A construction worker hangs fiber-optic cable in Vermont. (AP Photo/Toby Talbot, File)
By Jim Puzzanghera and David Sarno | Declaring expansion of broadband Internet access the nation’s next great
infrastructure challenge, federal regulators Monday unveiled an
ambitious, decade-long project to make super high-speed connections
available in every corner of the country.
The plan by the Federal Communications Commission sets a goal of making
sure at least 100 million homes have affordable access to networks that
allow downloading data from the Internet at speeds of at least 100
megabits per second — at least 20 times faster than what most people
get today. The proposal, which will be sent to Congress, also seeks to
put ultra-fast Internet access of 1 gigabit per second in public
facilities such as schools, hospitals and government buildings in every
community.
The goal is to transform the nation’s Internet infrastructure and make high-speed access affordable to everyone, the FCC said. The agency proposes to use wireless connections as a cheaper and quicker alternative to laying wires or fiber optic cables to unserved areas. One of the plan’s main objectives, it said, is to make the United States home to “the fastest and most extensive wireless networks of any nation.”
The plan, which for the most part the FCC would implement, is expected to face opposition from broadcasters, who fear they would be forced to give up some of their airwaves. Telecommunications companies and some Republicans in Congress also are concerned about possible new regulations that, they warn, could stifle investment in expanding broadband networks.
Although the FCC made paper copies of the 356-page plan available to reporters Monday, it would not be released to the public until Tuesday. As such, interest groups and analysts were unable to comment on the details Monday. They stressed that those details were crucial.
Still, consumer and public interest groups praised the commission for taking on the challenge of spurring the expansion of affordable high-speed Internet after years of waiting for private companies to do it.
“It’s exciting that we have national attention on putting together a broadband plan after this issue had been dropped from the federal agenda for a number of years,” said Karen Mossberger, a professor of public administration at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who studies broadband availability in the U.S.
“To date, just leaving things up to the market has not produced affordable broadband,” she said, adding that Internet access is more expensive in the U.S. than in at least a dozen other countries.
Public safety
Another key component of the plan is creating a new wireless network for police, firefighters and other public safety workers so that during major emergencies they can communicate and share data and video between departments.
Lawmakers and public safety organizations have pushed for such a network since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when first responders at the World Trade Center had trouble communicating.
In 2008, the FCC encouraged private companies to help build such a network by offering cheap access to public airwaves, but the effort failed.
The FCC has recommended that Congress authorize $12 billion to $16 billion to create the network. That would be the largest allocation of money under the broadband strategy.
There is no set price tag for the overall plan because Congress could decide to accelerate parts of it. FCC officials said the plan is designed to pay for itself through existing revenue streams, such as fees already charged to telecommunications companies to spread service to rural areas.
The FCC, which spent a year studying the issue, said the federal government needs to do more to make sure high-speed networks reach all Americans, allowing them to tap into the information economy and take advantage of future advancements such as electronic health records.
“The National Broadband Plan is a 21st century road map to spur economic growth and investment, create jobs, educate our children, protect our citizens and engage in our democracy,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said. President Obama, who has made expanding Internet access a priority, appointed the former technology executive to the FCC post last year.
Airwaves in demand
Tapping into the wireless airwaves is a key part of the FCC’s plan. It wants to reallocate a huge chunk of radio-frequency spectrum to use for high-speed Internet service, regarded as a much cheaper and quicker way of spreading broadband service than laying fiber cables — particularly in rural areas.
But that spectrum is assigned to TV and radio broadcasters, who are expected to strongly oppose any proposal to take it away, even if the FCC would share money with them from auctioning off the use of those airwaves to telecommunications companies.
FCC staff said it would be up to broadcasters to decide whether they wanted to give up some of their airwaves.
But the report said the FCC should explore alternatives, such as forcing some broadcasters to change how they transmit, if incentives don’t free up enough airwaves.
That wording raised alarm at the National Assn. of Broadcasters.
“We were pleased by initial indications from FCC members that any spectrum reallocation would be voluntary, and were therefore prepared to move forward in a constructive fashion on that basis,” Dennis Wharton, the group’s executive vice president of media relations, said in a statement. “However, we are concerned by reports . . . that suggest many aspects of the plan may in fact not be as voluntary as originally promised.”
Telecommunications industry trade group USTelecom, which represents companies including Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc., said it applauded the goals of the plan. It commended the FCC for what it perceived as the plan’s focus on lowering costs and expanding access through market competition, rather than regulation.
Getting connected
Access to high-speed Internet service has grown dramatically — nearly 200 million Americans now have access, compared with 8 million in 2000, the FCC said.
But about 100 million U.S. homes are not hooked up to a high-speed network. Much of that is because of the price for service, but about 14 million Americans could not get access — even if they could afford it — because it is not available where they live.
Congress included $7.2 billion for grants to jump-start the expansion of high-speed Internet access in the $787-billion economic stimulus plan passed last year, and gave the FCC a year to develop a broader strategy. Consumer groups and Internet activists have complained for years that the U.S. had no real broadband strategy, a major reason that the country continues falling in international rankings for high-speed Internet access per capita. The U.S. was ranked 15th last year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. It was ranked fourth in 2001.
“Their aim: to bring affordable, high-speed Internet connections to all Americans and make access much faster for people who already have broadband.”
It sounds like mission creep to me. After all, the FCC doesn’t invent anything, it doesn’t build anything, and the only way it has to make something “affordable” is to force someone to pay for what something someone else wants.
If there’s a market for 100 megabits per second connectivity, then I don’t doubt that it will become widely available. Does porn look better at 100Mb/s? Do you get impatient and bored waiting for stuff to download? If so, then perhaps you’ll buy this service for yourself.
But, I don’t see why I should be taxed (or have sneak fees added to my *** bill) just so that you can have it.
There is a market for 100 megabits connectivity. It is called businesses. Other industrialized and technologically advanced nations have much faster internet speeds and wider broadband access than the US has. Without faster connections and upgraded technology, we will be stuck in the same old stagnating for decades.
broadband needs to be more widely available at lower prices so more and more small and medium sized businesses can compete. the u.s. needs an economic policy that promotes entrepreneurship for the small and medium sized business and get away from this top down market philosphy where everything is given to the big corporation and small businesses are forgotten.
@Innocent, better not look at your phone bill, cellular bill, cable bill……also could you imagine the US without the interstates? These will be our new interstates.
@Aaron, you are 100% right.
Genachowski already finds resistance from the broadcasters, with the cable/dish guys to follow. The special interest $$$ will flow. However this is something that we need.
The ISP’s have no interest in the public good. They wil bleed us with constantly rising prices for each improvement regardless of the marginal cost they may or may not incur. Just look at cable prices. Each time I go to a grocery store I can switch brands, substitute products or forego a purchase. Internet, cable and phone services have all become consumer rip-offs.
Why is the FCC allowed to be involved in such plans? Private industry has done a fantastic job of building, enhancing and growing the Internet. Market forces will continue that growth far more efficiently and effectively than any political agency possibly could. Letting the FCC play a role will only slow the process and dramatically increase the cost. Isn’t the federal deficit big enough, without letting the government direct and spend money in an industry that is doing extremenly well on its own?
@Linderman “Private industry has done a fantastic job of building, enhancing and growing the Internet.”
Uh, does ARPANET mean anything to you? MILNET? CSNET? The Internet exists because the government created it. Universal broadband needs to be kick-started by the government so that private industry can step in later and reap the profits (and whine about how the government gets in the way of private industry).
Remember the GORE tax to wire the country? We wired schools and housing projects and libraries and spent $billions of public money and private money and new taxes (that we are still paying)in two wire obsolete phone wire. Before the Gore plan was done we found we needed higher capacity so we spent more money after wasting most of the money and still not delivering. Why do we want to do this again? Between satellite, DSL, cable and other we are doing fine. There will be something faster, better, possibly cheaper in the future. Keep government out!! If it is viable it will get done with or without the government. Keep the government out!!The private sector will invent, develop, build and run just fine and people will have a better life. For those that complain about their high internet bills look at how much is going to taxes on your bill (often 10-20%). Just because someone doesn’t have internet doesn’t mean that they want it, and some say they can’t afford it might mean that they have better things to do with their money. This government feels that they have to be involved in deciding what we want and what we should pay and who is going to deliver. Get Out!
You want cheaper internet? Get rid of the telecom monopoly lobbyists.
So…the FCC wants to move from regulating the telecommunication industry to being one? No thanks. Anything the government is charge of is full of waste and always costs double to triple of estimates.
First GM and Chrysler, then AIG, then healthcare, and now cable? Does anyone see a theme here? Whats next…pizza? The pizza industry is fragmented and all would be served better if the government our provider of pizza. We need to be taxed more for greater good of pizza.
We are broke….stop spending taxpayer dollars….NOW.
Our speeds are way behind other advanced countries. And our prices are much higher. At a place we are looking at there is only 1 choice.
Telecommunications companies and some Republicans in Congress also are concerned about possible new regulations that, they warn, could stifle investment in expanding broadband networks.
Translation…Profits to the telecoms will be effected in a negative fashion, which will reduce monies to Congress’s largess of Lobbying dollars they collect annually.
Improving services to the general public at reduced costs means reduced monies to the rich, white, conservative politicians and business capitalists.
Remember the GORE tax to wire the country? We wired schools and housing projects and libraries and spent $billions of public money and private money and new taxes (that we are still paying)in two wire obsolete phone wire. Before the Gore plan was done we found we needed higher capacity so we spent more money after wasting most of the money and still not delivering. Why do we want to do this again? Between satellite, DSL, cable and other we are doing fine. There will be something faster, better, possibly cheaper in the future. Keep government out!! If it is viable it will get done with or without the government. Keep the government out!!The private sector will invent, develop, build and run just fine and people will have a better life. For those that complain about their high internet bills look at how much is going to taxes on your bill (often 10-20%). Just because someone doesn’t have internet doesn’t mean that they want it, and some say they can’t afford it might mean that they have better things to do with their money. This government feels that they have to be involved in deciding what we want and what we should pay and who is going to deliver. Get Out!
Great post!