones that have not achieved the great success of the Googles of the world.

So far, the only excuse offered by Republicans against net neutrality is that no good definition exists. Feeble. Especially since their bill would prevent the FCC from trying to develop a workable definition, or considering any regulations on net neutrality. That's more than feeble; it's disingenuous.

Worse, the people who will feel the pain are consumers and all those entrpreneurs out there creating innovative content who won't be able to afford those "premium" fees the cable companies will soon be charging for life in the fast lane.