The start of robust broadband deployment in the U.S. was delayed for several years in the late 1990's because of regulatory uncertainty over whether broadband investment could earn a competitive return.
- Today's release of the proposed economic stimulus package is extremely relevant to the question of investment in Universal Broadband; it says: "For every dollar invested in broadband, the economy sees a ten-fold return on that investment."
- Recent guidance from the OBama transition team spearheading the Universal Broadband effort is also encouraging. At the State of the Net Conference, Blair Levin said: "You don't want to do anything that makes a competitive market more difficult."
The 'open' question for the new Government is whether open Internet means promoting the consensus goal of expanding Internet access to all Americans through expanding broadband deployment and adoption, or whether open Internet means transforming the Internet from the current voluntary commercial cybrastructure to a regulatorily coerced and dictated cybrastructure.
- As I explained in my analysis on this topic last week about the proverbial wisdom -- "chase two rabbits, catch none" -- net neutrality and promoting universal broadband are opposite policy goals -- "broadband rabbits" running fast in opposite directions.
So what uncertainty is hanging over the Universal Broadband goal?
First, will the new Government's consensus be pragmatically focused on economic growth, job creation and promoting investment through Universal Broadband and other cybrastructure investment? Or will the political consensus be to pursue the opposing economic goals of universal broadband and net neutrality/open Internet regulations?
Second, when and how will the true intentions of the new Government become clear on net neutrality?
- Is the true intention really to simply prevent anti-competitive behavior and protect free speech, which is what the FCC principles and the existing case-by-case process already accomplish?
- Or is it just a stalking horse and stealthy political word play by some to ignite a re-fight, re-litigation or overhaul of the 1996 Telecom Act?
- The second Markey net neutrality bill proposed in 2007 looked a lot more like a legislative overhaul in that it would have effectively replaced the promotion of competition as the FCC's guiding principle with the promotion of Internet openness regulation as the FCC's guiding principle.
- Simply, is the real agenda to work within current bi-partisan competition law and policy, or is it to effectively overhaul it all?
Third, how will the new Government define net neutrality and an Open Internet? Definitions matter; they determine who/what is regulated and who/what is not.
- To date no one has come close to defining net neutrality outside of the FCC's Broadband Principles.
- Is the new Government's Net neutrality definition:
- Free speech -- the First Amendment of the Internet?
- Fairness -- a one-tier Internet?
- Preventing anti-competitive discrimination?
- Mandating an end-to-end technology architecture -- i.e. silo-ifying the Internet as a monolithic technology like, telecom, cable, wireless, and satellite before it?
Fourth, will the current FCC net neutrality approach continue as a case-by-case enforcement process of isolated specific violations, or will the new Government pursue a new rule that prophylactically applies to all layers/actors whether or not they have ever violated the FCC's principles?
Fifth, will the new Government continue the policy and legal precedent of technological neutrality, i.e. not favoring one set of competitors over another? Or will the policy not be neutral among technological layers, i.e. foster layer discrimination based on perceived innovation benefits -- and establish different formal standards of competition and discrimination for different technology layers?
Sixth, will broadband policies foster widespread investment and union/non-union job creation, in the whole country, for all Americans, in all Internet layers? Or will broadband policies discriminate in favor of application-layer innovation largely in Silicon Valley and California?
Bottom line:
Signals so far are encouraging that the new FCC's goals and actions will be in synch with, and sensitive to, the new Government's urgent need to grow the economy, create jobs, and promote investment.
Focusing on the broad and deep consensus behind promoting Universal Broadband soonest is a important win-win situation for America and the new Government.
- That is in stark contrast to the potential lose-lose situation that could arise from aggressively pursuing a new, unnecessary and highly-controversial net neutrality regulatory regime that could...
- Create tremendous broadband investment uncertainty; and
- Undercut the consensus effort to: promote Universal Broadband, grow the economy, and create good jobs.
The economy does not need the net neutrality drama.
