Earlier this week (it’s been a busy week!), two members of the FCC spoke out in favor of a national broadband strategy at a meeting held by the US Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

OK I read through the the testimony (and I’m going to try to pulled together the highlights (as I read them) below):

Testimony of FCC Commissioner Copps said:

“America’s lack of a broadband strategy is imposing huge costs on small businesses all across the land.”

Broadband is essential to innovation and entrepreneurs. Yet, in some rural areas people still can’t get it and where they can it’s too expensive! A huge problem is the existing marketplace.

“One recent study concludes that every percentage point increase in broadband penetration (currently around 50% in the U.S.) would mean 300,000 more jobs and increased national output. (Robert Crandall, William Lehr and Robert Litan, The Effects of Broadband Deployment on Output and Employment: A Cross-sectional Analysis of U.S. Data (Brookings Institution: July 2007).)

The national broadband strategy should include:

1. Better data on existing broadband conditions.
2. Better communication with those in the field of deploying various types of broadband.
3. Better competitive telecommunications policies. (Too swayed to the incumbents.)
4. Need a Universal Service Fund – it worked for POTS it can work with broadband.

Testimony of Jonathan S. Adelstein

“Deploying broadband infrastructure is critical to promote the economic, cultural, and social well-being of our country, particularly for small businesses and entrepreneurs, who drive so much innovation and economic growth.”

We need a national broadband strategy to keep our businesses competitive. Every other developed country has implemented a national strategy.

1. We need to track access to broadband to accurately measure need for more or less regulation.
2. We must increase incentive for investment.
3. We must promote competition.
4. We must ensure universal service.
5. We need a national summit on broadband.
6. We must look at the spectrum-based services. We should rethink access to spectrum bidding and designated entities (Des) and increase in unlicensed spectrum in rural areas.

The Congress should provide adequate funding to the RUS and make sure that the RUS is targeting key growth opportunities.

Then I actually watched the session for any highlights – OK I wasn’t glued to the screen – but my notes are posted below:

Senator Kerry faced the fact that President Bush set broadband access as a goal in 2004, stating that broadband should be available by 2007 but no policy has been created.

We need a national broadband strategy. Universal access could mean $5 billion and 1.2 million jobs.

Senator Kerry suggests increasing competition with good use of spectrum, use of white space, set up the upcoming spectrum auction to promote new bidders, and reform the Universal Service Fund.

People mention local efforts that have been successful and should be held up as models: Connect Kentucky, Connect Maine, and Fort Wayne (which we talked about in an earlier blog).

Question: After the FCC speakers Senator Kerry asked – What could we do to make a difference?

Answers

A speech from the President talking about the importance of broadband would help.

We need a comprehensive plan with goals and benchmarks.

A National Broadband Summit that includes the president, state and local government, private sector – including incumbents and big and small providers.

Question: Why do we pay more?

Because other areas are highly regulated. CLECs need supporting regulation.

Everyone seemed to agree that we need better data gathering – especially mapping.
Most people seemed to think that we needed to use USF for broadband and that the RUS needed more money to support access in rural areas.

Question: Shouldn’t the spectrum auction solve the problem?

Answer: Yes, it could but right now the FCC does not have the mandate to make this the top priority. The FCC members who have attended this session would like it to be important – but there are other FCC members who may not see the importance.

The guy from the Free Press made a good observation that we need to decide what our goals are – is it to catch up with the nation or to be a world class leader?

The guy from Connect Kentucky (I think we was from there) pointed out the Durban’s connection the nation and Senator Ennuye’s bill from this summer were steps in the right direction.

Most of the folks in the room seemed to be in agreement that broadband was a problem and that a National Broadband Strategy was a good thing – but one person stood out alone.

Scott Wallsten, director of communications policy studies at the Progress and Freedom Foundation said – there is no broadband problem. The OECD numbers are not reflective of real broadband rates. Speedtest.net has better numbers for actual broadband rates and according to them the US is third or fourth.

People who think there’s a problem have yet to come up with a real solution. USF would just cost businesses more money, in taxes. Wallsten did agree with the others that there was a need for better numbers – he thought that we needed the numbers before we decided there was a problem.

Whew! I think that’s it.

What I liked about this session was that the questions were good and pointed. The grandstanding seemed to be minimal. I think it was good that the had representation from someone who didn’t think there was a problem – because he isn’t alone (in the world) – but of course it was telling that he was in the minority.

It would be great to see some tactical plans come out of these sessions – such as the money and mandate to improve data collection and create mapping to gauge need and a Broadband Summit to gather people to cooperate on a national strategy that included the goals and benchmarks mentioned so often by the FCC commissioners.