The FCC took its deepest dive yet into the economics of broadband today. An all-star line-up of prominent university and government economists and competition experts took the field today. Here are a few key takeaways:

Substance over soundbites. This workshop did the most compelling job to date of illustrating the nuanced complexity of the many intricate issues the FCC is grappling with as it marches toward its deadline to deliver a National Broadband Plan to Congress early next year. It was a lesson in cause and effect—an in-depth look at the state of play today and the possible consequences for consumers and our economy of a greater government role in how these complex networks operate, innovate, evolve and expand. Regardless of your views on the more controversial issues of this debate, it was an illuminating session.

The only constant is change. Carl Shapiro of the Justice Department, on leave from Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, put it well: “Broadband is a moving target.” Rather than focus on defining broadband—an approach he argued would prove “too static”—he urged the Commission to focus on more practical benchmarks, such as usage and availability.

Here comes wireless. There were certainly diverse opinions in the discussion today, but there was broad agreement that wireless is fast-emerging as yet another significant consumer choice for broadband. It’s main appeal: It gives consumers accessibility and allows us to take the Internet along as we go. Different technologies from wired broadband, yes. But very real choices for consumers’ diverse lives.

Perfection is not an option. Everyone recognizes that competition can be imperfect. But Georgetown economics professor Marius Schwarz observed, “just because the market is not perfect, don’t assume regulation can do better.” He went on to note that the average American has five to six broadband choices (IMHO one of the most underappreciated facts in the entire broadband debate).

Investment does=consumer benefits. Berkeley economics professor Joseph Farrell, currently serving at the FTC’s Bureau of Economics, made a critical connection: At the end of the day, investment and consumer benefits are one and the same. You can’t have one without the other. Farrell noted that heavy-handed approaches change the incentives for quality improvements to networks. “You’d want to worry about that,” he counseled.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.