Supernova 2007: because technology is everyone's business

Friday, June 23, 2006

Perspective: Michael Copps, FCC

Public policy will affect the future of this industry. Issues like net neutrality create a growing recognition that we need to engage in the public policy discussion.

Commissioner Michael Copps of the FCC cuts right to the chase: All is not well in Washington in terms of dealing with these new products and services. We need to do something about that.

This period of disruptive change in tech, business plans and policy will shape the future of broadband, internet and the media. We need to take a holistic approach.

Public policy priorities: broadband, which is fundamental to what the FCC does. His mission is to bring the best, most cost-effective communication system to all the people in the country. He says: Access to communications is an all American civil right.

Broadband is the great network and infrastructure challenge of our time. They are the roads, railways and canals of this age. We need to build out broadband connectivity. Right now, the US is 15th in the world in broadband penetration.

The FCC calls 200 kilobits broadband. That’s the ‘90s. We have a national broadband goal of universal access by 2007. With six months to go to the end of the year, we’re not going to meet that goal.

We could have a wider digital gap between haves and have nots – urban / rural America – in advance telecommunications. We have not national strategy to avoid that.

Starting with basics: The FCC has to collect data and get facts about our current situation. Today we assume that if there is a single subscriber to broadband in one zip code, then it is available throughout that zip code.

We need to compare the cost per bit in the US to that in other countries, and study what other countries are doing. Countries with lower population densities have better coverage than the US. How did they do it?

Based on what we learn from this research, we need to tee up options for Congress to look at—lay out the options in an analytical way.

We need more bandwidth, and more competition in the bandwidth supply.

Net Neutrality: As we migrate to broadband, decentralized end user control is increasingly at risk. There are fewer broadband providers, controlling the pipeline – about 98 percent of the broadband market. Too many consumers lack a choice.

If the market is truly competitive, the government can get out of the way and let the service flourish. Being asked to pay a premium to use more bandwidth creates the specter of broadband providers controlling where you go and what you do on the internet.

Some providers may try this. That could end in bad pubic policy.

The new classification as a Title 1 Information Service takes away the protection of broadband from being regulated. The commission has come up with a statement of basic rights, which plant the seeds for a dialog about net neutrality.

Providers of broadband look for new business models, even suggesting that sites that generate traffic pay a toll to get that traffic. If first class access is available only to those who pay, that relegates everyone else to steerage.

We need to do everything we can to ensure the internet remains open and democratic. If distributors control content and conduit, they can keep others out.

In the media world, there is an alarming increase in media consolidation, resulting in fewer outlets and properties. They own production and distribution, cornering the market on creativity. The FCC has begun again to decide what the future of media will look like, shaping ownership of TV, radios and cable.

Safeguards that foster media diversity are being removed. Is it good to give one corporation sweeping power in a local market? The court took the FCC to takes for giving that power in the past. This time, the process will be more open, and invite public comment.

This relates to the internet freedom issue. Net neutrality is one high voltage rail in the consolidation debate. The more concentration ownership, the tighter the distribution, the more the Internet is at risk.

If you care about diversity in your news and information, creativity in our entertainment, open dialog for more intelligent decisions – we can’t let a few giants subvert the system.

As the FCC grapples with these issues, the commission needs more input from small and medium sized enterprises, as well as the large high tech firms. Decisions without you are most often decisions against you.

It will take serious effort and commitment. The opposition is robustly financed. By doing some political work, you can make sure it’s not a business as usual process. Take your story all across America. Tell people what is at stake. Enlist allies. You can have an impact on the debate.

Q: Net neutrality passed the house and is on it’s way to the Senate. What’s going to happen?
A: I don’t make predictions. The challenge is to make sure the serious propositions move forward. Senate markup of the legislation is underway.

Q: There is little research and analysis going on right now. How do we raise the level of research?
A: Others define the debate politically, analysts define it commercially. We need to demonstrate to decision makers what the success stories are. What’s going on around the country. We need to change the terms of the debate.

Q: What kind of partnerships and alliances can be formed?
A: People want to go the same direction but have a different bottom line. Figure out a common message for now. That will enable you to have critical mass around the country. You have to put differences aside momentarily.

Q: What can the government do to open more wireless spectrum for broadband access?
A: We working on that, setting rules of the road for using it.