Blair Levin

Although Donald Trump will be our next President, we are not sure who will occupy key positions in broadband policy. We can, however, know what some of the agendas and issues will be and their potential direction. Several can impact the economics and options related to network deployments. 1) The Federal Communications Commission’s ability to legally undercut laws restricting municipal broadband efforts is likely to remain limited, but we note that a number of efforts have proceeded in states with such laws, and as more communities obtain next generation broadband through their own efforts, and as such broadband becomes more important from an economic development perspective, the ability for incumbents to convince legislatures to pass such laws will likely weaken. 2) As competitors try to deploy next generation networks, they have pointed to two places where they see significant barriers: utility poles and entry to multiple-dwelling units (MDUs). 3) One of the few areas of agreement between the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, and the President-elect, Donald Trump, is that both agreed there was a need for the country to spend more on infrastructure. While Trump has not yet laid out his technology-related agenda, cities making plans for upgrading their networks should pay close attention to policy debates in the first part of 2017 to determine if there are new resources to be utilized in upgrading networks for these future needs. 4) In the last few years, there have been increasing calls for the government to adopt policies that enable all to participate in what we might think of as digital life, particularly for such services as health care, education, job training, and public safety. Again, we cannot know what the precise policies will be for improving inclusion in digital life. We can know that greater efforts at inclusion increase the value of, and the percentage of, adoption in traditionally low-adoption communities. Both have the impact of improving the economics of new deployments, as they bring new customers, and a greater willingness to pay, to the platform.

While my voting habits are partisan, I view broadband as potentially bi-partisan. The substance of my three recent speeches, written before the election, were consciously designed to communicate the same messages regardless of outcome.

Today’s topic, relevant regardless of election results, is how best to utilize the bi-partisan consensus that we need better infrastructure, including our broadband networks. I will set out different approaches, not with an eye toward advocating what is best, but, rather, laying out different options for how effectively targeting funds. I can see at least seven potential targets, none of which are exclusive. Many are complementary. These are: 1) An Anchor Strategy, 2) Middle Mile Strategy, 3) A Final Mile Strategy, 4) A Next Gen Strategy, 5) Digital Enterprise Zones, 6) State Block Grant Strategy, and 7) A City Block Grants Strategy.

[Levin serves as a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Metropolitan Policy Project of the Brookings Institute]

Recently, I gave a speech in Wilson (NC) at a conference on Expanding the Gigabit Ecosystem. I wasn’t there to make a partisan statement but began by agreeing with 75 percent of an assertion of one of the presidential candidates: that it is time—because it’s always time--to Make America Great. I suggested the real topic of that conference is how we make America great with great broadband. Today I would like to address four questions related to further steps along that journey:

What is the impact of next generation broadband?
Why not just wait for current market forces to deploy such networks?
What are some models for communities to act to accelerate deployment?
What other steps are useful for expanding the value of the gigabit ecosystem?

The primary objective of broadband policy ought to be to stimulate faster, better, cheaper broadband. There are many paths up the mountain. Let me offer a couple of thoughts based on my experiences with other communities.
First, get everyone on. Adoption is a vexing problem, combining elements of affordability, literacy and relevance. But it is also viral; the more members of a community who are own, the greater the incentives for others to get on. And once universality is achieved, it opens the door to all kinds of community improvements not available to those communities half on and half off. The FCC’s reform of its Lifeline program and many successful community adoption programs create new opportunities and models for achieving this goal.
Second, use the platform to better deliver public goods and services. All large enterprises are moving off the old analog platform and moving strictly to the digital platform. If you want to sell something, if you want a job, if you want information, you have to be on line. They don’t do this because they are nerds. They do this because it improves their ability to constantly improve how they deliver goods and services. Government, because it has to serve everyone, cannot migrate as easily, another reason it is important to get everyone on. But government should also aspire to constantly improve how it delivers goods and services. That means ending the era of lines and paper and making all government services web-based, providing greater transparency, always on, and above all, using more reliable data to improve performance.
Third, help every enterprise to become a networked, empowered enterprise. Amazingly many small businesses are still not online. This not only undercuts their ability to sell, it makes it more difficult to improve efficiency in buying, operating, and accounting made possible by cloud-based services. Not every company needs to be a web-based company. But every company can benefit from the services now available on the web.
Fourth, be a laboratory for all the communities that resemble Wilson (NC) more than they resemble Silicon Valley. In Silicon Valley, VC’s advise start-ups to “build things people need.” But what we have seen in the last few years is a focus on building things that people who live in Silicon Valley need. As will be discussed in the next several panels, you bring to the table an understanding of needs that Silicon Valley will have trouble understanding. Make that work to your advantage.
Fifth, partner with the incredible resources of the Research Triangle Park area. You are lucky. You are the only community fiber network I know of so close to a large-scale fiber build where soon, residents will have the most competitive gigabit market in the country. Moreover, you have access to the incredible resources of three world-class universities and a world-class tech hub.
And sixth, make sure your network accommodates the next technology shifts. The next two great networks to be built are the 5G next generation mobile network and the Civic Internet of Things, bringing intelligence to the infrastructure underlying our communities, improving water, sewer, electricity, and transportation grids. Both these new platforms will share a need for, and operate over, the fiber network you already have. Now is the time to start adopting the network to those emerging needs.

[Commentary] Though the United States has made profound progress in making Internet access universally available, a new digital divide has emerged that defies conventional solutions. Since both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have promised to expand broadband opportunities if elected president, it’s crucial for future policy decisions that we understand who is still offline and why.

According to the most recent findings of the Pew Research Center, 13 percent of Americans still do not use the Internet. Of that group, the most telling variable is no longer race, sex or even income. It’s age. Over 40 percent of seniors are offline, compared with 1 percent of millennials. Two other groups stand out as digital holdouts — rural Americans (22 percent) and those with less than a high school education (34 percent). This is our new digital divide. And closing the inclusion gap demands a significant change in strategy. The new digital divide can only be bridged by making digital life more relevant. And there’s a relatively simple way to do it.

Older, rural, and less-educated Americans share one important characteristic — they are all heavy users of government services. Migrating entitlements to easy-to-use applications, and providing training through community-based groups, will make the Internet essential, if not irresistible, to those still disconnected.

[Downes is a project director at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy. Levin is a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. In 2009, he oversaw development of the Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan.]

[Commentary] As metropolitan economies of all shapes and sizes prepare for a future with gigabit-speed broadband, one of the biggest costs to deploying a fiber network is preparing utility poles to carry a new fiber line. Since multiple cables typically attach to poles—think about cable television, telephone, etc.—a professional must reorganize them before attaching a new cable. This process, known as “make ready”, has become the next policy battleground in the fiber-dependent “game of gigs.”

Why is this issue important to cities? Most mayors, in my experience, would like to ensure that all their businesses and residents have access to affordable, abundant bandwidth. The issue is that most don’t believe their cities have such broadband today. And while some might consider the city offering its own broadband service to meet that need, most look to market forces and private capital to do so. What cities need to improve local broadband is a new math: one that better balances the high costs of deployment and operations against the risk of returns that don’t match costs. Revisiting the relationship between access to poles and multiple dwelling units and the deployment of next generation networks, as I have noted before, ought to be on the agenda for the next administration. But cities don’t need to wait. They should carefully follow the pioneering efforts of Louisville and Nashville to enable more efficient pole access. Moreover, to the extent they have jurisdiction, all cities should be exploring any methods that can lower the cost of deploying and operating future-proof broadband networks.

[Commentary] As the candidates lay out their plans for the country, cities and technology should be at the heart of the conversation about economic growth and social progress. They should articulate both a strategy and specific ideas about how to accelerate the ability of cities to use new technology to achieve those goals. Here are five such ideas.

1) A Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) for cities -- We need a long-term institution dedicated to helping cities understand the impact of directions in science and technology.
2) An access initiative -- As we look back at the history of communications networks, the deployment of networks capable of offering faster, better, and cheaper services always requires a new capital-allocation decision. This is generally done by a private-sector party but often follows government decisions that lower the cost of deployment or operations and/or increase potential revenue and competition. A continuing challenge, however, lies in assuring access to essential facilities.
3) A tax/next-generation network investment deal -- There is a bipartisan consensus that our tax code needs updating to reflect changes in the economy since the last comprehensive reform thirty years ago. The chances for such a bill are not high; neither are they non-material. In that light, cities should advocate that any such effort ought to be used to accelerate investment in next generation, long-term infrastructure.
4) A government IP transition with an adoption surge -- The next administration should move the United States to the top tier in e-government delivery and broadband adoption.
5) In-Q-Tel4Equity -- When the CIA came to believe it needed to be more intentional about the direction of technology, they created a venture capital fund called In-Q-Tel, opened an office in Silicon Valley, and provided venture capital to tap commercial technology. The Pentagon recently followed with its own Silicon Valley office and fund. They are investing in technology they are interested in buying, and thus they both make money on the investment side and accelerate the deployment of technology they want. The federal government should do the same to tap developing technology to address the needs of low-income communities in health, education, job training, and other areas. While there are good, voluntary existing efforts, nothing concentrates the entrepreneurs’ mind like some old-fashioned venture capital.
[Levin is a nonresident senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program. This is the third in a series of three blogs on cities, technology, the next generation of urban development, and the next administration.]

[Commentary] The federal government should focus on how cities are likely to be the primary government jurisdictions on the leading edge of using new technology to transform the public sphere. The fall campaign should set an agenda for how the next administration can move the country forward by helping the cities that want to lead in this century’s city-led, global information economy. Some might argue that how cities use technology should not be a subject of a presidential election but rather be left to local campaigns. This argument is wrong for a number of reasons, including that the economic and social health of cities is the leading driver of the economic and social health of the nation. American leadership in many sectors requires world-class cities in which to work and live.

Further, cities face a subtle economic barrier to adoption of new technologies. The history of technology cost curves predicts these investments will eventually pay for themselves in service improvements. Cities, however, unlike businesses, have a limited first-user advantage for such new infrastructure, making it more difficult to obtain the critical mass of users that lowers costs in ways that accelerate adoption. If wealthier communities like Austin (TX) can figure out how to use technology to improve how it delivers education, health, transportation, and social services, those practices can be adopted by lower-income communities like Detroit (MI). The federal government has a vital interest in accelerating the improvement of municipal public services by all cities. The best way to drive such improvements is to seed early efforts that provide replicable examples.

[Levin is a nonresident senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program. This is the second in a series of three blogs on cities, technology, the next generation of urban development, and the next administration.]

[Commentary] Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton recently laid out her technology plan. A number of the ideas represent the continuation and expansion of current Obama Administration strategies of increased broadband deployment and adoption. Others call for reinvigorated efforts for education and training related to technology and innovation in government. From a political perspective, the most significant policy is probably the call to protect the FCC’s decision to reclassify internet service providers as Title II common carriers, as that is one technology issue where the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has taken a clear and contrary point of view.

From the perspective of cities, however, the most significant policy may be Clinton’s endorsement of the civic Internet of Things. In a section entitled “Foster a Civic Internet of Things through Public Investments,” her plan states that her administration will invest federal research funding to testbedding, field trials, and other public-private endeavors to speed the deployment of next generation wireless networks and a civic Internet of Things. She also commits to using advances in wireless communications and data analytics to improve public safety, health care, environmental management, traffic congestion, and social welfare services. Why is this proposal so significant? The civic Internet of Things is this generation’s opportunity to recreate the commons at the heart of all cities.

[Levin is a nonresident senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program. This is the first in a series of three blogs on cities, technology, the next generation of urban development, and the next administration.]