ReasonedResponse.com

The Federal Communications Commission is now tasked with developing a National Broadband Plan for the United States of America.

For most of the pundits, advocates, socialists and clowns, this will mean another opportunity to shriek at the Commission for heavier regulation, stealing the infrastrucutre that broadband companies have built to give to newcomers and charlatans, and demands for legislation on "network neutrality," whatever that term means this week.

The data calls for something else.  A commitment to a national effort at Digital Inclusion.

Through the first decade of the 21st Century, much of the focus on the nation's broadband Internet capability has been on the infrastructure -- the technological platforms, wireline and wireless access, and last-mile buildout. 

As we progress in the industry's life cycle, however, we are rapidly approaching the point at which deployment of broadband to consumers will become less important to continued growth than adoption of broadband by consumers.  That is to say, the major impediment to achievement of the goal of ubiquitous broadband for all Americans will not be the buildout of infrastructure but rather finding a means to bring online the estimated 25 percent of Americans who presently choose not to have access.  In addition, it will be more critical that we begin to move the nine percent of Americans still using dialup Internet connections up to broadband. (Figures based on Pew Internet data from late 2007 and mid-2008)

It is true that in some parts of the country, covering some 8-9 percent of the population, network infrastructure is not robust enough to provide acceptable levels of broadband service.   For the most part, the population density in these areas is so low as to make it difficult to justify the investment in infrastructure.  Those areas may require specially targeted approaches to provide the needed infrastructure, as appears to be the intent of the new broadband grants programs from the Obama administration.

But it is time we stop believing that our broadband problems are infrastructure problems, or somehow the fault of evil cable and telephone companies.

Perhaps the simplest measure of the problem is this:  while the 2008 Global Information Technology Report rates the US broadband infrastructure 4th in the world and improving, the OECD data that tracks the percentage of consumers adopting broadband estimates the US to be in 15th place.  The conclusion is clear - the infrastructure deployment rate is good and improving; the consumer adoption rate is less so and stagnant.

In spite of this, broadband policy in the past decade has focused almost exclusively on issues of infrastructure -- open access, competition, network neutrality, Internet governance and network management.  Scant attention has been paid to the more critical issue of Digital Inclusion -- bringing online the one-third of the American population that chooses not to use broadband Internet today.

There is a sound basis for focusing on Digital Inclusion rather than flogging the failed ideas of the last century.  Helping to bring this one-third of the population online will yield specific benefits:

• Stimulation of adoption rates, creating demand that can economically justify the further buildout and operation of infrastructure.  This is particularly true of adoption rates among low income populations and rural populations (see the Pew data at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband%20Barriers.pdf).

• Amortization of total network costs across a larger consumer base, lowering the basic cost of broadband for all consumers and further stimulating adoption among Americans for whom the price of broadband remains an issue.

• Stimulation of new products, services and applications, in order to meet the specific needs of Americans who have not used broadband because they do not find it relevant to their lives.

This does not suggest that we that infrastructure development should cease.  The continued development of new and more efficient platforms for the delivery of broadband is essential to maintain and enhance service levels and to support continuing growth in the demand for additional capacity to support new, bandwidth-hungry Internet applications .  But it does suggest that additional attention and resources are required for programs to stimulate Digital Inclusion.

That's where we will get the biggest "bang for the buck" -- bringing online the current one-third of Americans who don't have, don't want, and don't use broadband.

And that's exactly what I will suggest to the FCC as they start their consideration of a National Broadband Plan.

So when the dust finally settles, the Broadband provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are actually pretty good.

There is some money, to be doled out by the Department of Agriculture for rural broadband projects, and by the Department of Commerce for innovation.  Not a lot of money, but that may be a good thing.

There is a requirement that the FCC develop a national broadband plan within a year.  A reasonable time frame and a good project that falls well within the mission of the FCC.  I look forward to reading what is proposed, and throwing in a few ideas of my own.

And there is a requirement for a broadband mapping project, which can only lead to better coverage of broadband.

Of course, I also like it because it dropped all of the lunatic language about mandatory open access and network neutrality (which in case you missed it, has once again morphed to mean something different than it used to).  That kind of nonsense rhetoric has no place is a serious discussion of broadband policy, something that even Google now seems to have conceded.

So I look forward to the year ahead, to the evolution of a national broadband plan, and to an improving economy.  And, if there is indeed a good in heaven, a decent wine crop worldwide to help produce the Cabernet Sauvignon I desire to drink while I read the various proposals and platforms.

I've stayed out of the cat fights over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- the highly heralded economic stimulus package -- for three reasons.

First, in spite of the invective you may read and the famous quote by Mark Twain ("Suppose your were an idiot.  And suppose you were a member of Congress.  Oh, but I repeat myself."), Members of Congress are not stupid.  Most of them are hard-working, dedicated people trying to do their best for their constituents and their country.  And while they do make some horrible policy mistakes, the bill they are passing deserves to be taken seriously.

Second, all they have done is authorize the spending.  There is still a matter of finding the money to actually do it.  And while a $1 Trillion price tag seems staggering, it is unlikely we will spend anywhere near that much.  Particularly because...

Third, we are already on our way out of the recession, IMHO.  I have a very accurate barometer of the economy here in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, and my barometer says things are already mending.

I keep a close eye on Sunday morning breakfasts at the Hawksbill Diner.  For those who do not live in the valley of the Shenandoah River, the Hawksbill Diner is legendary.  A tiny, converted convenience store that has been around almost as long as the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Hawksbill DIner (named for the river that flows nearby) serves a fine breakfast.  You can see almost all of your neighbors there of a Sunday, unless you wait too long and the tourists take all the tables.

The point is that last fall people would come in (you have to have breakfast at the Hawksbill, then go to the WalMart to see all your neighbors, or you are considered unsociable here in the valley) but would only order a biscuit and coffee, not a real breakfast.  Times were hard and people were scared.

Today, the breakfast trade is just fine at the Diner, and at WalMart as well.

That's how I know things are improving.  People are eating breakfast on Sunday Mornings.

And I know that the stimulus bill, while as a conservative libertarian I am not happy about, will not mean the destruction of all things American.  It may actually work, and may actually do some good.  I know this because I have actually gone to the Thomas web site at the Library of Congress and read all 800-some pages of the bill.

Which is something virtually none of the media people reporting on it, the radio show hosts who lambast it, or the so-called advocates who swoon over it have bothered to do.  Reading legislation before you pass judgement on it -- what a concept!