State Of The Net: Blair Levin Tells Us To Not Freak Out Yet On Obama's Broadband Plan

from the benefit-of-the-doubt? dept

While we certainly think that having a better broadband policy in the US is an important step, there's a difference between just saying that you have a broadband policy, and actually implementing a plan that helps improve broadband. The devil's in the details, as they say. And... so far, the details that have come out have suggested that the key elements under discussion look something like a boondoggle for incumbent providers, rather than a truly comprehensive plan to stimulate actual competition in the broadband space.

On Wednesday, I got to attend the Congressional Internet Caucus' State of the Net 2009 conference, where the opening (surprise) speaker, was Blair Levin, one of President Elect Obama's tech transition team. In his remarks, he clearly tried to respond to these criticisms raised by us and others by suggesting (1) that the team is still tossing up a variety of ideas and nothing has been concluded and (2) there are two elements that need to be considered: (a) a short-term "stimulus" plan to get the economy churning and create new jobs and (b) a more comprehensive broadband policy. From this, he suggested that the first part -- the "stimulus" part -- would have to involve "existing structures" (i.e., the incumbents), but that was only a piece and "not the whole puzzle" or "just an inning, not the whole ballgame."

While it's a relief that the tech team recognizes there is a larger issue, I think it's important to keep hammering home the point, because this has all the warning signs of a "best laid plans..." situation. The initial "bailout" (and the ISP representatives keep making sure to say "it's a buildout, not a bailout") as an initial stimulus just seems ripe for abuse. The incumbent players have almost no record of either playing fair on these issues or delivering what they promise to deliver. And, why should they? There's been no downside to simply accepting the subsidies and not delivering. And, of course, after that happens, there may be the next crisis to deal with. Do we ever get that really comprehensive broadband plan? Remember, President Bush also had big plans to provide a massive broadband policy... and that went nowhere.

While I understand the point that Levin is making for separating out the short term action and the long term action, it's still not clear that the short term strategy makes sense and will do what it's supposed to do. And then there are questions about whether or not the long term strategy will ever actually show up. Combined... you have to wonder if we're just hearing a lot of hype about nothing. I'm sure Levin and the rest of the team are earnest in what they want to do. From what I've seen from the folks working on the transition, there are an awful lot of really smart, dedicated and sincere folks involved. So that's (at least) a good first step. But going from there to actually implementing something real that's useful? That's a big step, and we've heard enough vague promises over the years not to take such a promise at face value. Hopefully, we'll be surprised, and both the short and long term plans will make sense -- but considering how many times the "best laid plans" of government officials have gone off the road and into a ditch, it's hard to provide the benefit of the doubt without at least a little more info on what's really happening.

Filed Under: blair levin, broadband, broadband policy, obama

Connected Nation: National Broadband Policy Or Big Telco Front?

from the questions-questions dept

For years, we've pointed out that, unlike most every other nation these days, the US lacks any sort of comprehensive broadband policy. Whether or not you think that's a good thing may depend on your perspective -- even among free market supporters. If you believe that broadband is a national infrastructure question involving a natural monopoly (a la the highway system) then it's a shame that there's no national broadband system that allows competition at the service level. If, instead, you think that broadband is not a natural monopoly then perhaps competition at the infrastructure level makes sense, even if it decreases competition at the service level. However, there's definitely been a lot of clamoring from folks that the US needs a national broadband policy. For years, the big telcos have resisted this push, often with incredibly misleading statements about how the government needs to keep its "hands off" their network. That's misleading because they leave out how much of that infrastructure was subsidized by the government -- whether through direct subsidies, grants of rights of way or tax breaks.

Either way, it appears that the telcos have recognized that they need to get behind a "national broadband policy" before one is handed to them -- so they've created their own, called Connected Nation. We discussed this back in February, when there was some question about whether Connected Nation really was a reasonable policy or just a front for the telcos. One of the biggest problems? The more you look at Connected Nation, the more difficult it is to figure out what it actually does. Broadband Reports is taking a look at the problems with Connected Nation, noting that the big telcos are all claiming that it represents a good national broadband policy, but that's hardly supported by the details.

For example, Connected Nation's broadband plan doesn't seem to involve anything resembling consumer advocates, or any objective look at ways to get broadband to those not served by it. But what does Connected Nation actually do? Basically tells the rest of the government that everything is groovy and not to do anything. Officially it takes taxpayer money to create its own questionable maps about broadband penetration, most of which come back showing that there's plenty of broadband penetration (nothing to see here, move along now). Then it sends out marketing material to local leaders about the importance of broadband -- effectively advertising incumbent telco broadband offerings with taxpayer money. Whether or not you support a national broadband policy, this seems pretty questionable all around. It seems to just divert taxpayer money to broadband advertising, without doing much to actually improve broadband.

Filed Under: broadband policy, telcos
Companies: connected nation

When Will We Have a Comprehensive National Sneaker Strategy?

from the parallel-processing dept

My fellow Arsian Nate Anderson blasts the Bush administration for its laissez faire attitude toward the development of broadband infrastructure. He laments the fact that the administration lacks a "vision" or "national target" for broadband deployment. DSL Reports chimes in, noting that Japan claims to have deployed 100 Mbps fiber to eighty five percent of its homes. But Matt Sherman points out that while "we," meaning the government, may not have a single, unified broadband strategy, "we" the broader marketplace have several broadband strategies being developed in parallel. As he says, Verizon's strategy is fiber-to-the-home, AT&T's strategy is fiber-to-the-node, Sprint's strategy is WiMax, etc. Which of these will prove the most effective? I have no idea. But it's also not clear to me how greater federal government involvement in these deployments would speed them up. Matt also notes the peculiarity of using advertised broadband speeds as a measure of broadband quality. He's got a graph showing that, by at least some measures, North America leads the world in the deployed speed of actual measured broadband connections. Comparing advertised speeds can be problematic, especially since some countries have low usage caps that make the high advertised speeds and low advertised prices extremely misleading. There are certainly plenty of problems with the broadband marketplace, not least the limited amount of competition in many markets. But calling for a "comprehensive national broadband strategy" doesn't make a lot of sense. We need to find ways to increase competition and remove obstacles to the deployment of more capacity, but we don't need a national strategy for the broadband industry any more than we need a national strategy for the production of tennis shoes.

Filed Under: broadband policy, competition, us