“It’s Time to End the Broadband Policy Wars,” was how the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) billed its report release and panel discussion Tuesday.   Unfortunately, it seems that the best we can hope for is a temporary (and tenuous) cease-fire.  

The panel, moderated by ITIF President Robert Atkinson, featured Harold Feld of Media Access Project, Scott Cleland of the Precursor Group and NetCompetition.org, and Ken Peres of the Communications Workers of America.  

Atkinson opened the event by asking both sides to tone down the rhetoric and focus on fact-based debate.   “Just because you work for a large telecom company doesn’t mean you’re evil and just because you believe in municipal wireless networks doesn’t mean you’re a communist,” declared Atkinson.   While arguing that there is a legitimate government role in making sure America has more broadband, Atkinson cautioned that blanket regulations of the still-developing broadband industry are generally inadvisable.   Atkinson’s new paper on this issue is available for download from ITIF.

Feld, a proponent of so-called “net neutrality” regulations argued that the principals in the broadband policy debates rarely fit into neat “right” versus “left” categories.   Rather, the debate has been what role government should have in setting broadband policy.     While the aim of the event was to focus on the issues at hand rather that the rhetorical heat generated by partisans on both sides, Feld argued that a “robust debate” was not a bad thing.       Feld also suggested that the role of the FCC should shift from its current efforts to “find the 50 yard line,” in broadband policy debates but instead to listen to both sides and choose the side with more convincing arguments.  

Cleland animatedly took aim at so-called “bandwidth hogs” in Silicon Valley who would likely profit from the investments made by telecommunications and cable companies in building out robust broadband networks.   He took issue with the methodology of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development’s (OECD) broadband rankings that paints a misleading picture of the state of U.S. broadband deployment compared to other nations.   He also encouraged a more thorough debate on the cost and utilization of broadband networks and an acknowledgement that wireless broadband and other broadband platforms are playing a growing role in the US broadband marketplace.

CWA’s Ken Peres urged policymakers to focus on the goal of universally available, higher-speed broadband deployment.   Peres suggested a framework in which the private sector would continue to be heavily relied upon to deploy broadband in urban and suburban areas where broadband investment tends to be more profitable.   In less profitable and unprofitable areas, he urged a greater government role in deploying broadband both in public-private partnerships like Connected Nation and via other public efforts.

The broadband policy wars won’t be ending anytime soon.   But we commend ITIF for attempting to bring greater attention to the underlying issues affecting broadband.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.