Brookings

For the first time in 25 years, Congress conducted hearings in Feb to reauthorize the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). This Department of Commerce agency is tasked with advising the president on matters related to telecommunications and information policy. Consequently, its influence reaches the White House, either directly or through its sub-cabinet reporting structure. This makes NTIA a unique agency with two masters, able to speak on behalf of the executive branch or even the president himself under appropriate circumstances.

NTIA’s current budget appropriation is $39.5 million. This represents the tremendous bang for the buck that NTIA has delivered, as illustrated by these examples spanning several decades. The vital role that telecommunications and information plays in job creation and economic growth makes an easy case for why the agency should continue to receive sufficient financial resources. Equally important, the Trump Administration’s to-be-named NTIA Administrator should bring a zeal for keeping the agency both relevant to our times and important to the President’s own policy initiatives.

Who has access to broadband in America, and who reaps the benefits of broadband competition? Data from a recent Federal Communications Commission study provides insights into both important questions.

First, the importance of access. For the very first time, the FCC concluded in 2015 that the disparity between urban and rural access to broadband provided the basis for direct agency action. Time has proven that conclusion right – and increasingly important. As my colleague Nicol Turner-Lee recognized immediately after the 2016 election, the Americans who lack access to broadband services – more rural, more middle income, less likely to have attended college – are the same ones who voted for change in economic policies.

Second, the question of marketplace competition is important as well. It can be tempting to accept the view that, in an environment of scarce government resources and competing interests, merely ensuring broadband access from a single provider is enough – especially as an improvement on a status quo with little or no access at all. History tells a cautionary tale, though. In 1913, the U.S. Department of Justice settled an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T by essentially accepting AT&T’s monopoly in exchange for the build-out of the nation’s telephone system. AT&T worked hard to uphold its end of the bargain, but it was decades before competitive markets were free to serve consumers, stimulate innovation, and avoid unnecessary regulation. In other words, as a nation, we should embrace both expanded broadband deployment and expanded broadband competition. Without competition, the pressure from consumers for better and cheaper broadband will naturally ease, and rural America could fall even further behind.

[Commentary] This is the Scientific Revolution, but part of its reawakening is the recognition that truth-finding forms the basis for technological innovation, for capitalism and for democratic rule. All rest on the single, and simple, concept that individuals matter and that the very ability of individuals to think for themselves creates scientific propositions to be tested, technological innovations to be imagined, market outcomes to be respected and democratic outcomes to be treated as legitimate – even outcomes that some voters may deeply regret.

The March for Science on April 22 is not about partisan politics; it’s a time to stand on the shoulders of giants. And to remind ourselves to see what they foresaw.

[Jonathan B. Sallet is a visiting fellow in Governance Studies. Previously, he served as deputy assistant attorney general for Litigation at the US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division from 2016-17. Prior to joining the Division in 2016, Sallet was general counsel at the Federal Communications Commission.]

The underappreciated but critically important E-Rate program faces a fork in the road in 2017. Created during the Clinton administration, E-Rate originally intended to make it easier for schools to purchase dial-up internet connections. However, the program languished for many years while internet and education technologies improved by leaps and bounds. In 2014, the Obama administration revamped the program by nearly doubling the available funding and incentivizing the adoption of 21st-century technologies. The funding mechanism and presumably better E-Rate results portend a positive year for the program, though political uncertainty under a new administration signals there may be some rough waters ahead.

E-Rate does not receive funding from the standard congressional appropriations process. A 1996 law requires telecommunication companies to contribute to the Universal Services Fund, which in turn provides the funding for E-Rate and other programs. Overall, this arrangement is equivalent to a tax, but it’s insulated from the tumult of the congressional budgeting process. The unique funding mechanism decreases the likelihood that E-Rate would attract negative attention from congressional Republicans. However, the new Republican leadership at the Federal Communications Commission could choose to cut spending. Returning E-Rate funding to pre-Obama reform levels, but keeping most of the modernization reforms, would be compatible with the position of new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican. Pai has explained that his 2014 vote against the Obama E-Rate reforms was due to concerns about financial waste in the program rather than questioning the overall usefulness of the program.

Governments hoping to evade responsibility for war crimes and rights abuses are having a much tougher time of it these days. Denying entry to nettlesome investigators is still standard while many places are simply too dangerous to investigate. But even where investigators cannot go, digital technologies can sometimes overcome barriers to investigation.

A recent Harvard Kennedy School report published by the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy underscores how various digital technologies undermine attempts to hide abuses and war crimes. Commercial high-resolution remote sensing satellites, some capable of distinguishing objects on the ground as small as 30-cm across, allow human rights groups to document military forces deployments, mass graves, forced population displacements, and damage to physical infrastructure.

One unreported item regarding President Trump’s nominee for the US Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch of the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, is that he would bring more private practice exposure to telecommunications law to the court than anyone in history. Judge Gorsuch spent a decade at one of DC’s premier law firms, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel PLLC. According to Vault, a reference source that profiles leading law firms, Kellogg Huber Hansen has “a particular depth of experience in the telecommunications industry, representing companies like Verizon and AT&T in both court litigation and dealings with the FCC.” This environment, which Gorsuch experienced daily as a practitioner, likely helped shape his view regarding the power of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other federal agencies involved in regulatory decisionmaking.

At least as far as judicial review of FCC and other agency matters, Gorsuch clearly represents a philosophy that is more skeptical of regulatory overreach and more deferential to Congress. This may send a mixed message for political conservatives who are supporting his nomination—less regulatory intrusion, but perhaps a more activist judiciary. For political liberals, Judge Gorsuch’s assertion of a more powerful role for courts might inspire greater confidence that he would check executive authority by the Trump administration and its successors during what may be his very long tenure on the Supreme Court.

With the Trump Administration dangling the prospect of a $1 trillion infrastructure program, now is the time to consider whether a new approach might more effectively address the rural broadband problem.

As a starting point, Congress should consider setting aside some portion of a new infrastructure fund, say $20 billion, for a one-time rural broadband acceleration fund that is expressly designed to make the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service program more efficient. Under this option, a rural area currently without a network capable of meeting the FCC’s 25/3 Mbps benchmark would be eligible for funding. The FCC would set an opening per-location amount for how much it would be willing to pay a carrier in one-time support to deploy a next generation network providing enough bandwidth to meet the upper bounds of future expected demand (for example, a symmetric 100 Mbps) within a set time frame. An express condition of the support would be that the FCC will not provide any ongoing funding in the future. If companies recognized this is their best chance to finance a “future-proof” solution, the aggregate of funds sought by the carriers would likely be substantially in excess of the available targeted fund. If this is the case, then the FCC would run a reverse auction, with firms bidding to receive a lower per-location amount in each round until the amount reached the available targeted fund.

[Commentary] The federal government has often played a major role in the country’s infrastructure development. With a President who promised federal support for improving infrastructure, we will soon see how the new administration proposes to do so. Based on their approaches to markets broadly, the new administration’s broadband policies are likely to lead to significant deregulation, tax changes, and merger activity that will affect the private sector’s appetite for infrastructure-related investment.

Still, infrastructure deployment is largely dependent on the efforts and policies of cities. In the early part of the last century, cities were the gravitational center for efforts to create the electrical, water, sewer, transportation, and lighting infrastructure required for economic growth and social progress in that time. Subsequently, while telephone service was largely addressed at the state and federal level, cities dealt with the deployment of cable networks and the cellular towers. In the last decade cities have been at the cutting edge of creating a more hospitable environment for deploying gigabit capable networks.

[is the third in a trilogy of blogs discussing the state of broadband policy as a new administration and Congress begins.]

[Commentary] If affordable and abundant broadband is integral to the continued growth of the American economy , then how the market reacts to Trump administration policy will determine whether the country can deliver this necessary infrastructure. Here are the four major areas where I expect the Trump administration to impact broadband policy and my predictions for how those reforms may look:

Expect a change in how the government considers the competitive landscape
Expect a change in the range of government oversight
Expect a change in the center of gravity from the FCC to Congress
Expect an increase in mergers and a change in merger reviews

(This is the second of three blogs discussing the state of broadband policy as a new administration and Congress begin.)

[Commentary] Building broadband infrastructure, as with any infrastructure, raises three questions: how to finance it, what projects are eligible to receive the funding, and how the funds are distributed. I can think of seven potential approaches, none of which are exclusive and many of which are complementary:

Target anchor institutions—schools, libraries, health facilities, and other community institutions—to assure they have abundant bandwidth.
Target middle-mile facilities—the networks between the internet backbone and the local, final connection– to lower operating costs for multiple providers in low-density areas.
Target final-mile facilities, with a focus on communities that lack access to a network offering a certain speed threshold. One could build on the Federal Communications Commission’s current Connect America Fund structure to accelerate a next-generation buildout in rural areas, something I’ll discuss in more detail in a future post.
Target next-generation 5G mobile networks and the Civic Internet of Things to bring intelligence to the water, sewer, electricity, and transportation grids underlying our communities. Both these new platforms will share a need for, and operate over, a fiber network. The infrastructure fund could accelerate such deployments either through a model cities approach of funding demonstration projects or by funding many projects to create scale and standards.
Target digital enterprise zones. The new Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai recently proposed to use broadband to improve the economics of areas of persistent poverty. Pai deserves praise for both prioritizing government resources to attack poverty and laying out a detailed proposal. While I have my questions on the specific proposals, I support the direction Pai articulated and hope any infrastructure plan adopts his agenda.
Pursue a state block grant strategy. Distributing the funds through state block grants that rely on a formula, such as per capita funding, may prove a productive path, particularly if the states have broad discretion for eligibility.
Pursue a city block grant strategy, but rather than distributing the funds on a per capita basis, as with states, funds would be distributed to target cities that adopt certain best practices of deployment.
(This is the first of three blogs discussing the state of broadband policy as a new administration and Congress begin.)