Net Neutrality For All, Part 2

You can read Part 1 of this article here.

Technology & Implementation at the Local Level

The Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, which is the official title of the broadband stimulus, does call for the maximum use of the infrastructure,[11] which could suggest lower speed connections. However, Obama is a supporter of fiber optic technology.[12] This will inevitably be the primary technology that his administration pushes for when details are hammered out in the months following stimulus passage.[13] Regulating a specific technology is not appropriate for the future of the Internet. One solution to network infrastructure will be stifling for innovation and the use of many available technologies that exist in the market place to extend and improve broadband availability. Additionally, networks that would be required to be open access would regulate the type of network that could be built, and determine its usefulness. And regulating network design may well hinder that networks ability to truly be innovative and useful in decades to come.

Christopher Yoo, legal professor at The University of Pennsylvania points out that, ?Consumer demand for more time-sensitive applications, such as Internet telephony and streaming media, may be providing much of the impetus away from standardization. Forbidding network owners to introduce routers that can assign different priority levels to packets based on the nature of the application would have the effect of precluding consumers from enjoying the benefits of certain types of applications. The current ubiquity of TCP/IP makes it seem like an appropriate default rule and appears to justify placing the burden on those who would deviate from it. A moment?s reflection makes clear how adherence to the Internet?s nonproprietary structure may actually impede innovation?.[14]

With Obama already being billed as the ?Science and Technology President? and claiming to ?restore science to its rightful place,?[15] in his inauguration speech, it would seem impeding innovation with regulations that may become a burden under future network technologies would be counter to his goals of progress in those areas. Additionally, settling for one design as a national broadband standard will prove cost inefficient. The optimal expedition of future network expansion and improvement needs to include many differing technologies based on what is needed at the local level. Preferably, competition between last-mile providers would create the best options for the consumer. Local market competition along with a survey of the needs of that community, extended area, or region should determine what broadband technologies are best. But in any case, an examination of available technologies and what suits each community is the most optimal route with a consideration of many options including cable DOCSIS 3.0 technology, WiMax, Fiber Optic, Hybrid-Fiber, new innovations with Satellite and Satellite-Hybrid networks.

The expansion of broadband Internet use in the United States produced innumerous innovations.[16] Nearing the end of 2007, broadband Internet usage had captured some 78% of the of all Internet connectivity in the nation.[17] And by mid-2008 was expected to reach 90%.[18] Leonard Waverman, the dean of the Haskayne School of Business at the University of Calgary and developer of the ?Broadband Scorecard? has stated that America leads the world in using broadband technologies in the workplace for economical means. Alluding to the mythology that Korea?s high-speed connections to the home are the end-all-be-all example of what America should strive for, he said, ?Korea has great broadband to the house, but businesses in Korea don?t use the best networks and don?t have the skills and computing assets they need to take advantage of them.?[19] This is where America shines, and we have been doing this through private sector investment in infrastructure.

Additionally, we are probably nearing a saturation point. Evidence of this was shown in the Pew Internet & American Life Project that reports two-thirds of those without broadband don?t want it.[20] This is most certainly a reality. No matter how much those in the technology community belabor the joys of using broadband, to some, it will always be a useless toy and not a necessity. Many individuals only use Internet at work as a tool for their profession. Some may only check email or use the Internet for very infrequent, light browsing. For these individuals, and countless other examples, the need for broadband is unnecessary, or its additional expense cannot be justified. This is similar to individuals choosing higher octane gasoline. Some buy cars that require a higher octane and they justify the expense, while to others the lowest grade will operate their car just as well, and the added cost of a higher grade is wasteful. The market provides options, and the consumer chooses what works best for them.

Certainly, without question, the Internet?s existence has been a remarkable boon to the US and world economies. Being that broadband Internet has allowed a richer more in-depth experience to be had by the end user, it certainly suggests that the extension of broadband networks in the U.S. could increase the opportunities both start-ups and end users may have. Furthermore, the reach of content providers whose offerings to the consumer requires broadband speeds would be greatly extended. Individuals who may not have had access to a fee based streaming media service for instance, would now have those services at their finger tips, and would be paying back into the economy.

Where the trouble lies in all of this is that someone has to build these rural networks. And this will not be cheap. To work effectively, broadband technologies must remain close to an Internet backbone. Based on this, using Verizon FiOS for example, the costs of running fiber all the way to the home can be extreme. Verizon has spent roughly $18-$20 billion doing so.[21] AT&T has spent considerably less, roughly $6.5 billion using VDSL technology, which is a hybrid-fiber connection using the existing coaxial network in ones home.[22] Additionally, bear in mind that both companies are upgrading their networks in areas with major Internet backbones. President Obama?s broadband stimulus is intended to build networks in a method that will ?maximize use of the supported infrastructure by the public,?[23] which indicates clearly that the objective is to reach more with less instead of less with more. The FCC has defined broadband to be access to the Internet at speeds of at least 768Kbps,[24] and therefore the proposed stimulus for broadband would require the grantee to build a network that would provide as many greater than or equal to 768Kbps connections as possible, rather than a smaller higher bandwidth network. This is honorable in its goal to reach individuals that do not have broadband connectivity in rural areas that may desire it. However, if by the time the network is built it lags behind the rest of network technology, and more money has to be spent to upgrade it, building a more future-proof smaller network and expanding it on an as needed basis may be a better option, and one that could more readily be handled by the private sector. In either case, going back to the original examples, the project will be extremely expensive, because not only will it incur the costs of the area network itself, but will require the extension of a backbone brought to the area. In a report on broadband stimulus by Free Press, it is estimated that installing a Fiber-to-the-Home network for the 6-8 million unserved homes across America will cost roughly $2,000-$5,000 per home, ultimately billing out between $12-$40 billion.[25] Ultimately, the costs will most likely be too high for the government to desire to handle on their own, especially considering that the $7 billion included in the stimulus is actually separated into different areas of provision related to broadband. The use of the USF and other Congressional aid may be sought in the future to provide the additional funds required to build out a future proof network like this. However, the majority of the costs for building these networks will most likely be incurred by the grantee. Yet it will be this grantee that will be forced to adhere to a taxing set of regulations.

To be continued…

Part 3 here.

-nick