National Broadband: Definition Must Come Before Action

National Broadband: Definition Must Come Before Action

Kelly M. Teal

Xchange magazine

06/12/2009

Movement has begun on formation a national broadband strategy, a project assigned to the FCC by Congress as part of this year’s American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). Now, with the first round of comments on the proposed plan closed, the FCC can start hashing through myriad details, beginning at one very basic point: how to define broadband.

The definition dilemma drew dozens of responses in the 540 total comments submitted. Numerous other issues also were raised, but the FCC cannot realistically weave a national broadband program until it knows what broadband means.

Of the hundreds of filings, an estimated two-thirds came from the general public. Most of the communications industry made an appearance, too – including the Bells, several CLECs, WiMAX network operators, satellite and telecom service providers, equipment makers, Web 2.0 firms, cablecos, relevant associations and pundits – with each party addressing the usual pet subjects. For example, CLECs again pushed for reforms on several fronts: special access, forbearance, unbundling and so on. In the cable industry, pole attachment rates remain top of mind. And among almost all providers, net neutrality and network management also are of concern. But before the FCC can change existing regulations, it must deal with some underlying matters – namely, figuring out what exactly constitutes broadband.

Right now the FCC considers 768kbps to qualify as basic broadband service. That speed generally is considered fast enough to accommodate e-mail and Web site access, as well as media streaming and downloading. But a lot of communications companies are calling on the FCC to define broadband first by the network that delivers it, and then the rate at which it is delivered.

Speed the Only Factor?

Utopian Wireless Corp. is one of the companies that proposes the commission consider fixed and mobile broadband as separate entities. The Maryland-based company, headed by a former National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) director and a long-time telecom lawyer and executive, said the two types of networks “should not be considered duplicative and should be defined in terms of speed.”

“Portable/mobile nomadic broadband should be defined as having a minimum download speed of 3mbps. Fixed broadband should be defined as having a much higher minimum download speed of 20mbps. Speed is essentially what broadband means, contrary to what monopoly service providers may claim," Utopian Wireless said in its comments.

Indeed, AT&T Inc.(T) said using speed as the only or primary definition of broadband no longer makes sense.

"Depending on the context, factors such as cost, reliability, coverage, mobility, energy consumption, or security can be much more important than the throughput of a particular broadband network or service," the carrier said. "For example, a fixed wireline service that meets some artificial throughput floor will not satisfy the needs of rural health care providers who make house calls in remote areas or the needs of public safety officers who must respond to emergencies wherever and whenever they arise."

Qwest Communications International Inc.(Q) and Verizon Communications Inc.(VZ), meanwhile, each waltzed around the speed question, which could prove problematic because the FCC needs precise material.

Qwest tied speed to the ARRA’s goals, stating the FCC first should, before anything else, focus on deploying broadband to unserved areas, as the economic stimulus charges.

"This notion of first ensuring basic broadband access and then providing enhanced speeds/access permeates the debate over the act and should be the focus of the Recovery Act stimulus efforts," Qwest wrote.

Verizon made similar comments. Policymakers “should avoid arbitrary definitions or conceptions about the definition of 'broadband,' given the many differences in the way that consumes use or think about broadband – beyond speed thresholds," it said.

Carriers concerned with the so-called “middle mile” also avoided offering outright speed recommendations, arguing – like many of their peers – that such requirements will grow obsolete as technology advances. Level 3 Communications Inc.(LVLT) presented this view, a perspective that likely is shared by rivals such as Global Crossing(GLBC), a vocal middle-mile proponent that, interestingly, did not file comments in this round. Global Crossing, along with some other providers, is watching from the sidelines. This quiet group is waiting to read what its counterparts with a more direct interest in national broadband have to say before filing comments of their own.

FCC: Give Us ‘Best Possible’ Feedback

Others in the industry aren’t so timid. Web 2.0 companies, for instance, do want the FCC to set certain thresholds; as online content providers without Internet networks, their livelihoods rely on providing high-bandwidth media such as video streaming and downloading. Thus, the faster the networks run, the better the quality of the services and content they offer.

Microsoft Corp.(MSFT), for example, pitched the idea of two speed tiers: one for residential users and one for institutions such as universities and hospitals.

On the consumer side, the software giant said downstream speeds should be at least 4mbps and upstream speeds should range from 1mbps to 2mbps. For institutions, those numbers would increase to a “preferably symmetrical” 100mbps, Microsoft said.

Further, Microsoft added, “While it ought to go without saying, both ... definitions of baseline broadband should be updated periodically as applications, services and expectations evolve. ... Those who receive subsidized baseline capacity should not be at risk of seeing their connectivity, relatively speaking, fade from something meaningful to something effectively non-functional.”

Google Inc.(GOOG), however, offered less clarity than Microsoft. The FCC should note “that broadband is not the Internet, or even access to the Internet," Google said. "Rather, broadband is a technology-neutral, high-speed communications platform that allows users to harness the Internet, access and upload content, and otherwise engage in high-speed, two-way connectivity and interactivity."

On the whole, the FCC faces a gargantuan task, particularly when it comes to sorting detailed responses from more “let the market decide” feedback. Congress wants the national broadband plan by Feb. 17, 2010, so it can start making broadband available to any American who wants it. To that end, the FCC’s acting chairman, Michael Copps, is wasting no time tackling the Congressional mandate. Copps has brought back Blair Levin, who was FCC chief of staff during the Clinton Administration and later a telecom analyst, to oversee the broadband venture. Plus, the next round of comments is due July 7. In other words, things are moving quickly. And, to that end, if Copps’ previous statements are any indication, the FCC needs concrete ideas before it can set policy. Vague suggestions apparently won’t make the cut. As Copps said in April: “If we want the best possible product going out, we need the best possible data, analysis and recommendations coming in.”