FCC Commissioner: "We need to make broadband the dial tone of the 21st Century."

Kudos to Federal Communications Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein for these remarks excerpted from his written testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. It's refreshing to hear a positive, let's get it done attitude in contrast to the pathetic, defeatist whining and foot dragging from the telco/cable duopoly:

We need to make broadband the dial-tone of the 21st Century.

* * *
Some have argued that the reason we have fallen so far in the international broadband rankings is that we are a more rural country than many of those ahead of us. Even if that is the case, and since geography is destiny and we cannot change ours, rather than merely curse the difficulty of addressing rural communications challenges, we should redouble our efforts and get down to the business of addressing and overcoming them.

I am concerned that the lack of a comprehensive broadband communications deployment plan is one of the reasons that the U.S. is increasingly falling further behind our global competitors. Virtually every other developed country has implemented a national broadband strategy. This must become a greater national priority for America than it is now.

Why Verizon opted for fiber over DSL

Verizon’s Chief Technology Officer, Mark Wegleitner, explains in an interview with CNET News.com:

“I wouldn’t say that AT&T has gotten it wrong. DSL is a good technology,” he noted. “Our concern was more about what happens a few years out. And that’s why we picked fiber … I can’t really predict how other technologies will grow, but we know that fiber gave us the headroom we needed.”

Report: American consumers trapped in stagnant duopolistic broadband market

The United States has a broadband problem. All of the excuses offered to explain away America’s performance on the international broadband stage are just that: excuses. The fact is that many countries continue to deploy and adopt broadband at a higher level than in America. Consumers in these countries pay far less for far more service, and have many more marketplace choices.

American consumers are trapped in a duopoly marketplace with no relief in sight. The boasts of “third-pipe” competition from wireless providers ring hollow, as the offerings from these companies are slow, expensive, and extremely restrictive, making them unattractive as a true competitor to the current duopoly.

Incumbents argue that the marketplace will save our sinking ship, even as the water level rises. This blind faith in the market would be reasonable if the U.S. telecommunications market was perfectly competitive. But it simply is not, and it’s high time to face reality.

We rely on the market forces of a duopoly to produce robust cross-platform competition at our peril. When the chief supporters of the status quo, wait-and-see approach to the arrival of a third competitor to DSL and cable are the incumbents themselves, we should understand that they do not expect it will happen.

Big WiMAX players unlikely to fill in broadband black holes

There's more evidence the big wireless players making WiMAX plays aren't going to fill in broadband black holes that commonly exist outside of heavily populated regions.

Some observers have held out hope that wireless providers would provide the long awaited broadband solution to less urban areas that are underserved by the wireline telco/cable duopoly. Instead, the big guys like Clearwire are concentrating on serving mobile consumers in big metro areas shown by this announcement today that Clearwire Sprint Nextel have signed a letter of intent to jointly construct America’s first nationwide mobile WiMAX network.

The key word here is "mobile." In short, that doesn't mean residential consumers who remain mired in broadband black holes across much of America. Their wireless option for now is going to continue to remain among the 1,500 or so small wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) that provide fixed terrestrial service.

That is unless a high powered coalition is successful in demonstrating a prototype service called white space broadband that would deliver wireless broadband over unused portions of the television broadcast spectrum.

White space broadband seen more feasible for rural vs. urban wireless broadband

Blogger Jacob Levin of the Washington-based advocacy group Public Knowledge isn't bullish on so-called white space wireless broadband as a way around the wireline telco/cable duopoly on broadband access. But Levin does see white space broadband, which would harness unused or "white space" of the television broadcast frequency spectrum to transmit broadband signals, as having real benefit in less densely populated areas:

While I can’t say all the ways white space will be used, I can say how it probably won’t be: it will not be used to provide the third pipe that will finally break open the last mile bottleneck, thus reclaiming the internet from the ISP gatekeepers and ensuring a dynamic, innovative and generally neutral net. White space may be used to provide last mile wireless Internet connectivity at speeds comparable to DSL and cable, but only in rural areas where broadband competition is worse than the oligopoly city dwellers suffer under. The data transfer speed over white space is closely related to the amount of spectrum available and the number of users. As this study shows, there are vacant channels everywhere, but there are more vacant channels in areas with less population density due to the smaller demand for broadcast licenses in those areas. Because of the great amount of spectrum available, and the small number of people who will be using the spectrum, it is likely that rural wireless ISPs will try using the white space to provide broadband.

Local governments in federal courts to block telcos' end run to the FCC

Telcos adamant to avoid local government broadband infrastructure build out requirements went to Congress last year seeking legislation preempting local government authority to award "video franchises" and place it in the hands of the feds.

When that failed, the telcos then directed their efforts at state legislatures to get the locals off their backs. They have been successful in at least a dozen states, getting legislation with limited build out requirements that allow them to bypass local areas they don't want to serve, effectively making the digital divide law.

The telcos apparently want to buy insurance at the federal level despite their failure to get Congress to go along. So they're doing an end run around Congress by going to the Federal Communications Commission. Earlier this year, the FCC went along with them and promulgated regulations barring local governments from requiring telcos to build out their broadband infrastructure to serve an entire community and also giving the locals a short time frame to act on telco applications for franchises.

Not so fast, a coalition of local government and non-profit groups say. This week, they filed briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit arguing the FCC lacks statutory to do so since the telcos failed to get federal legislation enacted last year.

Media fails to ask what's being done to lower broadband infrastructure costs

The high cost of installing wireline-based broadband infrastructure is cited as the main reason for the lack of broadband access that leaves gaping broadband black holes across the landscape. Providers simply shrug and tell desperate dialuggers and satellite suckers, "Tough, it simply costs too much to serve you."

But why is it among the growing media coverage of the nation's broadband shortcomings no one is asking or discussing what telcos and cable companies are doing to lower costs to make broadband more widely available? It's a major oversight that has led to a one-sided, circular debate that does nothing to solve the problem.