Panelists Seek Selective, Clear, Generous Govt. Broadband Policies
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Cal. -- Govt. intervention in the Internet should be limited largely to pursuing “bad actors” such as spammers and virus writers, building forums to promote common approaches and dispute resolution, and subsidizing infrastructure and innovation the market won’t back, said panelists commemorating the 35th anniversary of the Internet, which is today (Fri.).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Undependable U.S. telecom policy inhibits progress, said Covad CEO Charles Hoffman: “The problem has been inconsistency, and the rules changing every 6 months or so.” He referred specifically to “inconsistent policy at the FCC” but didn’t elaborate beyond calling it responsible for leaving the U.S. 13th in broadband penetration among industrial countries. Charles Giancarlo, Cisco Systems senior vp-chief technology officer, criticized “incredibly complex telecom regulations, which have spillover effects” in impeding the Internet and new services. “Moneyed interests” wield so much clout, it’s incredible there isn’t more regulation of Internet services, he said. But “large companies and powerful interests” can be counted on to try to get more govt. rules imposed as remedies to “unfairness” to old- line businesses.
Hoffman contrasted the American environment with those in Canada and Japan, where the govts. “set a policy, stick to it and everybody can make plans.” He attributed a qualitatively greater broadband success in Japan to Tokyo promoting fiber installation and forcing incumbent telco NTT to share copper loops with competitors at very low prices and with fast provisioning. “You've got people competing on price and speed, so you can get 25 meg [Mbps access] for $25,” Hoffman said. He acknowledged Japan’s population density also gave it an advantage over the U.S. in DSL.
Panelists did advocate govt. activism in supplying capital and impetus to buildouts. Yahoo Chief Product Officer Geoff Ralston credited the S. Korean govt. with committing to availability of 100 Mbps access soon. Access at such speeds allows entirely new Internet experiences such as real-time video, he said. He said it would be “okay” in the U.S. for the “govt. to provide funding so visionary people can realize” their ambitions, where the market doesn’t support them. Govt.-supported test beds were “instrumental in creating” a “high-speed backbone,” Kleinrock said: That illustrates “a perfect role for government.” He offered a ballpark estimate of $75 billion to take fiber to every U.S. home and minimized that expenditure as 1/3 the Gulf War’s cost or the price of “one major acquisition in the dot-com bubble… I mean, it’s not a lot of money when you think about the competitiveness it would bring. I don’t understand the hesitation.” Perhaps universal broadband policy must trickle up from municipal Wi-Fi projects, Kleinrock concluded.
“It is very important for the government of the United States to decide if broadband is important and set a policy around it,” Giancarlo said. “Universal broadband” access should be a priority, akin to previous infrastructure projects such as the interstate highways, he said. This will require “in several areas at least some economic advantage being provided to companies that will go there,” Giancarlo said. The Defense Dept.’s ARPAnet was a federal effort -- but hands off, Kleinrock recalled: “It was a govt.-funded project, and they had really good people managing that project at ARPA [Advanced Research Projects Agency]. One of the best things they did was leave us alone.”