The FCC will present a national broadband plan to Congress soon. The plan is to provide access to broadband services to every home in the US by 2020. Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski in an interview with the Washington Post published March 3, 2010 ("FCC Chairman Genachowski Confident in Authority over Broadband, Despite Critics") believes the FCC has jurisdictional authority to control and regulate broadband service providers. His focus is on the President's plans to bring broadband Internet access to all homes in the US.The chairman's opinion is challenged by the both the Internet service providers and cable industry. These organizations are concerned that the FCC will reclassify broadband into a Title II common carriage service. The Technology Policy Institute, funded by Internet providers, has stated that the reclassification would "adversely affect innovation, investment and consume welfare and would undermine the commission's goal of extending broadband penetration, particularly to underserved populations".
There is already a court case that involves the Comcast appeal of the FCC ruling about the FCC authority to regulate Comcast's network management procedures. See my blogs relating to the FCC and its authority: "Broadband Barriers" and "Putting Teeth into Net Neutrality"; and on Comcast's management procedures and Acceptable Use Policies "More Data on Comcast and Cox Traffic Blocking," "Metering the Internet," and "Comcast, the Internet and Restrictions." The concern of the public interest groups is, if the FCC loses the court case, then how will the users be treated if there is no authority regulating broadband service? The FCC could be relegated to only controlling the legacy networks and service providers.
Even the definition of broadband is up for grabs. The FCC definition of broadband can found at "What's Broadband". Today, broadband is any Internet service that has a speed of at least 200 kbps in one direction. This definition may however be changed in the future. The FCC is asking for comments on this definition. Many of the initial comments recommend raising the defined minimum broadband speed to at least 768 kbps.
There are many in the industry who believe that even 768 kbps is too low a speed to define broadband because most of the experiences with video, music and picture files really need higher speeds. If the broadband speed definition is raised to 768 kbps, then 2G wireless is too slow and many 3G connections would probably not meet the broadband definition. So if wireless carriers are pushing broadband then the wireless networks could be too slow. The wireless networks of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint would not meet the broadband definition if the minimum broadband speed is raised.
The FCC plan could request Congress to allocate funds for broadband expansion. Alternatively, Congress can allocate funds through the Universal Service Fund to accelerate the expansion of broadband services. As with any government funds, there are strings attached, strings that I do not think the major service providers would want to be bound by. So if the plan has some commitments from the service providers, I think the there will be resistance to any regulation. The major providers may not accept the funds to avoid the limitations.
I am for the regulation because I foresee many abuses that could be initiated by the service providers if there is no regulation. We do not need a near monopoly situation to make broadband accessible. Without the regulation, monopolistic practices are bound to occur. When a company has nearly a corner on the market, the goal is profit, market control but not social responsibility or universal access at reasonable costs.
