Looking back a generation shows still unrealized U.S. policy vision

Excerpted from Service Unavailable: America’s Telecommunications Infrastructure Crisis (2015):

U.S policymaking on Internet infrastructure began shortly before the Internet was decommissioned as a government-run network in the mid-1990s. In 1993, the Clinton administration issued a policy framework titled The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action.[i] It called for the construction of an “advanced National Information Infrastructure (NII),” described as “a seamless web of communications networks, computers, databases, and consumer electronics that will put vast amounts of information at users’ fingertips.” Development of the NII, the document stated, “can help unleash an information revolution that will change forever the way people live, work, and interact with each other.” For example:

· People could live almost anywhere they wanted, without foregoing opportunities for useful and fulfilling employment, by “telecommuting” to their offices through an electronic highway;

· The best schools, teachers, and courses would be available to all students, without regard to geography, distance, resources, or disability;

· Services that improve America’s health care system and respond to other important social needs could be available on-line, without waiting in line, when and where you needed them.

Among its nine principles and goals, the policy called for extending the universal service concept to ensure that information resources are available to all at affordable prices. “Because information means empowerment, the government has a duty to ensure that all Americans have access to the resources of the Information Age,” the policy declared.

In addition to this policy document, the Clinton administration sponsored legislation championed by then Vice President Al Gore, who foresaw the coming role Internet-based telecommunications would play in the future. The Telecommunications Infrastructure Act of 1993 created a framework for its integration with the Communications Act of 1934.[ii] The legislation, which was not enacted and died in Congress, included several findings. The first three findings stated that:

(1) it is in the public interest to encourage the further development of the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure as a means of enhancing the quality of life and promoting economic development and international competitiveness;

(2) telecommunications infrastructure development is particularly crucial to the continued economic development of rural areas that may lack an adequate industrial or service base for continued development;

(3) advancements of the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure will increase the public welfare by helping to speed the delivery of new services, such as distance learning, remote medical sensing, and distribution of health information.

[i] The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action, September 15, 1993, https://archive.org/stream/04Kahle000911/04Kahle000911_djvu.txt

[ii] Senate Bill 1086 (103rd Congress, introduced June 9, 1993), https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/s1086.

U.S. losing its build big moxie: telecom infrastructure modernization case in point

Can America Still Build Big? A California Rail Project Raises Doubts - The New York Times: The need for increased infrastructure investment has been one of America’s few remaining bipartisan issues, although left and right differ over whether public money or private money would finance it. President Barack Obama made reinvesting in roads, bridges and power plants a cornerstone of the 2009 economic stimulus package, and during the 2016 presidential campaign seemingly the only disagreement Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had on infrastructure was about which of their administrations would spend more on it. The issue unites truckers and train buffs, unions and Wall Street, economists from the left and right.

And yet, when it comes to spending the money — and actually getting things built — very little progress has been made. Following a brief spike during the recession, government investment has hovered around 3.3 percent of gross domestic product for the past few years, which is the lowest since the 1940s. In the meantime, roads, bridges and train tracks have gotten steadily older while proposals for new projects are delayed by political intransigence and legal delays.

The failure of the United States to timely modernize its legacy metallic telecommunications infrastructure built for the analog age of telephone and cable TV to fiber optic technology for the digital age is a pertinent example. Federal, state and local elected representatives uniformly proclaim the need is great with many at the state and local level saying it's the number one topic of constituent contacts. It's a major disconnect between what's needed and what's actually being built, reflecting the loss of America's moxie to think big and act big.

Meanwhile as the phone and cable companies incrementally upgrade their legacy infrastructures in search of high margin luxury "broadband speed" rents instead of bringing fiber to every doorstep as was the case with phone service, the nation is already a generation late and falling further behind where it should be in 2019. Fiber connections should have reached every home, school, business and government building by 2010 at the latest. The title of author Susan Crawford's recently published book Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution―and Why America Might Miss It points up the tardiness of this vital infrastructure reboot. It's not just a hypothetical. As Crawford's book notes, compared to other nations it already has.

Pennsylvania: Another underfunded, sloganistic statewide universal service initiative

Governor Wolf makes case for statewide broadband to support education - WFMZ: Restore Pennsylvania is an infrastructure initiative funded by the monetization of a severance tax. Restore Pennsylvania would invest $4.5 billion over the next four years in projects throughout the commonwealth. The initiative would address five priority infrastructure areas including high speed internet access, storm preparedness and disaster recovery, downstream manufacturing, business development, and energy infrastructure, demolition, revitalization, and renewal, and transportation capital projects.

States cannot achieve universal advanced telecom service with these kinds of woefully underfunded, sloganistic initiatives. There simply won't be enough money if the pot is shared with other infrastructure needs as it is here. In a state as large as Pennsylvania, it's doubtful there would be enough even if the entire sum was dedicated to telecom infrastructure. This is too big of a job for states to tackle on their own. The federal government must lead.