Broadband Policy Connecting America · 2008-12-23 · Fiber is “true broadband .” We support...

December 2008 | www.broadbandproperties.com | BROADBAND PROPERTIES | 39

Broadband Policy

ConnectingAmerica

Broadband Policy at a GlanceOpen Letter to President-Elect Barack Obama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 40

‘Universal Broadband’ Really Means ‘Universal Fiber Optics’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 43

Allow USDA’s Rural Development to Fund More Competitive Builds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 44

Support Fiber Projects That Are Ready to Go Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 44

Subsidize Open Access Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 45

Infrastructure Investment? Fiber! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 46

Remove Barriers to Municipal Broadband . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 47

FTTH: The Most Effective Investment for Productivity Gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 48

We Need A Map! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 50

Leading Organizations Supporting Fiber Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 52

Coalition Unites on Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 53

Building fiber networks is the key to economic growth and national competitiveness .

40 | BROADBAND PROPERTIES | www.broadbandproperties.com | December 2008

Mr . President-Elect:

In this moment of great crisis and great opportunity, you have asked all Americans for ideas about where

you should lead the country. Here is our recommendation: Build fiber optic networks to connect every American home and business to the Internet.

America cannot maintain its com-petitive edge in the world without fiber-based broadband, because bandwidth is the currency of the new economy.

At home, fiber is our path to a sus-tainable and inclusive society. It offers citizens access to health and educational resources, to entrepreneurial and job opportunities, and to participation in government, regardless of where they live. It erases distance without requiring travel. It is the key to modernizing the electric grid – the reliable and energy-efficient “smart” grid you’ve called for. It enables new ways of living, working and playing.

The fiber we put into the ground to-day will continue to meet our telecom-munications needs for decades to come. Its capacity is virtually limitless, and its

lifetime is likely half a century or more. As the interstate highway system has done, fiber will create and diffuse wealth in ways we can barely imagine.

Fiber is “true broadband .” We support your call for America to once again lead the world in broadband pen-etration and Internet access, and your pledge to bring “true broadband” to ev-ery community in America.

Your proposal to define broadband at speeds demanded by 21st-century business and communications is on tar-get. But what speeds will 21st-century business and communications require? In the short term, we think the answer is 100 Mbps of symmetrical bandwidth – a definition that other nations are us-ing, and some are already achieving or exceeding. In the long term, we expect bandwidth needs to continue growing exponentially beyond that.

Our old copper infrastructure can’t provide these speeds, nor can it provide the reliability of fiber. Neither can wire-less. To deliver 100 Mbps now and higher speeds in the future, we need to bring

fiber to the premises or the building. (Wireless broadband, needed for mobil-ity, both complements fiber and relies on it to carry traffic back to the Internet.)

Today fiber optic connections are available to about 12 percent of Ameri-can households, and probably to an equivalent proportion of businesses. We have a long way to go. Public and private investment on the order of $150 billion is required to complete the job – but even the near-term return on that investment is many times greater.

Fiber will make our economy competitive . Countries around the world are deploying fast, reliable fiber-based networks, and many are far ahead of the US in terms of both broadband penetration and broadband speeds. Today, American companies need true broadband in order to have access to world markets. And we’re not just talk-ing about the “information” economy. We’re also talking about Vermonters selling local cheese off a small Web site, or communities marketing their tour- ist attractions.

An Open Letter to President-Elect

Barack Obama: To Make America

Competitive, Build Fiber Optic Networks

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


But the Internet isn’t just a way to communicate with trading partners. Increasingly, it is the locus of comput-ing power and advanced applications – this is the so-called “cloud computing” revolution. American businesses need fiber connections to keep up with the way the rest of the world does business. They cannot compete in a global econ-omy unless they can use (at comparable, competitive prices) the productivity and collaboration tools that are standard in Europe and Asia. Government agencies, too, should be able to access these same tools to serve citizens better.

Also, American software companies need domestic markets in order to de-velop advanced broadband applications – an important growth sector for the economy. If the markets for true broad-band are largely in Europe and Asia, Eu-ropean and Asian software companies will have the advantage in developing new broadband products and services. That already seems to be happening.

Fiber will revitalize local com-munities . Too many US communities have been stranded by changing eco-nomic tides. Rust-belt cities were devas-tated by the loss of manufacturing; ru-ral areas have been depopulated by the shift to agribusiness. Fiber networks can change all this – and already are, in a handful of pioneering towns.

Connecting homes and businesses with fiber can bring back jobs that have been sent offshore. Back-office functions can be outsourced to companies in low-cost regions of the US, rather than low-cost regions of the world. Home-based employees in fiber-connected communi-ties can – and do – compete nationally as virtual office workers, knowledge work-ers, and customer-service and customer-support reps. Small-business owners in isolated communities can grow their businesses by selling products and ser-vices nationwide, or even worldwide, over the Internet.

Fiber will improve access to health and education . We need to bring about dramatic improvements in health and educational services while reducing costs. Fiber networks, where they have been installed, are already

accomplishing this. To give just a few examples: High-quality videoconferenc-ing and online video give every student access to specialized teachers and every patient access to specialized doctors. Re-mote diagnostic devices give faster, more accurate roadmaps for treatment. Home medical monitoring devices reduce the need for institutionalization. Remote instrumentation gives high school stu-dents access to specialized scientific data in real time. Music and arts education, long neglected by our schools, becomes possible again with Web-based study and virtual museum tours and concerts.

Fiber will engage citizens in government . Your own use of social networking to inspire, engage and em-power millions in your campaign relied heavily on broadband access. Fiber net-works can multiply this effect. Again, just a few examples: High-quality vid-eoconferencing enables more citizens to participate in public meetings and de-bates, and to organize spontaneously in groups defined by interest and commit-ment rather than geography. Access to large Web-based databases and analytic software will give more citizens the tools they need to analyze public issues and model solutions to them, increasing the likelihood of solving some of our most pressing problems.

Fiber will reduce America’s carbon footprint . As the CEO of a Kentucky electric utility says, “Broad-band is electric power plant.” Fiber to the electric meter lets utilities imple-ment “Smart Grid” demand response programs that yield enormous energy savings and shave peak loads, reducing the need for investment in generating plants. Fiber enables “smart building” controls for multifamily or commercial building owners. Residents of fiber-connected homes telecommute much more than those with lower-quality broadband (or, obviously, those without broadband). In the business enterprise,

high-quality videoconferencing reduces business travel significantly.

Fiber may even help reverse the en-ergy-wasteful urban and suburban plan-ning that has plagued us since the 1940s. Today’s “new-urbanist” communities – nearly all fiber-connected – are designed to let residents walk to schools, shop-ping, entertainment and social engage-ments, and telecommute to work from their homes or neighborhood centers.

Getting from here to there . As much as 10 percent of the needed $150 billion is already committed to be spent, and will be spent absent a complete eco-nomic collapse. Verizon alone plans to make fiber available to 6 million more homes in the next two years. But the re-maining 90 percent could take decades unless building fiber networks is made a national priority. Worse, innovation in fiber-to-the-home technology may be lost as firms exit this business – many are small and cannot remain solvent during a prolonged downturn.

Achieving this goal is politically chal-lenging, and may be even more complex than building the interstate highway system or transcontinental railroad. But it is an achievable goal, and the first step is to commit to getting it done. We ex-pect that it will require a combination of loans, grants and other incentives, de-pending on overall economic conditions and specific situations in local markets. Fortunately, the mechanisms for doing this have already been tested on a less ambitious scale.

We offer these guidelines for your consideration:

• USDA currently administers loans and grants for rural broadband, distance learning and telemedicine. Possible changes to these programs might include not only increasing their funding but also giving stron-ger preference to “true broadband” projects; permitting longer payback

Public funding should be directed to fiber optic networks, not to less-robust copper

or wireless broadband networks that will be obsolete from the day they are built.

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


periods while still helping borrowers maintain financial soundness; and expanding (or cloning) the program to cover underserved urban commu-nities.

• You have called for a major invest-ment in broadband as a key compo-nent of fiscal-stimulus public works programs. We agree wholeheartedly – with the caveat that funding go to fiber optic networks, not to less-robust copper or wireless broadband networks that will be obsolete from the day they are built.

Many telecom providers have worth-while projects already on the draw-ing boards waiting for financing, so spending could begin very quickly. And because network builds are typi-cally executed in phases, government lenders could easily “phase out” and let private lenders step in once the economy recovers.

• We must encourage organizations other than traditional telecom pro-viders to deploy fiber. Two examples:

• Municipalities have been bold and innovative deployers of fi-ber optic networks – some for their own use, others for their residents and businesses – and, despite a few well-publicized fail-ures, most have succeeded. Yet in many states they are legally pro-hibited or limited in doing this, or delayed by frivolous lawsuits. Their authority to build telecom networks needs to be clarified.

• Electric utilities should also be given incentives to build out fiber to the meter in order to imple-ment Smart Grid projects.

• Municipal networks must be al-lowed to connect, reliably and at a fair price, to national networks. That will require regulatory changes and better information-gathering by the Federal Communications Commis-sion. Fiber trunk lines often pass close to communities, and the com-munities do not always know where they are.

• Finally, the Universal Service Fund today is focused on making voice service available to all. As you have already recommended, it must be refocused to fund universal data ser-vice. Indeed, voice travels as data on the nation’s networks even now. The distinction is artificial as a matter of technology as well as of public policy.

Our recommendations require changes in regulation and expansion of access to capital. Notice that by “incen-tives,” we do not mean “automatic tax breaks.” We believe that all Americans, and all American enterprises, should pay their fair share. Enterprises that have already invested in fiber may find that they will lose a small amount of com-petitive advantage. But universal fiber broadband will vastly increase traffic, thus increasing revenue for all carriers.

Our proposals are good for them, and great for America. BBP

—The Editors Broadband Properties

Broadband Champions Voice Their RecommendationsWe also asked a range of broadband experts to recommend policies for the new administration. Eight responses follow; despite their different roles and viewpoints, all are eloquent in their support for raising America’s broadband infrastructure to world-class levels. In addition, 24 leading broadband companies have endorsed our call for fiber networks to drive economic growth and competitiveness (see page 52).

Dr . Timothy Nulty is president of ValleyFiber, a nonprofit bringing universal, open access, publicly owned fiber networks to Vermont. He was general manager of Burlington Telecom, a municipal fiber network using innovative financing that did not require taxpayer resources. His career includes stints as senior advisor to the CFO, US Dept. of Energy; managing director of a consulting company specializing in telecommunications, finance and energy; managing director of a telecom venture capital group; telecom strategist for the World Bank; deputy director of both the House and Senate Commerce Committees; and professor of economics.

David Russell is solutions marketing director for Calix, a vendor whose equipment is used by hundreds of small to midsized telecom providers. He has more than 20 years of experience in optical broadband access systems and holds eight patents in wireless and cable technologies.

Jim Baller is president of a communications law firm whose clients include the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, regional and state utility associations and municipal leagues. He founded the US Broadband Coalition, a consortium working for development of a comprehensive national broadband strategy. The Fiber to the Home Council has called Mr. Baller “the nation’s most experienced and knowledgeable attorney on public broadband matters.”

Christopher Mitchell leads the Telecommunications as Commons Initiative with the New Rules Project of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. The ILSR, a nonprofit, works to enable communities to increase economic

effectiveness, reduce waste, decrease environmental impacts and provide for local infrastructure ownership. Its New Rules Project seeks to change rules that undermine the strength of local economies.

Joe Savage is president of the Fiber-to-the-Home Council, North America, whose mission is to educate, promote and accelerate fiber to the home. He has more than 35 years of executive-level experience in telecommu-nications and optical networking. A professional engineer, he holds pat-ents for high-speed digital transmission cable design and for methods of avoiding Internet congestion in the public switched telephone network.

Wes Rosenbalm is president and CEO of Bristol Virginia Utilities, a 64-year-old public utility. In 2003, he led BVU in deploying the first municipally owned fiber-to-the-user broadband network. Mr. Rosenbalm later forged partnerships with local and state leaders and the neighboring planning district commission to extend the network into six other rural counties in Southwest Virginia. In 2007, he testified before the US Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet to endorse the Community Broadband Act, a federal law that would remove barriers to municipal governments offering telecom services.

Gary Fields is president of a consulting group that assists development organizations. In 25 years he has assisted with financing over $1 billion in development projects. He was deputy commissioner for the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development, VP at Springsted Public Finance Advisors, and director of the National Development Council.

Hilda Gay Legg served as the 15th administrator of the Rural Utilities Service, overseeing a $6 billion loan and grant program for the infrastruc-ture needs of rural America. She is committed to encouraging economic growth while improving quality of life in rural America. She was also CEO of the Center for Rural Development in Somerset, KY, and alternate federal co-chairman for the Appalachian Regional Commission.

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


‘UNivErsAL BrOAdBANd’ rEALLy MEANs ‘UNivErsAL FiBEr OPTiCs’– Timothy Nulty, President

ValleyFiber

The parallels between the circumstances of Barack Obama’s elec-tion and those of Franklin Roosevelt’s regarding the economy as a whole have been widely recognized. What has been less rec-ognized but is just as apt is the parallel regarding America’s fun-damental telecommunications infrastructure. FDR’s election led to the Communications Act of 1934, spelling out what became a signature of America’s commitment and unique approach to fun-damental infrastructure. We need to do that again.

In the 120 years after the invention of the telephone, America led the world in the quality and universality of this marvelous tech-nology. Two-way radio was available all those years but, while it was excellent for fishermen at sea, taxi dispatchers, forest rangers and policemen, no one imagined it to be a substitute for connec-tion to the hard-wired PSTN. The same is true today.

1. Wireless is a supplement, not a substitute. Wireless technol-ogies are an extension and enhancement of universal fiber – not a substitute for it. As long as the laws of physics apply, wireless can never provide the carrying capacity, reliability and security of closed optical media. On the other hand, fiber can never be “mobile.” Similarly, helicopters can do things that jetliners can never do, like picking up accident victims from the countryside, but no one imagines that helicopters can replace jetliners for providing mass air transport. “Horses for courses,” as the Eng-lish say: Use each technology for what its innate characteris-tics suit it for – and don’t try to substitute one for the other.

2. There is a profound national interest in having everyone connected to the ultra-fast, ultra-capable resource that a universal fiber network constitutes . Access to state-of-the-art telecom has rapidly become fundamental to full participation in the economy and society. Living without it has become almost unthinkable – and certainly condemns one to profound disadvantage.

3. Optical fiber is the most perfect natural monopoly ever invented . Optical fiber exhibits the key natural mo-nopoly features: a) enormous capacity; b) virtually zero marginal cost; and, c) extremely high barriers to entry. This means that the first person/company to build a fiber into every premises is extremely well placed to exploit (and abuse) one of the most powerful intrinsic monopo-lies ever seen. It is imperative that we connect everyone to a ubiquitous fiber network – but it is equally necessary to protect against abuse of this powerful monopoly.

Points 1, 2 and 3 mean we have no choice but to put the government directly and unapologetically into the

picture… just as we do with other basic public utilities such as water, police, education and fire protection. This runs directly counter to the recent policy, under which optical fiber systems have been steadily removed from regulation covering the key issues of universal coverage and common carriage (referred to these days as “network neutrality”). These same issues have been fought over in other arenas such as toll roads, the postal service, canals, railroads, airwaves and the telephone since the founding of the Republic. The issues are not new at all! Only the technology of optical networks is new.

A new national policy on fiber optics should be eclectic and pragmatic about means while being utterly focused and committed on the ends. America’s telephone system in the 20th century was the wonder and envy of the world. We built this system by using the most eclectic bag of tools anywhere. Our telephone sector consisted of large investor-owned corporations, mom-and-pop small business, rural cooperatives and local and state governments. It was regu-lated by an interlocking system of controls at federal, state

Nulty: We have no choice but to put the government directly and

unapologetically into the picture… just as we do with other basic

public utilities such as water, police, education and fire protection.

Nulty: Optical fiber is economic for 99+ percent of America’s population without special-interest “incentives.” It is a shibboleth created by special interests with ulterior motives that fiber is uneconomic except in “juicy” areas.

and local levels. It was financed in all sorts of ways including every form of private and public equity and debt.

But through it all ran two powerful and overriding prin-ciples:

• Universal service with similar prices and quality for all. • Common carriage.

No other nation in the world, except Canada, employed a similar system – one that combines practical flexibility regarding means with iron-willed commitment to the ends. And no other country except Canada had a phone system anywhere near as good as that of the US. In contrast, our current telecommunica-tions system is far less impressive compared to our competitors – and is falling in worldwide rankings.

Optical fiber is economic for 99+ percent of America’s popula-tion without special-interest incentives. It is a shibboleth created by special interests with ulterior motives that fiber is uneconomic except in “juicy” areas.

Unfortunately, this myth has been perpetuated by many in the “policy establishment” who don’t know the facts but always repeat whatever common wisdom they heard at the last seminar or cocktail party.

Let me repeat: If viewed as a public utility, optical fiber is eco-nomic over all but a trivially small percentage of the US popula-tion. By “public utility economics” I mean that, when all players are required to comply with universal service and common car-riage requirements (so no one can get an advantage by cherry-picking) universal fiber can pay all costs and a reasonable rate of return on equity per the economics of utility regulation em-ployed for all basic services in America over the last century and a half.

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


Fiber Goes Farther –Fiber optic cable carries information on pulses of light. Signals can travel long distances without degrading – 12 miles, sometimes even more. In contrast, the low-voltage electric signals on copper wires degrade over distance. Copper can carry very-high-speed signals only over the last few yards.

Of course, no private company using a pure profit-max-imizing calculus would choose universal coverage or com-mon carriage. But that is just as true for any public utility. That is the point about public utilities. The public interest in universal service trumps the interests of profit maximization.

Access to telecom infrastructure and services is and should be treated as an essential public utility. Not all public utilities can pay their own way. Those that cannot, need help from the taxpayer. But universal optical fiber can pay its way and therefore does not need special tax breaks, interest-free loans, etc. What it does need is the regulatory structure requir-ing universality and common carriage for all players – a level playing field, if you will – plus the guaranteed right of anyone, including local governments, co-ops, entrepreneurs and estab-lished corporations to enter the field as long as they play by the public utility rules. No participant (new or existing) should be allowed to gain an advantage over those who do play by those rules by cherry-picking or sabotaging the entrance of others.

Of course many incumbents will scoff and say that this is uneconomic. Nonsense. They have always said this. Their peers and forebears said the same about water, electricity, gas, buses and telephones when these were made public utilities. And yet all of these flourished as public utilities, with multiple providers of all different sorts successfully providing service, paying their bills and distributing dividends to their many dif-ferent owners.

There are enough successful FTTH systems up and run-ning – both private and public – to demonstrate beyond doubt that universal fiber can also be economically viable and self-sufficient. Universal fiber is not only viable in towns, cities and suburbs; it is also viable in the overwhelming ma-jority of rural areas. It is certainly true for the entirety of Ver-mont, where I live. And Vermont is one of the most rural states in America.

The tools to create this are known. They are just rusty. We need to refurbish them, reconstitute them and update them for modern circumstances. We know how to do this. We have done it before. And we can do it again. We just need to decide to do it.

America’s efficient, flexible, affordable and universal telephone system was a powerful factor in our economic preeminence during the 20th century. Is there any doubt that quality and accessibility of state-of-the-art telecom-munications infrastructure will play a similarly powerful role – for better or worse – in our world position during the 21st century? r

ALLOw UsdA’s rUrAL dEvELOPMENT TO FUNd MOrE COMPETiTivE BUiLds– David Russell, Solutions Marketing Director

Calix

The big problem is that the USDA broadband loan pro-gram is not available except to really rural areas. We need investment in FTTH even in areas that receive broadband services as defined by the FCC, but whose levels of service are still inadequate to stimulate economic development or provide new, advanced broadband content. Much of the low-hanging fruit has been picked. It is time to ex-tend our reach. Let’s face it; fiber is a beautiful use of the needed investment in infrastructure. r

sUPPOrT FiBEr PrOjECTs ThAT ArE rEAdy TO GO NOw

– Jim Baller The Baller Herbst Law Group, PC

Broadband is our number one opportunity. Every dollar in-vested in advanced communications networks can create

multiple dollars of returns in economic development, educa-tional opportunity, energy efficiency, environmental sustain-ability, global competitiveness, public safety and homeland security, and on and on.

As part of any short-term economic stimulus package, the federal government should not only target areas that are un-served or underserved with modest levels of broadband, but should also provide support for public and private fiber proj-ects that could move forward right away if such support were available. To remain competitive in the emerging knowledge-based global economy, the United States must also put a high priority on developing a comprehensive national broadband strategy in 2009. r

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


sUBsidizE OPEN ACCEss NETwOrks– Christopher Mitchell, Director

Telecommunications as Commons Initiative Institute for Local Self-Reliance

President-elect Obama has said broadband will be a priority. He has already spoken in favor of communities that invest in their own networks. And of course, he has called for massive infra-structure investment.

Priority #1: Do no harm. No federal policy should preempt the right of communities to bond for and build their own net-works. These networks are infrastructure and communities must always have the right to build the infrastructure they need.

Priority #2: Preempt state authority to preempt local au-thorities. Several states have created high bars for communities to invest in publicly owned networks. Federal legislation should over-turn these bans and recognize the rights of communities to invest in modern networks. Legislation should also positively affirm the right of communities and public electric utilities to borrow money for these networks. This legislation is necessary to give direction to courts when incumbents file frivolous lawsuits as a delaying tactic.

Priority #3: Low-interest financing for public networks. Pos-sibly the biggest difficulty in building these networks is arranging for financing, especially during the ongoing economic downturn.

The federal government should offer low-interest, long-term loans to communities that demonstrate a feasible plan to offer universal service to their constituents. Public money should be used to encourage networks that are accountable to the public. This money would be available to communities that already have private providers offering services.

Priority #4: Grants and low-interest financing for pub-licly owned open access networks. Currently, open access networks are more difficult to finance because they do not generate sufficient revenue to pay the high startup costs. This may change as networks offer more services than a triple-play, but without open access networks now, we are stuck in a chicken-or-egg problem. As open access networks are a public good – where everyone benefits from increased competition and choices – the federal government should

Mitchell: As open access networks are a public good – where everyone benefits from increased competition and choices – the federal government should offer grants for open access networks to subsidize part of the cost.

B a n d w i d t hC o m p a r i s o n s

Only the BeginningA decade from now, even 100 Mbps or 1 Gbps will look small. By then, you’ll be seeing 3D television on the market. It could require 2.5 Gbps or more.

64 Kbps: Phone Line

128 Kbps: ISDN

1.544 Mbps: T1 Line

5 Mbps: Wireless maximum per user with latest technology

28 Mbps: DSL maximum per user with latest technology

160 Mbps: Cable maximum per user with latest technology

Today, fiber’s bandwidth is orders of magnitude bigger than other technologies. In the next few years, as 10 Gbps equipment becomes available, the fiber circle will be off the page.

Fiber is Faster –

2.4

GbP

S: F

Iber

Max

Per

uSe

r (2

008)

2.4

GbPS: F

Iber

Ma

x

Per u

Ser

(200

8)

2.4 GbPS: FIber Ma

x

Per uSer (2008)

2.4 GbPS: FIber M

ax

Per uSer (2008)

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


Fiber is Future Proof –Fiber to the home is the only technology that will meet near-term needs like 3D, “holo-graphic” high-definition television and games – products already in industrial use and on the drawing boards at big consumer-electronics firms.

Fiber is Reliable –Nothing can hurt a fiber cable except a physi-cal cut, or the destruction of the building it is in. By contrast, copper is easily damaged by lightning, electromagnetic interference, wind, moisture, salt, chemical corrosion and short-circuiting. Wireless signals are also affected by many weather conditions.

offer grants for open access networks to subsidize part of the cost. Though a grant would pay for perhaps 15 to 25 percent of the initial costs for a network, the network would still have to make debt payments on the rest. This money would only be available to publicly owned networks to ensure they remain accountable to the public and cannot change to a monopolistic model.

Priority #5: Structural separation for existing networks . When the company that owns the wires also offers services on the wires, it has incentives to disadvantage competitors also using the same wires. Federal policy should encourage a separation between the infrastructure and service level. In-frastructure owners – whoever owns the first mile – must offer access to all service providers on fair and equal terms. r

iNFrAsTrUCTUrE iNvEsTMENT? FiBEr!– Joe Savage, President

Fiber-to-the-Home Council

As our leaders map out their 2009 economic stimulus plans, let us encourage them to give due consideration to what “infrastructure” really means in the 21st-century economy.

As much as we may need to upgrade our concrete and steel assets, the fact is that an ever-increasing num-ber of people earn their living, get educated and spend their money via the Internet. Information technology is what drives our economy. The digital world is now the premier source of improved productivity, quality and in-novation in nearly all sectors – and it will only be more so in the future.

What’s more, access to that world is fast becoming an absolute necessity for economic opportunity and ad-vancement.

In the future, America’s growing corps of knowledge workers – who now comprise more than a third of the workforce – are just as likely to require an extra 50 or 100 megabits of bandwidth in their homes and offices as they will an extra lane on a nearby superhighway, an ad-ditional runway at the local airport or a parking garage downtown.

A high-speed information infrastructure would do more than just about anything else in the short term to re-

duce carbon emissions and improve productivity, particu-larly by empowering legions of these knowledge workers to

Savage: Because fiber is the only communications infrastructure that

can handle rapidly growing band-width demands, a focused program

aimed at accelerating FTTH de-ployment will not only put in place

world-class first-mile networks that will be critical to the nation’s techno-logical and economic leadership over the next several decades, but will also

be a substantial generator of jobs.

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


Fiber is GreenHigh-end videoconferencing and tele-presence – unlike desktop video – have become acceptable alternatives to busi-ness travel even for important meetings. The “lifelike” quality of telepresence de-pends on high speeds, low latency and reliability that only fiber can deliver.

rEMOvE BArriErs TO MUNiCiPAL BrOAdBANd– Wes Rosenbalm, President and CEO

Bristol Virginia Utilities

Bristol Virginia Utilities is a municipal utility company lo-cated in the rural southwest part of the Commonwealth. We recognized as early as 2000 that fiber optics could im-prove quality of life. My company, supported by local city leaders, invested in the first municipal fiber-to-the-user network in the nation to offer voice, video and data ser-vices to residential and business customers.

We later partnered with state and local leaders and two planning districts to expand our network, called Op-tiNet, into six other rural Virginia counties – Smyth, Taze-well, Russell, Buchanan, Dickenson and Wythe. Our com-pany revenues have risen approximately 50 percent over the past five years, and major technology companies have located in Southwest Virginia primarily because of its access to next-generation broadband. The result al-ready has been hundreds of new jobs and an impact of millions of dollars in our regional economy.

Having witnessed these achievements first hand, my primary appeal to the new administration is that barriers

to broadband access be removed in rural communities so that America can rise to a new level of world leadership

in next-generation technology. Currently, we rank behind several other countries in broadband access and in fiber-

to-the-home penetration. And, of course, this affects our global economic standing.

We will continue to lag behind as a nation if state legis-latures allow barriers to small governments that seek to pro-

vide broadband access and telecom services for their citizens. Currently, what states allow is a mixed bag. Some states totally

restrict municipalities from offering broadband services to citi-zens, others have no restrictions at all, and some, such as Vir-ginia, are in the middle of the spectrum.

We need federal legislation that will remove all restric-tions so that communities do not have to engage in expensive, lengthy legal battles to provide what is fast becoming a basic necessity for all Americans. At BVU, we spent three years and mil-lions of dollars battling the courts and local incumbents before being allowed to launch BVU OptiNet. We could have applied this financial and human resource commitment to investing in meaningful projects for further improving the lives of citizens.

About a year ago, I had the privilege of testifying before the US Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet in Washington, DC, to endorse the Community Broadband Act of 2007, a federal law introduced by Congressmen Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Fred Upton (R-MI). Passing this legislation, which removes

Rosenbalm: My primary appeal to the new administration is that barriers to broadband access be removed in rural communities so that America can rise to a new level of world leadership in next-generation technology.

spend less time in traffic and burn fewer gallons of gaso-line to get to work.

Americans are now using 100 times the bandwidth they used 10 years ago, and there are no signs that this need for speed is letting up. Emerging online services that provide videoconferencing, collaborative workspaces and remote data and application storage are driving bandwidth needs ever higher – not only for downloading but for uploading in-formation as well.

All this adds up to one thing: the need to upgrade Ameri-ca’s network infrastructure to include next-generation, ultra-high-bandwidth fiber connections to as many households and businesses as possible.

Because fiber is the only communications infrastructure that can handle rapidly growing fixed-bandwidth demands, a focused program aimed at accelerating FTTH deployment will not only put in place world-class first-mile networks that will be critical to the nation’s technological and economic lead-ership over the next several decades, but will also be a sub-stantial generator of jobs. Upgrading to FTTH networks is a re-source-intensive activity that will create high-skill, well-paying jobs in manufacturing products, building out the networks and connecting consumers. We estimate that three quarters of the funds spent on FTTH deployment go directly to provid-ing wages and benefits for people responsible for planning, building and operating these networks.

A cleaner, greener economy. Higher-wage jobs. More competitive industries. And the revitalization of our enter-prises, schools and health care system. Fiber-driven net-works can and will move us toward all of these goals. Let’s focus on infrastructure for which our grandchildren will thank us – broadband fiber to the home. r

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


Fiber is CompetitiveIn the small town of Powell, Wyoming, as many as 100 residents will be teaching English to Korean students via videocon-ferencing. The tutoring company wanted to hire home-based teachers, and Pow-ell’s fiber-to-the-home network made that possible.

all existing barriers to municipal governments offering telecom services, would alleviate the patchwork of state barriers.

We all recognize that the paradigm for economic growth and development for our entire nation is shifting and that the Internet ultimately is the engine that is driving economic op-portunity as we continue into the 21st century. That is why the passing of this bill is so important.

If barriers to entering the telecom industry are eliminated, communities, and particularly public utility companies, that choose this path need to recognize that the daily status quo for handling business will change. Sacrifices will have to be made and workloads increased. It is not for every community to do. Rural municipalities need to be aware that the best business model for financial success is to build fiber-to-the-premises networks or emerging wireless technologies that offer the triple play of phone, video and data. This provides a financial model that can continue to grow and lead to delivery of ever greater numbers of services.

Incumbents will continue arguing that governments shouldn’t be allowed to compete against the private sec-tor because they have an unfair advantage. However, the only true advantage we at BVU had in our journey through this process was access to tax-exempt financing. In my opinion, this advantage is neutralized by all the acceler-ated depreciation and other tax advantages that private industry has for improving its bottom line.

Getting into telecommunications takes fortitude and requires a compass. In fact, we received so many inqui-ries from other communities and utilities about how we launched our network that we established a telecom consulting and operations business in 2007. Our first customer was a consortium of towns in the Piedmont of North Carolina that had decided to buy their own local Internet and cable company. It has been a struggle for them, but with our operating their system pursuant to

Rosenbalm: Rural municipalities need to be aware that the best

business model for financial success is to build fiber-to-the-premises

networks or emerging wireless technologies that offer the triple

play of phone, video and data.

a management contract, they have made it through to the other end and are now reaping impressive rewards.

President-elect Obama, we are looking to you to estab-lish a national broadband policy that will break down barri-ers and allow rural communities to freely enter the telecom industry. I believe it is only with the creation of community broadband networks that America can continue to pros-per and remain a world leader. r

FTTh: ThE MOsT EFFECTivE iNvEsT-MENT FOr PrOdUCTiviTy GAiNs – Gary Fields, President

Development Strategies and Resources Inc.

As the Obama administration contemplates a large fed-eral economic stimulus bill, investment in fiber-to-the-home infrastructure deserves a place at the top of the

strategy list. Investing in fiber, which offers connection speeds and ca-

pacity far beyond cable or DSL, will yield the greatest finan-cial return of all the infrastructure investment options. Why?

Improved broadband connectivity has a direct and posi-tive effect on local economic growth. (See Broadband Proper-

ties, December 2005.) Better broadband means stronger busi-ness growth, more jobs and increased real estate values.

Fiber is one of the areas where we lag our global competi-tors. The Pacific Rim and Northern Europe have more fiber and greater broadband market penetration. If we invest in fiber we will be in a better position to attract and support high-tech companies and jobs.

An investment in fiber means an investment in greater pro-ductivity, which yields economic gain. For example, instead of traveling to your __ (fill in the blank with customer, supplier, doctor, patient, student, teacher) and your __ (use the same list), you can have multiparty high-definition videoconference calls.

The federal government needs to work with local, state and philanthropic partners to expand the use of fiber. Any new fed-

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


eral initiative should not be done in isolation, but should leverage local participation. Local partners share the economic develop-ment mission, unlike incumbent service providers, whose highest priority is, understandably, generating a return on investment for shareholders. Too often, it is in the best interest of incumbent pro-viders to avoid new investment in fiber, as well as to prevent oth-ers from investing in it and taking away market share. Local, state and philanthropic organizations can take the long view, which is what we need right now. Incumbent providers (with the possible exception of Verizon) are required to demonstrate positive quar-terly results, or investors start calling for management changes. In addition, a new investment partnership between the federal government and local agencies needs to include a review of the federal and state regulatory environment. In the last administra-tion, at the request of incumbent service providers, new barriers to local public participation in supporting broadband infrastruc-ture were created.

There are many investment options for the federal govern-ment in partnership with local and state agencies.

• Direct lending. The Small Business Administration, Eco-nomic Development Administration and other federal agen-cies have a long history of direct lending to local businesses and governments. And unlike Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they have a good lending history. The USDA Rural Develop-ment telco lending program should be improved to work bet-ter with local governments specifically for FTTH deployment, making it more streamlined and more expedient.

• Loan guarantees. Again, the SBA, HUD and other agen-cies have provided loan guarantees for decades with good performance. A partial guarantee of municipal debt will en-courage local public investment in fiber.

• Universal Service Fund. The Universal Service Fund (USF) was developed to facilitate voice communication in high-cost areas and some telecommunications companies have figured out how to use this to support investment in fi-ber. The USF should be changed to allow this more explicitly, and it should be available to municipalities.

• Technical assistance. Many municipalities have an inter-est in FTTH, but due to the unfamiliarity of the technology and service operations (it is unlike other local utilities, such as power, water, sewer, roads), they are hesitant to make the large investment that is necessary. The federal government should support efforts that provide local technical assistance and support for designing, building and operating FTTH net-works.

Any recommendations about what the federal govern-ment should do would be incomplete without suggestions about what they should not do. This list includes:

• An exclusive focus on wireless options. Democratic admin-istrations tend to focus on those that are “unserved,” which in the case of telecommunications means the most rural areas. This

leads to a focus on wireless services, which are a cost-effective way to reach low-density areas. While this absolutely needs to continue, it should be a complementary objective, because most of the US is “underserved.” I have seen incumbent providers use this tactic to divert the focus away from fiber. Instead, fiber and wireless need to be seen as complementary investments, where wireless technologies provide mobile services and, in the more re-mote areas, increased broadband connectivity.

• Tax credits. Tax credits, when properly focused in a time of economic growth, can be an effective channel for public invest-ment. Tax credits might be an appropriate strategy in the future, but not in today’s economic environment.

Economic stimulus bills being considered range from hun-dreds of billions to as much as a trillion dollars. The cost of FTTH for

Fields: Democratic administrations tend to focus on those that are “unserved,” which in the case of telecommunications means the most rural areas. This leads to a focus on wireless services…. While this abso-lutely needs to continue, it should be a complementary objective, because most of the US is “underserved.”

Fields: Any new federal initiative should not be done in isolation, but should leverage local participation.

Local partners share the economic development mission, unlike incumbent service providers, whose highest priority

is, understandably, generating a return on investment for shareholders.

Fiber is CompetitiveThe economic development administrator for Kendall County, Texas, says: “If I don’t have fiber, I’m eliminated [from consideration by site location committees] – not just fiber to the business, but fiber to the home, because the executives are commuting to San Anto-nio and want to work from home because of gas prices. Fiber allows throughput and security.”

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


Fiber is the “End Game”Fiber placed in the ground today will not have to be replaced for the foreseeable future. The recommended depreciation life of fiber in the local exchange is 20 to 25 years – and that’s a conservative estimate; most of it should last twice that long. More important, it will carry all the bandwidth we need for decades to come – unlike copper, it won’t become obsolete. By replacing the electronics at either end, fiber can be made to carry any bandwidth that’s needed. Each wavelength of light can carry a separate stream of information.

wE NEEd A MAP!– Hilda Gay Legg

Consultant and former Administrator, USDA Rural Utilities Service

For a host of reasons, including economic, academic, health and safety and quality of life, America needs ubiq-uitous broadband connections and more choices among providers. Here’s how to do it:

First and foremost, we need a vision of what the country’s telecommunications operations should look like and should accomplish – including what’s necessary for full participation in the international electronic mar-ketplace. We want the “big vision,” the invigorating idea for which to strive, not the “best case we can hope for” given the powers that be and the current infrastructure and regulatory conditions. We want the ultimate that American citizens deserve both from the private sector and from our government!

Second, if you don’t know where you are now, you certainly cannot get where you are going. So we need a map – a real, live, active mapping system. Without a map

Legg: The dollars already appropriated for investment to build out are probably adequate.

But the freedom to evoke new processes, the taking of risk and the

resources to act more expeditiously will allow the government to play its most appropriate role in getting broadband where the market can’t.

every home and business in the US has been estimated at $100 to 200 billion. The cost to the federal government for investing with local public, state and philanthropic organi-zations could be a fraction of the total cost.

Seeing that fiber to the home, more than any other in-frastructure investment, will yield greater productivity in an area where we are globally deficient, now is the time to act on this opportunity. r

of our current status we are left to wander aimlessly, hoping the private sector will take care of us, but we can give no direction, guidance or encouragement to the private sector.

Third, just as with electricity and basic telephony, the entire system is inefficient if one person has connectivity and the other has none. It is not a question of who provides but rather about what is provided and how can it be used to improve every aspect of American life.

Demographics and economies of scale must be factored into any policies. Therefore, programs of both loans and grants must be continued for rural communities where incumbents cannot or will not make the investment. Incentives such as low-interest loans, grants that can be packaged with loans to cover the lack of tax base for local investments, and bonding opportunities for rural communities must continue and be refined to attack the most underserved areas. These areas are, of course, more easily determined once we have a map.

Time is critical. Government must act more expeditiously or rural communities will lag further behind and become more of a burden on the US economy simply because they cannot compete. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Ru-ral Utilities Service has existing programs that need to be revised based on lessons learned. It should be required to

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


Fiber is GlobalThe United States ranks tenth on the list of countries with advanced fiber broad-band networks – and by next year our ranking will be lower still. Several Asian and European countries have made great strides in deploying fiber to the premises during the last few years, and a number of others are embarking on ambititous next-generation network projects.

Fiber is HealthyIn fiber-wired Fort Wayne, Indiana, a clinic uses a remote digital camera to photo-graph the retinas of diabetic patients, sends the pictures across town in seconds and gets diagnoses in real time. The project helps pre-vent blindness among indigent patients who often have no telephones and can’t be called back for results.

act expeditiously to recruit either telecom companies or communities to build out an infrastructure that can pro-vide high-speed connectivity at an affordable price.

The existing loan and grant program could be made into a useful tool for these underserved and unserved areas. Creativity and risk taking will be required and must be encouraged rather than threatened. Bureau-

cratic time constraints must be revised. The dollars already appropriated for investment to build out are probably ad-equate. But the freedom to evoke new processes, the tak-ing of risk and the resources to act more expeditiously will allow the government to play its most appropriate role in getting broadband where the market can’t.

Once buildout occurs, the improved economic condi-tions of the residents and communities will allow taxpay-ers to recoup their investment. Let me emphasize: This can be done with the right approach and without great amounts of new dollars, but rather with better-targeted and better-administered dollars.

Fourth, the e-government initiative must be fully ac-tivated. All government services at every level of govern-ment must be encouraged and deployed if the citizenry is to fully embrace the technology and make it work for them. Aggressive government conversion is needed, es-pecially in rural communities where the infrastructure slows the system and where it is not accessible.

Fifth, telecommuting is a win-win proposition. It will require rethinking or reengineering many tasks, along with access to high-speed connectivity. The outcome is unquestionably a more productive workforce and strengthened families. Employers’ embracing of full- or part-time telecommuting, led by the federal government,

will benefit our overall economy and energy situation.My experience has shown me how difficult it is for

small rural telecommunications companies to bring the latest in full broadband technology to rural communities.

Many of them cannot even be heard or have a seat at the table because they cannot afford to hire expensive experts

to represent them. Until we get affordable full connectivity to all Americans, by any provider, then America’s productiv-

ity suffers. We need every American worker and we need con-nectivity to get them to their most productive potential. There

must be a voice, an office, a place and a presence in federal government so that the rural resident is not left behind. Thank goodness many do live in rural America, not only to produce our food supply but also to reduce stress on the tax-supported urban infrastructure.

The federal government agencies can make a much greater impact if they are required to coordinate, collaborate and coop-erate toward meeting a shared goal and vision. BBP


Leading organizations supporting fiber networks as a key to economic growth and competitiveness

Canon516-328-5000

www.canon.com

ADC800-366-3889www.adc.com

A-D Technologies440-322-1000

www.adtechnologies.com

Calix763-268-3300

www.calix.com

CommScope Inc .800-982-1708

www.commscope.com

Embarq Logistics800-755-3004

www.embarqlogistics.com

Hitachi Telecom (USA) Inc .770-797-2521

www.hitel.com

Enablence Technologies Inc .613-270-7888

www.enablence.com

Foxcom – Division of Onepath Networks

609-514-1800www.foxcom.com

Front Door Networks386-871-3300

www.frontdoornet.com

Great Lakes Data Systems Inc .800-882-7950

www.glds.com

Montclair Fiber Optics Inc .608-831-4440

www.montclairfiber.com

Multicom Inc .407-331-7779

www.multicominc.com

OFS888-FIBERHELP

www.ofsoptics.com

Pannaway “An Enablence Company”

603-766-5100www.pannaway.com

Spot On Networks877-768-6687

www.spotonnetworks.com

Toner Cable Equipment Inc . 800-523-5947

www.tonercable.com

Verizon Enhanced Communities908-559-2052

www.verizon.com/communities

Sumitomo Electric Lightwave919-541-8100

www.sumitomoelectric.com

Sherman & Reilly Inc .800-251-7780

www.sherman-reilly.com

Adams Global Communications913-402-4499

www.adamsglobal.com

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


The undersigned, representing a diverse array of America’s communications providers, high technology compa-nies, manufacturers, consumers, labor unions, public interest groups, educa-tors, state and local governments, utili-ties, content creators, foundations and many other stakeholders in America’s broadband future, call on President-elect Barack Obama and the incoming

Congress to make the development and initial implementation of a comprehen-sive National Broadband Strategy a high national priority in 2009.

Advanced Communications Capabilities Are Essential for the 21st Century The broadband-enabled Internet is rap-idly changing the world. It has become a catalyst for innovation, economic

growth, job creation, educational oppor-tunity and global competitiveness. It en-hances public safety, homeland security, health care, energy efficiency, environ-mental sustainability and the worldwide distribution of millions of products, pro-cesses and services. It aids in revitalizing depressed urban and rural economies and addressing the special needs of se-nior citizens, individuals with disabilities

Coalition Unites on strategyFifty-six organizations have signed on to support development of a national broadband policy with universal access. Other goals have to be fleshed out.

A broad coalition assembled by Jim Baller of Washington communications law firm Baller Herbst has emerged to call for a national broadband strategy that includes competitive, “affordable high-speed broadband connections to the Inter-net” for “every American home, business, and public and private institution.” Network performance was not specified,

except that it should be good enough to “compete successfully in the global marketplace.”The statement stopped short of demanding open access or net neutrality but asked that “access to the Internet should, to the

maximum feasible extent, be open to all users, service providers, content providers and application providers.” It also conceded that “network operators must have the right to manage their networks responsibly, pursuant to clear and workable guidelines and standards.”

The strategy was announced at a 90-minute press conference on Capitol Hill December 2, but had been in the works for a year. Despite Baller Herbst’s role in fighting incumbents so that municipalities can build their own broadband systems, its vagueness on particulars such as bandwidth and deployment technologies managed to attract AT&T and Verizon along with dozens of technology providers, trade and professional associations, craft unions, public-interest foundations and smaller car-riers. The most notable absentee was Qwest.

Attendees and speakers at the packed meeting were enthusiastic, and hopeful of capturing some of the economic stimu-lus funds being talked about in Congress and among members of the incoming Obama administration. The meeting itself may have been the first venue where representatives of many of the signatories were, in fact, not interested in arguing with each other.

Many of the participants pointed out that while stimulus funds (possibly in the form of “tax incentives, grants, low-cost loans, loan guarantees, universal service subsidies, efficient use of spectrum and other approaches”) certainly helped get orga-nizations to sign on, the enthusiasm is also due to a growing appreciation for the role advanced communications can serve in a 21st-century economy.

Baller hopes the coalition can nail down more concrete proposals by early spring.Links to the conference video and an audio file can be found at http://www.newamerica.net/events/2008/national_broad-

band_strategy_call_action.The statement and signatories are reprinted here.

–BBP Editors

A Call to Action for a National Broadband strategy

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


ACUTA: The Association for Information Communications Technology Professionals in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.acuta.org

Alcatel-Lucent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.alcatel-lucent.com

Alliance for Digital Equality . . . . www.alliancefordigitalequality.org

Alliance for Public Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.apt.org

American Cable Association . . . . www.americancable.org

American Library Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.ala.org

American Public Power Association . . www.appanet.org

AT&T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.att.com

Benton Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.benton.org

Broadband Census . . . . . . . . . .www.broadbandcensus.com

Broadband Market Analysis . . . . . . . www.broadbandmarkets.com

Center for Creative Voices in the Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.creativevoices.us

Cisco Systems, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.cisco.com

Chaffee Fiber Optics . . . . . . . .www.chaffeefiberoptics.com

Civitium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.civitium.com

Clearwire Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.clearwire.com

Communications Workers of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.cwa-union.org

CompTel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.comptel.org

Connected Nation . . . . . . . . . . www.connectednation.com

CTIA - The Wireless Association . . . . . . . . . . . . www.ctia.org

East Central Vermont Community Fiber Network . . . . . . . . . .www.ecfiber.net

Educause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.educause.edu

Enablence Technology Inc . . . . . . . . . . www.enablence.com

e-NC Authority of North Carolina . . . . . . . . . www.e-nc.org

Free Press . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.freepress.net

Fiber-to-the-Home Council . . . . . . . . .www.ftthcouncil.org

Google . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.google.com

Graham Richard Associates, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected]

iSolon .org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.isolon.org

Intel Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.intel.com

Information Technology and

Innovation Foundation . . . .www.innovationpolicy.org

Internet2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.internet2.edu

Lafayette Utilities System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.lus.org

Media Access Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.mediaaccess.org

Mid-Pacific ICT Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.mpict.org

National Association of

Development Organizations . . . . . . . . . www.nado.org

National Association of Telecommunications

Officers and Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.natoa.org

National Cable & Telecommunications

Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.ncta.com

New America Foundation . . . . . . . . . www.newamerica.net

North American Council for

Online Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.nacol.org

OneCommunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.onecommunity.org

OneEconomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.one-economy.com

Optical Networks Inc . . . . . . . . . www.opticalnetworks.com

Organizations Concerned

about Rural Education . . . . . . . . . www.ruralschools.org

Public Technology Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.pti.org

Public Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . www.publicknowledge.org

Telcordia Technologies Inc . . . . . . . . . . .www.telcordia.com

Telecommunications Industry

Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.tiaonline.org

Teletruth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.teletruth.org

The Broadband Group . . . . . . www.broadbandgroup.com

Utilities Telecom Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.utc.org

Verizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.verizon.com

Wireless Communications

Association International . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.wcai.com

Wireless Internet Service

Providers Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .www.wispa.org

XO Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.xo.com

SIGNATORIES TO THE NATIONAL BROADBAND STRATEGy CALL TO ACTION

For updates, see www.bb4us.net

BrOAdBANd POLiCy


and young people. It creates a vehicle for enhancing the level of civic participation and discourse so important to a func-tioning democracy. Yet broadband as an enabling technology is still growing out of its infancy. It has unlimited potential that remains to be fully realized.

The United States Urgently Needs a Comprehensive National Broadband StrategyThe United States is at a critical junc-ture. Too many Americans still do not have access to affordable broadband or lack the equipment or knowledge to use it effectively. If the United States is to remain a leader in the global economy, our broadband networks must also be robust enough to enable our people, businesses, and public and private insti-tutions to take full advantage of emerg-ing and future bandwidth-intensive and quality-sensitive applications.

The United States vies in an increas-ingly competitive global marketplace with Asian, European, and other nations that have recognized the transformative significance and competitive advantages of broadband. Many nations have im-plemented national strategies that treat advanced communications networks as strategic infrastructure, and they are using a variety of policies and practices to promote broadband deployment and adoption. These include tax incentives, low-interest loans, subsidies, public-private partnerships, competition policy and many other forms of direct and indi-rect support by all levels of government. Such measures have led to increased broadband availability, faster speeds, lower prices and high adoption rates. The United States should not ignore suc-cessful policies and practices from other countries as it pursues a National Broad-band Strategy that is aligned with our own unique history, culture, geography and economy.

The Framework for a Comprehensive National Broadband StrategyThroughout our history, the United States has adopted policies to maximize the benefits of major technological ad-vances. In the 19th century, we promoted the development of canals, railroads and

electric power. In the 20th century, we instituted policies to expand electric power and national telephone and high-way systems, and we transported people to the moon and back. Now, in the 21st century, it is time to adopt a National Broadband Strategy that builds on this tradition and that is worthy of our great nation. The framework for our National Broadband Strategy should include the following:

Goals. The National Broadband Strat-egy should set out several clear, for-ward-looking and attainable goals that take into account the ability of broadband to generate huge benefits in education, environmental protec-tion, scientific research, medicine, health care, energy efficiency, trans-portation and overall economic vi-tality. These goals should include the following:

a. Every American home, business and public and private institution should have access to affordable high-speed broadband connections to the Inter-net.

b. Access to the Internet should, to the maximum feasible extent, be open to all users, service providers, content providers and application providers.

c. Network operators must have the right to manage their networks re-sponsibly, pursuant to clear and workable guidelines and standards.

d. The Internet and broadband mar-ketplace should be as competitive as reasonably possible.

e. US broadband networks should pro-vide Americans with the network performance, capacity and connec-tions they need to compete success-fully in the global marketplace.

Policies to Stimulate High-Speed Broadband Investment. The federal government, in collaboration with state

and local governments and the private sector, should play an active role in stimulating broadband deployment, particularly in unserved areas. Such support might include tax incentives, grants, low-cost loans, loan guarantees, universal service subsidies, efficient use of spectrum and other approaches.

Policies to Stimulate High-Speed Broadband Adoption and Use. The federal government, in collaboration with state and local governments and the private sector, must play an active role in stimulating adoption and use of advanced broadband connections. All Americans must have access to comput-ers and the knowledge to use broadband technology effectively. Federal support might include programs, grants, sub-sidies and other measures that foster broadband connectivity, computer ac-cess, education and training.

Assessment and Accountability. Specific timetables and benchmarks should be established to help encourage successful implementation and advance-ment of national broadband policies, incentives or programs. A system for regular and timely collection and pub-lication of data concerning the deploy-ment, adoption and use of high-speed broadband should also be instituted to ensure that our national goals and time-tables are being met.

Our Next StepsWhile we urge policy makers and other citizens to adopt the framework pre-sented above, it is only a first step in the process of developing a National Broadband Strategy. Representatives of the undersigned entities will continue to work together to address key issues and policy priorities. In the spring of 2009, we will hold an event to present more specific policy recommendations to the President, Congress and the American people. BBP

If the United States is to remain a leader in the global economy, our broadband

networks must be robust enough to take full advantage of bandwidth-intensive and

quality-sensitive applications .

Broadband Policy Connecting America · 2008-12-23 · Fiber is “true broadband .” We support...

Documents

Transcript of Broadband Policy Connecting America · 2008-12-23 · Fiber is “true broadband .” We support...