Brookings: Topics - Broadband Policy

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:00:00 -0500

Event Information

January 16, 2013
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM EST

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included $7.2 billion to expand access to high-speed Internet services to close the digital divide, drive economic growth, and build the technology infrastructure and skills that America needs to compete in the 21st century. Roughly $4 billion of that total supports the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, or BTOP. The program, which is administered by the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), is investing in roughly 230 projects to increase broadband access and adoption around the country.

On January 16, Governance Studies at Brookings provided an update on the BTOP program three years after Vice President Joe Biden announced the first round of BTOP awards at a factory in Dawsonville, GA. The event featured keynote remarks by NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling, followed by a panel of officials from BTOP projects that provided firsthand accounts from around the country.

Internet Everywhere: Broadband as a Catalyst for the Digital Economy

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:00:00 -0500

Event Information

November 27, 2012
1:00 PM - 2:30 PM EST

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

Register for the Event
Broadband technologies power the country’s digital infrastructure and have become essential platforms for 21st century communications and commerce. One of the most important economic and policy issues facing the new administration is whether U.S. regulation of broadband platforms will help or hinder the kind of innovation, investment, competition and economic growth the country needs to climb out of the economic decline it has been experiencing in the last few years.

On November 27, the Economic Studies program at Brookings hosted a forum to discuss how a well-crafted regulatory paradigm can work to foster investment, continue innovation, and increase consumer welfare. Former Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Litan and co-author Hal Singer, managing director and principal at Navigant Economics, presented policy recommendations from their soon-to-be-published e-book, The Need for Speed: A New Framework for Telecommunications Policy for the 21st Century (Brookings Press, 2013). Darrell West, vice president and director of Governance Studies, moderated a panel of industry and academic experts on the current and future economic potential of broadband platforms for bringing the Internet everywhere, and catalyzing the digital economy.

Video

Audio

Internet Everywhere: Broadband as a Catalyst for the Digital Economy

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20121127_internet_everywhere_transcript

Improving Spectrum Access Through Reverse Auctions

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:30:00 -0400

Event Information

June 15, 2012
1:30 PM - 3:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Demand for mobile broadband will soon outpace the amount of available wireless spectrum. In its national broadband plan, the Federal Communication Commission called for 500 megahertz of new wireless spectrum, 300 megahertz of which, the FCC specified, should be freed up within the next five years. Despite government and industry recognition of the coming spectrum crisis, a number of the reforms needed to increase wireless broadband capacity remain unfinished and unaddressed. Reverse government auctions have been identified as the most expedient and cost-effective way to combat this imminent crisis, but what are the implementation and transactional challenges associated with this policy move? What are the merits of reverse auctions versus other spectrum policy ideas?

On June 15, the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings hosted a forum on broadening spectrum access in the United States through reverse government auctions. Moderated by Governance Studies Director Darrell West, a panel of experts discussed the coming spectrum shortage and which policy levers should be used to alleviate it.

After the program, panelists took audience questions.

Audio

Improving Spectrum Access Through Reverse Auctions

Transcript

Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20120615 spectrum access transcript corrected

Participants

Panelists

Chris Guttman-McCabe

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs

Thomas Hazlett

Professor, Law & Economics; Director, Information Economy Project

Peter Pitsch

Executive Director, Communications; Associate General Counsel

Thomas C. Power

Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Telecommunications, Office of Science & Technology Policy

Mark Fratrik

Vice President and Chief Economist

Broadband and Energy Efficiency

Wed, 30 May 2012 10:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 30, 2012
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Broadband Internet providers are reconsidering how they think about power consumption. Focusing on long-range energy efficiency will help ensure sustainable growth and contain costs as the price per kilowatt of power and consumer demand for broadband capacity both continue to grow. Broadband firms are approaching energy efficiency as a critical advance planning exercise, just as they prepared for the major switch in Internet addressing. Power consumption will become an up-front consideration in the planning and design phases for networks, services, and equipment.

On May 30, the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings hosted a forum on the future of energy efficiency and its relevance for the Internet ecosystem. A panel of experts discussed the rationale for and implementation challenges to bringing efficient and reliable energy throughout the network and product-planning process, beginning at the design phase.

After the program, speakers took audience questions.

Participants followed the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag #TechCTI.

Video

Full Video: Broadband and Energy Efficiency

Audio

Broadband and Energy Efficiency

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20120530_broadband_energy_transcript_uncorrected

Participants

Panelists

Darrell M. West

Mark Colbitz

Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning

Beth Colleton

Senior Vice President, Corporate Social Responsibility

Pietro S. Nivola

Lorie Wigle

General Manager, Eco-Technology

Charlotte Field

Senior Vice President, Infrastructure and Operations, National Engineering and Technical Operations

Broadband: A Catalyst for Small Business Growth

Darrell M. West — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Editor's Note: In testimony at the U.S. House Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology hearing on "Broadband: A Catalyst for Small Business Growth," Darrell West argues that broadband access is a crucial driver of job creation and economic growth.

FULL TEXT OF THE TESTIMONY:

Chairwoman Ellmers, Ranking Member Richmond, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing on “Broadband: A Catalyst for Small Business Growth."

Since 2008, I have been Vice President and Director of Governance Studies and Director of the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution. I am the author of 18 books, including Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance (Princeton University Press, 2005), Digital Medicine: Health Care in the Internet Era (Brookings Institution Press, 2009) and Digital Schools: How Technology Can Transform Education (forthcoming, Brookings Institution Press, 2012). As the remarks below document, broadband plays an important role in furthering economic development opportunities for small businesses, especially in rural areas.

The Crucial Role of Broadband in Economic Development

Broadband is a crucial driver of job creation and economic growth. Researchers have found a link between technology innovation and overall economic prosperity. For example, a World Bank study of 120 nations between 1980 and 2006 undertaken by Christine Qiang found that each 10 percentage point increase in broadband penetration adds 1.3 percent to a country’s gross domestic product.[1] Investments in this area creates jobs and lays the groundwork for long-term development.

The applications enabled by the Internet are especially important for small businesses and rural communities because they have become crucial platforms for innovation in health care, education, entrepreneurship, and communications. High-speed, universal broadband furthers productivity and generates powerful new efficiencies and economies of scale. According to Philip Bond, the president of TechAmerica, “each tech job supports three jobs in other sectors of the economy.” And in information technology, he says, there are five jobs for each IT position.[2]

Fast broadband and wireless speeds help people take advantage of new digital tools such as telemedicine, video on demand, GIS mapping, and video conferencing. New developments in health information technology and mobile health, such as emailing X-rays and other medical tests, require high-speed broadband. Distance learning requires sufficient bandwidth to connect students across geographic areas.[3]

Strategies for Broadband Innovation

Right now, the United States does not have a coherent strategy for broadband innovation. Unlike other nations, we make policy in a piecemeal fashion and focus on short rather than long-term objectives. This limits the efficiency and effectiveness of our efforts.

Promoting Entrepreneurship and Small Business: Entrepreneurs play a major role in the economies of many countries. They launch companies, build businesses, and provide jobs. Increasingly, as the globe moves towards a digital economy, small business developers require mobile technology to develop their companies. Broadband allows them to stay connected even while they are on the go. They can reach bank officers, suppliers, and customers as they travel around the area. This helps them remain in close contact and build the required relationships.[4]

Due to their relatively low cost and ubiquitous connections, mobile devices and cellphones help overcome digital disparities. There are well-established inequities based on race and ethnicity in socio-economic well-being.

Yet mobile devices have narrowed the gap in technology utilization. Smartphone ownership actually is higher among Hispanics (45 percent) and African-Americans (33 percent) than whites (27 percent).[5] This helps minorities start businesses, access m-health applications, engage in m-learning, and gain the full benefits of the technology revolution.

Technology offers important assistance for those in under-served rural communities. People living in rural areas suffer from limited access to broadband and Internet services. This makes it difficult for them to participate in the digital economy. Investing in digital infrastructure represents a way to improve Internet access in places that are geographically remote.

Improving Health Care: Wireless and broadband technologies represent key ingredients in providing quality and accessible care, and gaining budgetary efficiencies. Health care based on mobile health, remote monitors, electronic medical records, social networking sites, video conferencing, and Internet-based recordkeeping makes a positive difference for many people. For example, we should encourage email reminders to take medicine, mechanisms to measure satisfaction with doctors and hospitals, and websites that make care ratings publicly available to other patients.

One of the virtues of e-health is that it puts the patient in charge of certain activities. Using remote monitoring devices, people can measure their own weight, blood pressure, pulse, and sugar levels, and send test results electronically to health care providers. They get personalized feedback via email and reminders when they gain weight, have an uptick in their cholesterol levels, don’t take their medicine, or have high blood pressure. Social networking sites provide discussion forums and the benefit of collective experience from other people suffering similar problems. With these tools, patients take responsibility for their routine health care and rely on physicians for more serious medical conditions.

National surveys show that Americans would like to employ digital technologies in their medical care. For example, 77 percent said they would like to get reminders via email from their doctors when they are due for a visit, 75 percent want the ability to schedule a doctor’s visit via the Internet, 74 percent would like to use email to communicate directly with their doctor, 67 percent would like to receive the results of diagnostic tests via email, 64 percent want access to an electronic medical record to capture information, and 57 percent would like to use a home monitoring device that allows them to email blood pressure readings to their doctor.[6]

The sophistication of mobile devices has spawned a variety of new medical applications that help doctors and patients stay in touch and monitor health care needs. For example, mobile applications allow physicians to get test results on their mobile device. They can look at blood pressure records over time, see an electro-cardiogram, or monitor a fetal heart rate.

These applications make doctors more efficient because they don’t have to be in the physical presence of a patient to judge his or her condition. Digital technology allows people to overcome the limitations of geography in health care and access information at a distance. This makes it possible for patients to get a second opinion without visiting another physician by sending that person relevant medical tests. If a personal conference is required, doctors can use video conferencing to speak to individuals located in another city or state.

Advancing Educational Achievement and Access: Broadband helps to personalize learning and improve student assessment.[7] Speaking at a recent education policy symposium, Mark Schneiderman, the senior director of education policy for the Software & Information Industry Association, said that “the factory model that we’ve used to meet the needs of the average student in a mass production way for years is no longer meeting the needs of each student”. Instead, he called for education changes that would recognize the enormity of the information changes that have taken place in American society. In today’s world, he claims students “are surrounded by a personalized and engaging world outside of the school, but they’re unplugging not only their technology, but their minds and their passions too often, when they enter into our schools.”[8]

Wired classrooms, handheld devices, and electronic instructional sets let pupils learn at their own pace and in their own manner. Personalization makes education more adaptive and timely from the student standpoint and increases the odds of pupil engagement and mastery of important concepts. It frees teachers from routine tasks and gives them more time to serve as instructional coaches and mentors for students.[9]

Smartphones and mobile devices are being utilized for educational purposes in a variety of institutions. An analysis of application stores for Blackberry, the iPhone, and Android found that popular education-oriented downloads included My Very First App, Star Walk, Ace Flashcard, Wheels on the Bus, and Cosmic Discoveries. There also were a number of “productivity-enhancing” apps in the areas of administration, data collection, and collaboration.[10]

Some teachers have developed Facebook applications for personalized learning. They are using social media to post comments, get reactions from students, set up meetings, and express views about the class. Research conducted at a private liberal arts university found that for courses set up in this manner, students averaged an hour per day accessing the Facebook Learning Management System. Instructors discovered that students responded almost immediately to messages about the course and that pupils “engaged more in questioning through Facebook messages directed to the instructor than asking them verbally in the face-to-face classroom”.[11]

Professor Chris Dede of Harvard University has looked at “immersive interfaces” enabled by m-learning and found three educational advantages: allowing multiple perspectives, situated learning, and transferring knowledge from one setting to another.[12] Each of these experiences enhances the learning process and allows students to gain new knowledge or apply insights to different areas.

Handheld devices enhance student learning in other ways as well. They have been found to bridge the gap between haves and have-nots, and expose pupils to a rich array of instructional resources. Students find this approach very engaging and report great satisfaction with mobile learning approaches. This is particularly the case with underserved populations located in rural or poor districts.[13]

Building the Mobile Economy: Consumers like the convenience of mobile broadband. They enjoy being able to access email, the Internet, and a wide range of applications online. People no longer are tied to the home or office for social, economic, or civic engagement. They can access information and complete transactions wherever they happen to be.

For the first time in history, the trend lines for installed smartphones and personal computers will cross at the end of 2012.[14] The total number of IP-network enabled desktops, notebooks, and netbook personal computers now exceeds that of cellular phones with a high level operating system. However, due to the high growth rate in consumer and business installations of smartphones, mobile devices will outnumber personal computers this year. Smartphone installation currently is growing at about three times the rate of personal computers.

The extraordinary growth rate in mobile broadband adoption means that within four years, mobile broadband will comprise about 80 percent of total broadband subscriptions and become the dominant means of Internet connectivity. In emerging markets, mobile broadband is expected to increase from 37 to 79 percent of all broadband subscriptions between 2010 and 2015.

In the United States, a survey undertaken by the Pew Research Center this year found that 83 percent of American adults own a cellphone, while 35 percent own a smartphone.[15] When asked whether they used various services, smartphone owners indicated that they employed it to send or receive text messages (92 percent), take a picture (92 percent), or access the Internet (84 percent).

Needed Policy Actions

Broadband utilization and mobile technology innovation is growing, but there remain several actions that would further economic development. Below, I review specific actions that will help small business take advantage of digital innovation.[16]

Extend and Make Permanent Research and Development Tax Credits: One example of our national short-sightedness is the research and development tax credit. Members of Congress have extended this many times in recent years, but they generally do this on an annual basis. Rather than extend this credit over a long period of time, they renew it episodically and never on a predictable schedule.

Due to political uncertainties and institutional politics, we end up creating inefficiencies linked to the vagaries of federal policymaking. While companies in other countries invest and deduct on a more predictable schedule, we shoot ourselves in the foot through a short-sighted perspective. Many other countries offer more favorable tax policies than is the case in United States. We should extend and make permanent the R and D tax credit so that telecommunications companies, Internet service providers, and small businesses have greater certainty about tax policy.

Approve Reasonable Universal Service Fund Reform for Broadband Deployment: Our current Universal Service Fund (USF) dates back to 1997, when the Internet was in its infancy, and there were little social media or few mobile devices. We need to update our policies so that small businesses and consumers can take advantage of 21^st century digital tools.

The world has shifted from a communications model based on telephones and mail to a digital economy that relies on the Internet, mobile phones, e-commece, and social media. Businesses find customers through digital communications and consumers now can place phone calls via Google Voice or Skype.

At the same time, many Americans have smartphones that serve both as telephones and Internet providers. People can browse the Web, place phone calls, and access email through a single device. They can do this while on the run and wherever they happen to be.

Yet the billions generated for the USF continue to focus almost exclusively on phone services. Its four programs (E-Rate, High-Cost, Low Income, and Rural Health Care) provide subsidies for schools and libraries, infrastructure developers, low income people, and health providers, respectively. As noted by George Washington University Law Professor and Brookings Non-Resident Senior Fellow Jeffrey Rosen, these programs are inefficient, expensive, and redundant in what they provide. In his USF study, he cites examples of a “Hawaiian company [that] is paid $13,345 per year per telephone line for terrestrial service even though satellite telephone service is available for about one-tenth of that price” and the Mississippi community of Hattiesburg that “is served by twelve carriers, each receiving High Cost program subsidies.”[17]

We should update the Universal Service Fund to allow those living in under-served communities to use fees paid into the High Cost Program and the Low Income Program to cover voice and broadband services. About 30 percent of Americans remain outside the Internet revolution. They are at a serious disadvantage when communicating with friends and family members, forming businesses, accessing mobile health, or taking distance learning courses.

To help them, we should phase out the High Cost Fund and replace it with a Mobility Fund and a Connect America Fund, as proposed by the Federal Communications Commission. According to Rosen, the former proposal would “support the development of mobile broadband infrastructure into those few areas where 3G coverage is unavailable,” while the latter would “enable all U.S. households to access a network that is capable of providing both high-quality voice-grade service and broadband”.[18] This redeployment of federal resources within a market framework would promote better service for consumers and small businesses.

Use Incentive Auctions to Reallocate Scarce Spectrum: We are dangerously short of spectrum for wireless and broadband expansion. According to the Federal Communications Commission, we need a minimum of 300 MHZ over the next five years in order to accommodate growing cellphone usage, handheld devices, smartphones, tablets, and mobile broadband. It is vital for consumers and small businesses to gain access to spectrum in order to facilitate job creation, economic development, and entrepreneurship.

A market-based mechanism for reallocating scarce resources is spectrum auctions.[19] Used successfully in the past, members of Congress should approve incentive auctions that would allow companies that no longer need spectrum to sell them to other businesses willing to pay. This approach would have several benefits. It would provide a way for companies to sell unused resources. It gives access to spectrum for cell and mobile providers so they better can serve consumers and businesses. Auctions also bring in needed resources to the federal government to finance the national budget.

We also need to determine ways to make more efficient use of existing spectrum. In a Brookings paper, Robert Matheson and Adele Morris propose technical solutions designed to improve the efficiency of spectrum utilization. They argue that it is possible to utilize current bandwidth through a combination of legal, regulatory, policy, and technical improvements. For example, they suggest that licensees should be able to “buy, sell, aggregate, and subdivide their LERs (licensed electrospace right) at will.”[20] A “flexible rights regime” offers greater efficiency, they say, than a command and control approach.

Increase Broadband Adoption: With nearly one-third of Americans outside the Internet Revolution, it is important to expand broadband adoption. There are many reasons why people have not adopted broadband service. A national survey undertaken by the Federal Communications Commission reveals that 36 percent cite the overall cost of the service, 22 percent say they are uncomfortable

These results suggest a variety of actions that would increase broadband adoption. For example, digital literacy programs would train people on online applications that may be useful to them. Improved market competition also would help drive down consumer cost barriers that currently limit use. And outreach programs could help bridge the digital divide based on age, race, gender, income, and education.

Unless we boost adoption levels, it will be difficult to gain the economies of scale enabled by digital technology. With the proposed actions, consumers and small businesses would have a fairer opportunity to compete and gain the benefits of the new digital economy.

Notes

[1] Christine Zhen-Wei Qiang, “Telecommunications and Economic Growth,” Washington, D.C.: World

Bank, 2009.

[2] Philip Bond, “Tech Provides Map for Nation’s Future,” Politico, September 18, 2011.

[3] Taken from Darrell M. West, “Technology and the Innovation Economy,” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Center for Technology Innovation, October 19, 2011.

[4] For a more extended treatment of this topic, see Darrell M. West, “Ten Facts About Mobile Broadband,” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Center for Technology Innovation, December 8, 2011.

[5] Deloitte, “The Impact of 4G Technology on Commercial Interactions, Economic Growth, and U.S. Competitiveness,” August, 2011, p. 14.

[6] Darrell M. West, The Next Wave: Using Digital Technology to Further Social and Political Innovation,” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2011.

[7] Darrell M. West, Digital Schools: How Technology Can Transform Education,” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, forthcoming, 2012.

[8] Innovate to Educate, “System [Re]Design for Personalized Learning,” Washington, D.C.: Software & Information Industry Association, 2010, p. 8.

[9] Ruth Moody and Michael Bobic, “Teaching the Net Generation without Leaving the Rest of Us Behind: How Technology in the Classroom Influences Student Composition,” Politics & Policy, Volume 39, no. 2, 2011, pp. 169-194.

[10] Jessica Briskin, Tutaleni Asino, Michael Montalto-Rook, and Yaozu Dong, “Smart Apps: An Analysis of Educational Applications Available on Smartphones and the Implications for Mobile Learning,” paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, California, 2010.

[11] Stephoni Case and Susan Stansberry, “Teaching with Facebook as a Learning Management System,” paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, California, 2010.

[12] Chris Dede, “Immersive Interfaces for Engagement and Learning,” Science, Volume 323, January 2, 2009, pp. 66-69.

[13] C. Shuler, “Pockets of Potential: Using Mobile Technologies to Promote Children’s Learning,” New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, 2009.

[14] Strategy Analytics, January, 2011.

[15] Aaron Smith, “Americans and Their Cell Phones,” Pew Research Center, August 15, 2011.

[16] Additional proposals can be found at Darrell M. West, “Technology and the Innovation Economy,” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Center for Technology Innovation, October 19, 2011.

[17] Jeffrey Rosen, “Universal Service Fund Reform: Expanding Broadband Internet Access in the United States,” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Issues in Technology Innovation, April, 2011, pp. 3-5.

[18] Jeffrey Rosen, “Universal Service Fund Reform: Expanding Broadband Internet Access in the United States,” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Issues in Technology Innovation, April, 2011, p. 7 and Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: National Broadband Plan, 2010, p. 145.

[19] Jeffrey Rosen, “The Future of Spectrum,” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Issues in Technology Innovation, August, 2011.

[20] Robert Matheson and Adele Morris, “The Technical Basis for Spectrum Rights: Policies to Enhance Market Efficiency,” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, March 3, 2011.

[21] Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: National Broadband Plan, 2010, p. 168.

Authors

Darrell M. West

Publication: House Subcommittee on Heathcare and Technology

Image Source: Reza Estakhrian

Wireless Broadband and Economic Growth

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:00:00 -0400

Event Information

October 17, 2011
2:00 PM - 3:30 PM EDT

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Wireless broadband profoundly enhances communication worldwide. It brings opportunity by connecting far-flung communities around the globe, and enables mobile-fueled innovation to flourish in a variety of different fields. In the United States, for example, rural areas of the country have benefited greatly from wireless technology. With broader access to wireless services, isolated communities are able to generate opportunities for economic development, improve education and encourage job growth.

On October 17, the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings hosted a conversation exploring the wireless broadband policies needed to provide isolated communities with access to essential economic and social benefits. Moderated by Darrell West, vice president and director of Governance Studies, experts from the technology, business and policy arenas discussed how to leverage the full potential of broadband access to spur economic growth. Panelists addressed the investments needed to stimulate job growth in this sector, and how to extend the benefits of wireless technology to individuals, companies, non-profit organizations and governments.

After the panel discussion, speakers took audience questions.

Audio

Wireless Broadband and Economic Growth

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20111017_broadband_growth

Participants

Panelists

Dean Garfield

President and CEO
Information Technology Industry Council

John Irons

Research and Policy Director
Economic Policy Institute

John Mayo

Professor of Economics, Business and Public Policy
McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University

The Future of Spectrum

Jeffrey Rosen — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:11:00 -0400

Executive Summary

In recent years, growth in demand for wireless services has sparked a boom in the mobile phone and wireless data sector.[i] During the past four years, the number of mobile phone subscribers tripled,[ii] and the number of jobs in the telecommunications field has nearly quintupled.[iii] New, better, and faster mobile devices, such as tablets and smartphones, have created multi-billion dollar industries of their own, such as Google Android and the Apple iOS “app stores.”[iv] And those technologies have contributed to the dawning of an always-on, always-connected culture.

But this growing demand for mobile Internet access requires a growing amount of wireless radio spectrum, portending serious problems for the future. At the moment, the United States has designated 547 MHz of spectrum to wireless broadband services, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) predicts a need for 637 MHz of spectrum by 2013, and 822 MHz of spectrum by 2014.[v] Without more spectrum allocated to wireless Internet connectivity, America risks short-circuiting the mobile broadband revolution.

The National Broadband Plan proposes a solution. It sets forth a detailed plan to make 300 MHz of spectrum available for wireless broadband use within the next five years, and another 200 MHz in the five years after that.[vi] It seeks to achieve this freeing of spectrum by auctioning unused spectrum, lifting burdensome regulations to enable wireless broadband service in certain spectrum ranges, and reallocating spectrum from other services – notably broadcast television – to enable such spectrum to be used for wireless broadband.[vii] Though many of these provisions are controversial, the FCC has already done serious work to achieve these goals. If the FCC can achieve its goals to enable the growth of wireless broadband, America will be able to unlock the full potential of the wireless broadband revolution and realize the potential of a new wave of American innovation.

[i] Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan 78 (2010) [hereinafter National Broadband Plan].

[ii] Id.

[iii] Lawrence H. Summers, Remarks on the President's Spectrum Initiative As Prepared for Delivery (2010 June 28).

[iv] Robin Wauters, Report: Mobile App Market Will Be Worth $25 Billion By 2015 – Apple’s Share: 20 percent, TechCrunch.com, 2011 January 18, http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/18/report-mobile-app-market-will-be-worth-25-billion-by-2015-apples-share-20/.

[v] Federal Communications Commission, Mobile Broadband: The Benefits of Additional Spectrum 18 (2011) , available at http://download.broadband.gov/plan/fcc-staff-technical-paper-mobile-broadband-benefits-of-additional-spectrum.pdf (hereinafter Benefits of Additional Spectrum). [hereinafter Benefits of Additional Spectrum].

[vi] See National Broadband Plan, supra note 1, at 84.

[vii] Id.

Downloads

Download the Paper

Authors

Jeffrey Rosen

Image Source: Â© Luke MacGregor / Reuters

Bridging the Digital Divide: Spectrum Policy, Program Diversity and Consumer Rights

Thu, 05 May 2011 10:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 5, 2011
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM EDT

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Closing the “digital divide” – the gap between society’s tech-enabled haves and have-nots – hinges on enhancing the quality and breadth of consumer access to digital and information technology in areas such as education, employment, health care, news and entertainment. As digital citizenship gains traction as a fundamental right, what should the government do to bridge the technology divide? How should access options be reformed, and what will programming offerings look like in the future? How will legislative and regulatory policies shape future access to further benefit consumers? How will spectrum policy changes impact under-served, geographically-isolated populations and consumers at different economic levels in our society?

On May 5, the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings hosted a forum on innovative solutions that the government can implement to expand citizen access to digital and information technology, focusing on spectrum policies.

After the program, panelists took audience questions.

Audio

Bridging the Digital Divide: Spectrum Policy, Program Diversity and Consumer Rights

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20110505_digital_divide

Participants

Moderator

Panelists

Matthew Hussey

Legislative Assistant , Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
U.S. Senate

Uzoma Onyeije

President
Onyeije Consulting LLC

Christopher Ornelas

Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer
National Association of Broadcasters

Christopher Guttman-McCabe

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
CTIA, The Wireless Association

Universal Service Fund Reform: Expanding Broadband Internet Access in the United States

Jeffrey Rosen — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:51:00 -0400

Executive Summary

Two-thirds of Americans have broadband Internet access in their homes.[1] But because of poor infrastructure or high prices, the remaining third of Americans do not. In some areas, broadband Internet is plainly unavailable because of inadequate infrastructure: More than 14 million Americans – approximately 5 percent of the total population – live in areas where terrestrial (as opposed to mobile) fixed broadband connectivity is unavailable.[2] The effects of insufficient infrastructure development have contributed to racial and cultural disparities in broadband access; for example, terrestrial broadband is available to only 10 percent of residents on tribal lands.[3]

Even where terrestrial broadband connectivity is available, however, the high price of broadband service can be prohibitive, especially to lower income Americans. While 93 percent of adults earning more than $75,000 per year are wired for broadband at home, the terrestrial broadband adoption rate is only 40 percent among adults earning less than $20,000 annually.[4] These costs also contribute to racial disparities; almost 70 percent of whites have adopted terrestrial broadband at home, but only 59 percent of blacks and 49 percent of Hispanics have done the same.[5]

America's wireless infrastructure is better developed, but many Americans still lack wireless broadband coverage. According to a recent study, 3G wireless networks cover a good portion of the country, including 98 percent of the United States population,[6] but certain states have dramatically lower coverage rates than others. For example, only 71 percent of West Virginia's population is covered by a 3G network.[7] Wireless providers will likely use existing 3G infrastructure to enable the impending transition to 4G networks.[8] Unless wireless infrastructure expands quickly, those Americans that remain unconnected may be left behind.

Though America is responsible for the invention and development of Internet technology, the United States has fallen behind competing nations on a variety of important indicators, including broadband adoption rate and price. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's survey of 31 developed nations, the United States is ranked fourteenth in broadband penetration rate (i.e. the number of subscribers per 100 inhabitants); only 27.1 percent of Americans have adopted wired broadband subscriptions, compared to 37.8 percent of residents of the Netherlands.[9]

America also trails in ensuring the affordability of broadband service. The average price for a medium-speed (2.5Mbps-10Mbps) Internet plan in America is the seventeenth lowest among its competitor nations. For a medium-speed plan, the average American must pay $38 per month, while an average subscriber in Japan (ranked first) pays only $22 for a connection of the same quality.[10]

The National Broadband Plan (NBP), drafted by the Federal Communication Commission and released in 2010, seeks to provide all Americans with affordable broadband Internet access.[11] Doing so will not be cheap; analysts project that developing the infrastructure necessary for full broadband penetration will require $24 billion in subsidies and spending.[12] President Obama’s stimulus package has already set aside $4.9 billion to develop broadband infrastructure,[13] and some small ongoing federal programs receive an annual appropriation to promote broadband penetration.[14] However, these funding streams will only account for one-third of the $24 billion necessary to achieve the FCC's goal of full broadband penetration.[15] Moreover, developing infrastructure alone is not enough; many low-income Americans are unable to afford Internet access, even if it is offered in their locality.

To close this funding gap and to make broadband more accessible, the National Broadband Plan proposes to transform the Universal Service Fund – a subsidy program that spends $8.7 billion every year to develop infrastructure and improve affordability for telephone service – into a program that would do the same for broadband Internet.

^{^[1]} Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan 23 (2010) [hereinafter National Broadband Plan].
^{^[2]} Id. at 10.
^{^[3]} Id. at 23.
^{^[4]} Id.
^{^[5]} Id.
^{^[6]} Id. at 146.
^{^[7]} Id.
^{^[8]} Id.
^{^[9]} Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Broadband Portal, OECD.org, (table 1d(1)) (last accessed Jan. 28, 2011).
^{^[10]} Id. (table 4m) (last accessed Jan. 28, 2011).
^{^[11]} National Broadband Plan, supra note 1, at 9-10.
^{^[12]} Id. at 136.
^{^[13]} Id. at 139.
^{^[14]} Id.
^{^[15]} Id.

Downloads

Download the Full Paper

Authors

Jeffrey Rosen

Image Source: Donald E. Carroll

A Framework for Innovative Federal Spectrum Policy

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:00:00 -0400

Event Information

March 30, 2011
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

As the U.S. economy regains momentum, policymakers and economists are considering the long-range impact of wireless spectrum policy on job creation and innovation. What is the Federal Communications Commission’s role in fostering innovation via spectrum policy, and which regulation rulings would be the most effective or harmful? Do auctions help or hurt the innovation engine? How should the government balance various stakeholders’ interests in their pursuit for additional bandwidth that is both fair and economically sensible?

On March 30, the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings hosted a forum on the spectrum’s role in advancing economic growth and innovation, focused on identifying a concrete policy framework. Moderated by Governance Studies Director Darrell West, a panel of industry and academic experts discussed the wireless spectrum’s vital contribution to the current economic recovery and a path toward future domestic growth.

After the program, panelists took audience questions.

Audio

A Framework for Innovative Federal Spectrum Policy

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20110330_spectrum_transcript

Participants

Moderator

Panelists

James W. Cicconi

Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs
AT&T Services, Inc.

Blair Levin

Communications and Society Fellow
Aspen Institute

Richard Whitt

Senior Policy Director
Google Inc.

Roger Entner

Founder
Recon Analytics LLC

The Technical Basis for Spectrum Rights: Policies to Enhance Market Efficiency

Robert Matheson and Adele Morris — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0500

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The inefficiencies inherent in the traditional command-and-control spectrum regulatory system are increasingly costly as demand for spectrum-dependent services explodes. This paper describes a conceptual framework to articulate clear rights of access to spectrum in a way that fosters a market-based allocation of the resource. We also offer simple rules that reasonably account for imperfect receivers and challenging physical properties of radiowaves. The key features of the system we propose are:

Regulators construct an initial partition of spectrum rights across the dimensions of space, time, frequency, and direction of propagation. Each partition is called a licensed electrospace right (LER). Regulators devolve these rights to LER owners.
Licensees may buy, sell, aggregate, and subdivide their LERs at will.
Licensees must keep all signals within their respective LER, including its frequency band, geographical area, angle of propagation range, and authorized time of operation. In particular, all signals must have a power level of less than a regulated limit (E0) outside the LER, with exceptions allowed with a probability no greater than an amount specified by regulators (such as one percent).
Licensees must limit transmitter power or field strength within their LER to below a regulator-set level for the band in which they operate (Emax).
Regulators or other parties must establish and maintain a detailed database and propagation model that facilitates transactions and enforcement.
In this system, regulators set up the rights database and establish a few core parameters for each band. Thereafter their role is limited to enforcing compliance with the simple set of rules on signal strength. Importantly, this system includes no protection of, or constraints on, receivers, so it does not directly control interference. Rather, through transactions and negotiations between LER owners, the system we outline here would induce an efficient level of interference in which the costs of controlling interference are balanced by the benefits.

INTRODUCTION
In the United States, the federal government has traditionally regulated access to radio spectrum with "command-and-control" licensing. Regulators divide the radio spectrum into frequency ranges, or bands, and typically allocate each band for a single type of radio service with very specific rules about its operation. These rules define the system of rights for licensees to provide the specified services for each band.

This traditional command-and-control spectrum regulation has sought to optimize the technical rules for different radio services, generally with good success. However, rapidly evolving technology and increasing demands for wireless services mean this rigid regulatory structure is increasingly poorly suited to optimizing the economic efficiency of the allocation of frequencies across different kinds of radio services. That is because the spectrum rights conveyed by a traditional license are usually exactly sufficient to provide only the services the regulator intends. The licensee can transmit with a specified power, at a specific location, using a specific antenna and tower, employing a specific modulation and bandwidth as needed to provide the specified service. This has generally provided a good "recipe" for operating the intended service with an acceptable quality, but it relies heavily on the regulator, rather than the market, to determine which spectrum resources are used for which applications. This fails to accommodate new services and applications, particularly for cell phones and other wideband wireless services, and it fails to provide efficient incentives to develop and deploy new technology. In most cases, to accommodate new uses regulators have moved the existing users of allocated bands to other suitable bands. Because of the time and expense of such reallocations, regulators need other ways to accommodate a wide range of services without requiring reallocation to each specific new use.

This paper offers a conceptual way forward. It explores the technical fundamentals of establishing rights to access spectrum, including the institutional, scientific, and engineering considerations important to policymakers. It describes how regulators could articulate rights to spectrum access such that rights holders could transfer, subdivide, aggregate, and protect their rights in an economically efficient market that accommodates evolving demands for the resource. We examine current approaches to expressing rights to access spectrum, their advantages and disadvantages, and how they may lead to economically inefficient underutilization of spectrum resources.

The technical basis for spectrum rights, meaning the way the regulatory system articulates rights to access spectrum, is key to achieving an efficient allocation of the resource through markets. If spectrum resource owners can subdivide or transfer their rights in a competitive market, then they perceive the full opportunity cost of holding the resource as revealed by market prices for spectrum rights. In an efficient spectrum market, incumbents would have an incentive to adopt technologies that optimize their use of the resource and to devolve underutilized spectrum to others with higher and better uses. Thus, in a flexible rights regime, market forces and available technologies would determine the efficient degree of partition of rights in any particular band or application, and at the same time market forces would induce investors to develop new technologies that use highly valued spectrum more efficiently and exploit low cost spectrum for new applications.

The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 outlines the basics of band allocations, frequency assignments, and spectrum licenses. This provides the foundation to examine the details of exclusive spectrum rights and assess the advantages and disadvantages of the current system with an eye toward identifying approaches that could work better. Section 3 describes the physics of radio signal propagation that underlie any spectrum applications and introduces the seven-dimension "electrospace" approach to describing radio signals and the rights to emit them. We argue that increased exploitation of these dimensions will be central in improving spectrum capacity.

Section 4 describes the traditional command-and-control approach to regulating airwaves that is the basis for most management of radio use in the United States and the rest of the world, and Section 5 briefly discusses several frequency management alternatives to command-and-control, including low-power commons and some opportunistic dynamic spectrum sharing techniques. Section 6 describes how the electrospace approach can be the technical basis of flexible-use spectrum rights. We present a way to express the rights to use spectrum that is not tied to any specific service or technology, allowing market forces to allocate spectrum such that new radio technologies and applications can be rapidly accommodated with minimal regulatory oversight. Section 7 describes some challenges with selecting and enforcing exact rules to regulate flexible-use bands. We describe relatively simple rules that can simultaneously prevent interference and allow substantial flexibility in use, and we discuss what we see as the most promising applications flexible-use frequency bands. Section 8 concludes.

Downloads

Download the Full Paper

Authors

Robert Matheson
Adele Morris

Image Source: © Joe Skipper / Reuters

Confronting the Looming Shortage of Wireless Spectrum: A Federal Technology Policy Imperative

Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:30:00 -0400

Event Information

October 20, 2010
2:30 PM - 4:00 PM EDT

.
The University of California Washington Center
1608 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC

Recent research finds that demand for mobile broadband could outpace the amount of available wireless spectrum in three years. In its national broadband plan, the Federal Communication Commission called for 500 megahertz of new wireless spectrum, 300 megahertz of which, the FCC specified, should be freed up within the next five years. Despite government and industry recognition of the coming spectrum crisis, a number of the reforms needed to increase wireless broadband capacity remain unfinished and unaddressed.

On October 20, the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings hosted a forum on the U.S. wireless spectrum and its role in advancing mobile technology growth and innovation. Moderated by Governance Studies Director Darrell West, a panel of government, industry and academic experts discussed how to best allocate the wireless spectrum, what the government’s role should be in the expansion process and how to balance various stakeholders’ interests in their pursuit for additional bandwidth.

After the program, panelists took audience questions.

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20101020_mobile_broadband

Participants

Moderator

Panelists

Ruth Milkman

Bureau Chief, The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission

Phil Weiser

Senior Advisor to the Director for Technology and Innovation, National Economic Council, The White House

Steve Sharkey

Chief of Engineering and Technology Policy, T-Mobile USA Inc.

Ellen Goodman

Professor, Rutgers University Law School

Technology Lessons from City Government in Seoul, South Korea

Darrell M. West — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 09:49:00 -0400

It is humbling to be an American technology expert visiting Seoul, South Korea. In case you don't know it, that Asian city has the world's fastest broadband. While there for the inaugural general assembly of the World e-Government Organization, I compared notes with meeting host Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon. He told me his broadband speed ranges from 100 to 300 mbps, while I had to confess mine averages 50 at the office and a meager four at my Washington, D.C. home.

The Seoul Metropolitan Government has new mobile applications for smart phones. Through their mobile devices, people can find when the next bus arrives, where the closest restaurants are to their current location, the latest data on air and water quality, and where traffic congestion is at its worst.

The city is a pioneer in civic engagement. When Mayor Oh recently asked ordinary citizens for ideas on improving metropolitan government, he got over 100,000 suggestions. He has implemented the best 180 ideas and is looking for others as well. Still, when pressed on future plans, he says Korea should not rest on its laurels. He wants the city to add enhanced services such as emergency planning, mobile TV, motion pictures, and GPS features.

He also is moving his city to the forefront of helping officials from other less fortunate places. His gathering of city leaders from 50 different municipalities around the world included mayors from African, southeast Asian, and Middle Eastern cities. Not only are they struggling with issues of poverty, housing, education, and transportation, their technology infrastructure is far less well-developed than what Korea has.

He feels it is his duty to work to narrow the digital divide across cities and share best practices. Public officials in the developed world should donate personal computers, laptops, and mobile devices to places that lack such hardware. Unless we work to close this divide, he believes the class divide will grow larger.

Seoul furthermore is committed to ambitious goals for green technology. By the year 2020, its metropolitan government has agreed to reduce energy consumption by 15 percent and greenhouse gases by 25 percent.

In an effort to combat corruption, city officials have placed information concerning government contracts online so that all can examine the money flow. Businesses and citizens can sign up for text alerts on metropolitan government contract opportunities. That way, no one can claim they were cut out and had no chance to place a competitive bid.

Through this leadership, the Seoul Metropolitan Government is setting a tremendous example for public officials in other countries. In an era of citizen cynicism, technology can become part of the solution of better government. By enabling citizen engagement, public transparency, and social collaboration, technology can improve the way the public sector performs.

Authors

Darrell M. West

Publication: The Huffington Post

Net Neutrality or Internet Toll Booths?

Darrell M. West — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:14:00 -0400

Google and Verizon recently announced a “legislative framework” for Internet regulation that some critics say could put an end to net neutrality, or the openness of the Internet, by creating a two-tiered data system. In a recent video, Senior Fellow Darrell West takes a look at net neutrality and the Google-Verizon plan.

Video

Toll Booths for the Internet?

Authors

Darrell M. West

Net Neutrality and The Google-Verizon Plan

Darrell M. West — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Darrell West spoke with Bloomberg's Julie Hyman and Mark Crumpton on the recent Verizon-Google joint policy proposal on handling Internet traffic-

JULIE HYMAN: Google and Verizon making a proposal that would make the FCC’s wire line broadband openness principles fully enforceable at the FCC. In fact, enforceable Mark, with a $2 million dollar fine.

MARK CRUMPTON: That’s right, Google and Verizon saying they support the FCC’s current broadband openness rules and Google and Verizon proposing broadband providers offer new services. Joining us on the phone is Darrell West of the Brookings Institution. Mr. West, welcome to Bloomberg News, thank you so much for joining us this afternoon.

DARRELL WEST: Thank you.

CRUMPTON: We were wondering if we can get your initial thoughts on what Google and Verizon have been reporting today.

WEST: Well, it certainly is a tidal wave in terms of technology policy because previously Google has been a very strong supporter of net neutrality and openness on the Internet. Now, with this agreement, they seemed to be poised to allow tier-pricing of Internet services and so, really for the very first time, that will open up the possibility of creating different prices for different applications over the Internet.

Watch the full interview at Bloomberg.com »

Authors

Darrell M. West

Publication: Bloomberg News

Assessing the National Broadband Plan

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:30:00 -0400

Event Information

March 17, 2010
1:30 PM - 3:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

Congress charged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last year with developing a national broadband plan designed to provide affordable and accessible broadband service. Among the stated goals of this mission was advancing the public interest in “consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.”

On March 17, the Brookings Institution hosted a policy forum to assess the FCC’s plan and explore key questions, including: Does it achieve the objectives set forth by Congress? Does it advance the public interest? Does it provide affordable and accessible broadband? Blair Levin, who heads the FCC’s broadband initiative, discussed how the plan will modernize an important component of America’s infrastructure. Other experts evaluated ways to move forward.

Brookings Vice President Darrell West moderated the discussions.

Video

Audio

Assessing the National Broadband Plan

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20100317_broadband

Participants

Moderator

Panelists

Blair Levin

Executive Director
FCC Omnibus Broadband Initiative

Erik Garr

General Manager
Federal Communications Commission

Carlos Kirjner

Senior Advisor to the FCC Chairman
Federal Communications Commission

Phoebe Yang

General Counsel and Senior Advisor
FCC Omnibus Broadband Initiative

Peter Stenberg

Economic Research Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Karen Mossberger

Associate Professor of Public Administration
University of Illinois at Chicago

Broadband Creates Jobs

Robert W. Crandall and Hal J. Singer — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:29:00 -0500

As the U.S. economy struggles to recover from the worst recession since the 1930s with the unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent, the federal government is understandably focused on policies that could create jobs. At the same time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is putting the final touches on a National Broadband Plan. Unfortunately, few policymakers understand how much the deployment of new telecommunications technologies that underlie the broadband revolution have contributed to employment in the private economy. The National Broadband Plan should be carefully designed so as not to reduce the investment in broadband technologies, which have averaged $30 billion per year since 2005.

During the 2008-09 recession, total private nonresidential capital spending declined by more than 18 percent, but spending by telcos, cable operators, and wireless firms on broadband remained steady, declining by a bare 3 percent. The massive investments made in mobile and wired Internet capacity by the major network providers has sustained hundreds of thousands of jobs over the past six years, and we project that capital investment in broadband over the next few years would create approximately 509,000 jobs relative to a world without such investment.

The impacts of the recent investments in broadband networks have been startling. Because of the intense, facilities-based competition among broadband providers, most U.S. households now have a choice of at least three broadband technologies and even more suppliers in most service areas. That has had the effect of driving down the price and dramatically increasing the speed of broadband access for the average household. It was not that long ago when a high-speed “Ethernet connection” to the Internet was the sole province of government, large corporations, and major academic institutions.

We last examined the economic impact of broadband on the economy and on employment in 2001 and 2003. As it turns out, many of our previous predictions were too pessimistic. We underestimated the growth of broadband – its reach, the applications that it made possible, and the reductions in price of access in the first decade of the 21st century. The increasing availability, improved speed, and lower price of high-speed Internet services that has resulted from the continuing massive investment in broadband infrastructure has had a predictable effect on household subscriptions. The Pew organization’s household surveys show that the share of households subscribing to broadband Internet services has risen from 47 percent in 2007 to nearly 65 percent at the end of 2009, substantially above our 2003 estimate.

The indirect benefits of broadband are perhaps even more significant: Smart young programmers creating new “apps” for smartphones; academic institutions utilizing ever faster broadband to enhance the educational experience; health care personnel being able to deliver world-class medical services to underserved regions domestically and globally; and, businesses being able to order, manufacture, market and distribute their products from anywhere to anywhere. We could not have anticipated many of these developments in 2003; we surely cannot foresee all of the benefits of continuing improvements in broadband services that will occur in the next few years as network companies continue to upgrade their infrastructure.

Despite these impressive benefits, some are proposing that the U.S. radically change course by requiring network providers to share their lines with competitors or by barring network providers from offering differentiated services to content providers. These proposals derive from a debate over the prospective sources of innovation in a world of rapid development of graphics-intensive web pages and new mobile broadband applications. Some argue, without empirical support, that the most important source of innovation will be at the “edge of the network” by content providers. In contrast, there is a clear track record of job and wealth creation associated with investment in broadband access technologies in the network itslef, suggesting that investment at the “core of the network” by network providers is equally, if not more important.

To ensure the steady increase in broadband’s reach, capabilities, and services that we have seen over the past seven years, the FCC should proceed with a minimum of government interference as it moves through the process of creating a National Broadband Policy. To do otherwise would risk a reduction in the incentives for investment in the nation’s broadband infrastructure and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that such investment supports.

Authors

Robert W. Crandall
Hal J. Singer

Publication: The Hill

An International Look at High-Speed Broadband

Darrell M. West — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Executive Summary

In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the U.S. Congress charged the Federal Communications Commission with developing a national broadband policy by March 17, 2010. Legislators asked the commission to outline policies that would be efficient, effective, and affordable, and that would advance the public interest in “consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.”

Central to this request was the idea that digital infrastructure is vital to long-term economic, social, and civic development. Similar to highways, bridges, and dams, broadband and wireless represent infrastructures that make it possible for businesses to stay connected, innovate, and create jobs. Just as we need a strong interstate highway system and viable mass transit, we require accessible and affordable broadband so that businesses and consumers can reap the benefits of broadband and wireless technology.

In this report, I look at what other countries are doing in terms of broadband applications. Specifically, I examine four policy questions: 1) what broadband speeds are countries aiming for in their national plans? 2) how are various nations paying for necessary broadband investments? 3) what new applications become available at various broadband speeds? and 4) how valuable do other locales see broadband for the economy, social connections, civic engagement, and public sector service delivery?

Countries vary in size, population density, industry structure, regulatory environment, demographic makeup, and cultural patterns. Yet despite obvious differences, America can learn valuable lessons from other countries. People can see what other places are attempting in terms of new ideas and possible benefits to be gained from high-speed broadband.

In terms of speed, South Korea has the most ambitious national goal in terms of future broadband traffic. It is seeking to raise broadband speed to 1 gigabyte per second. Australia and Finland are aiming for 100 Mbps, while Germany has a stated target of 50 Mbps by 2014. These countries are pushing for high speeds because they see them as necessary for new health, education, energy, and civic engagement applications.

The challenge for most nations is how to improve access, open networks, and pay for faster service. The Federal Communications Commission estimates that it will require $350 billion to provide universal broadband coverage in the United States at 100 Mbps, yet the public investment authorized as part of the economic stimulus package is only $7.2 billion. The American public sector investment is the highest in the world. As a point of contrast, Japan is spending $3.7 billion; Australia is devoting $3 billion, Canada has budgeted $150 million, Finland $130 million, and Spain is spending $90 million. But the U.S. investment pales in comparison to what is needed. Encouraging greater private sector investment is key to realizing the long-term benefits of broadband.

Faster speeds are vital to take advantage of new digital tools such as GIS mapping, telemedicine, virtual reality, online games, supercomputing, video on demand, and video conferencing. New developments in health information technology and mobile health, such as emailing X-rays and other medical tests, require high-speed broadband. And distance learning, civic engagement, and smart energy grids require sufficient bandwidth.

There is considerable evidence that widely available, affordable, and high-speed broadband furthers economic development, social connections, civic engagement, and electronic government. As noted in this report, a study of 120 nations between 1980 and 2006 undertaken by Qiang (2009b) estimates that each 10 percentage point increase in broadband penetration adds 1.3 percent to a high income country’s gross domestic product and 1.21 percent for low to middle-income nations.

The United States should have three goals: 1) raising the household broadband adoption rate to 90 percent by 2020, 2) aiming for 100 Mbps of speed (similar to Australia and Finland) in order to facilitate new applications in education, health care, smart energy grids, public safety, video streaming and high definition television, games, video conferencing, civic engagement, and electronic government, and 3) improving data collection on broadband speeds and availability so consumers know what speeds they are paying for and policymakers have better adoption and availability information on which to base policy decisions.

Downloads

Download Full Report »

Authors

Darrell M. West

National Broadband Plan: Consumer Survey Results Are In

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:30:00 -0500

Event Information

February 23, 2010
11:30 AM - 1:00 PM EST

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was tasked with creating a national broadband plan to expand high-speed Internet service to the entire nation. As part of its development of this national strategy, the FCC commissioned a survey to determine broadband adoption rates, the American public’s attitudes about broadband, and reasons why people may not subscribe to broadband.

Access the survey at FCC.gov » (pdf)

On February 23, the FCC unveiled the new survey findings at an event sponsored by Brookings. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski provided opening remarks on how this consumer data provides insights on America’s attitudes toward broadband and views on how to improve access for all. John Horrigan, FCC consumer research director, presented these survey results in depth and addressed how the findings will inform the final national broadband plan due to Congress on March 17. Following these remarks, Danny Weitzner, associate administrator with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and Darrell West, director of Governance Studies at Brookings, examined these attitudinal results and how they will shape the national broadband plan.

After the program, the participants took audience questions.

Video

Audio

National Broadband Plan: Consumer Survey Results Are In

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

Participants

Panelists

Julius Genachowski

Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

Danny Weitzner

Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy Analysis and Development, National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Budget 2011: Investing in Infrastructure

Robert Puentes — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:21:00 -0500

When it comes to infrastructure, President Obama faces a tricky balancing act. On one side he needs to invest in the kind of infrastructure that the nation needs to remain competitive and put us on the path to a low-carbon future. On the other he has to operate in a constrained fiscal environment with programs that are in fundamental need of reform.

With that as a backdrop the president’s proposed 2011 budget is an interesting collection of investments and reforms.

In the former, there is a proposal to create a $4 billion National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund which appears to be this year’s iteration of the National Infrastructure Bank idea. The fund would support projects of regional or national significance based on merit. While we have written extensively about the need for such a reformed process, the narrow focus on transportation-only projects is somewhat disappointing.

Other areas of infrastructure investment are worth noting including a bump in loans and grants to connect rural communities with broadband infrastructure, an additional $3.3 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, and an additional $1 billion to fund competitive high speed rail projects.

The 2011 budget also proposes to make the Build America Bond program permanent. The popular program would be increased to $3.2 billion, the subsidy level dropped, and expanded to include some operating costs, in addition to capital investments.

But what is striking about the budget proposal is the strong language about reform. Notably, the budget reinforces the administration’s desire to extend the current transportation law an additional year. This means not reauthorizing the program at a higher spending level—as many in Congress have proposed to do—but working on key reforms to make smarter investments. It also provides more time to come up with sufficient and sustainable sources of revenue.

The other interesting proposal is to eliminate 353 transportation earmarks from the 2010 appropriations law. In that piece of legislation, these projects are identified as ‘surface transportation priorities’ and include investments such as the Hammond Drive Roadway Upgrades in Sandy Springs, GA, the Edwards County Bone Gap Road in Illinois, and $2 million for something called “Urban Collector Road, MS.” The Administration proposes cutting them because the choice of these projects was “not subject to merit-based criteria or competition.” Overall, cutting these projects from special funding would save $293 million.

Also slated for cuts is the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps would see a 10 percent drop in funding for its water and flood programs. But the budget also proposes a new direction for the Corps by incorporating new planning concepts and analytical methods.

The general theme, then, appears to be consistent with the reforms that accompanied last year’s budget and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. the stimulus bill) which provided a number of avenues for coordinating its various funding streams at a metropolitan level, particularly in new competitive grant programs, and a nudge away from the troublesome formula-driven programs so prevalent today.

Authors

Robert Puentes