Where is Higher Ed in the Broadband Debate?

With the explosion of distance learning in recent years one would think that communications policy that governs the internet would be foremost on the minds of higher education leadership and distance learning advocates. As educators realize the opportunities for student access and enriched teaching and learning that broadband internet access brings, many are mapping a future where ubiquitous high-speed connections enable students to utilize all manner of digital media.

This wired (or unwired) future is far from certain. The rules under which internet communication and commerce has flourished over the past decade-plus may fundamentally change. Congress is likely to revisit the Telecommunication Act in 2006; The previous rewrite in 1996 brought us, among other things, intense media consolidation. But as trial balloon legislation has popped up in Congress, a search of the Chronicle of Higher Education reveals virtually no reference to the coming debate that will determine through what networks we communicate, how quickly and at what cost.

In a nutshell, here is what is at stake:

Network Neutrality: Will the owners of the networks – SBC, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon – also control the content? Cisco has coined the term “walled garden” to describe a method of network content discrimination that would allow content owned or favored by the network owner to preferentially routed, leaving other content in the slow lane or blocked altogether. This may already be happening. See also from the FreePress.net and PC World. Or picture a future scenario when a telco giant buys a textbook publisher and offers on-line education that competes with traditional institutions and offers students faster access to its material.

Monopoly Service: Free from open access requirements to their networks, telecom giants have little competition so prices remain high and incentive to upgrade to higher bandwidth is reduced. Recent figures show that US broadband adoption has dropped in recent years leaving the US 14^th among industrialized nations, a drop from 3^rd in 2001. Moreover, other nations deliver broadband is dramatically faster speeds than most Americans enjoy.

Digital Divide and Local Control: Telcos, led by the phone companies, are pushing legislation that will limit local governments’ ability to enforce service standards or deploy their own networks to ensure all citizens are served with fast affordable broadband. The action here is on a couple fronts.

When Philadelphia announced that it planned to offer wireless internet to all its citizens for nominal cost it set off backlash of state and federal legislation that prohibits municipalities from offering broadband services. Proposed legislation in Ohio would force governments to jump through hoops and essentially seek the permission of corporations to meet a community need underserved by the “market.”

Cable and phone companies are pushing legislation that would weaken or eliminate local franchise authority. Currently, cable providers must negotiate for the use of public right of way, a process that can reward local communities with a portion of cable revenues, services such a community channels, as well as give localities leverage to require service – including broadband service -- to low-income areas not considered lucrative to providers. As Verizon and other phone companies move into video delivery, they do not want to be subject to local franchising, The cable companies, in turn, want regulatory parity. This also threatens the existence of educational access television, a local cable channel utilized by Columbus State to deliver telecourses and expose the College through other programming.

Some in higher ed are recognizing the challenge ahead. A coalition of higher education associations has prepared a policy paper called Broadband America - An Unrealized Vision urging “the United States [to] adopt as a national goal a broadband Internet that is secure, affordable, and available to all, supporting two-way, gigabit-per-second speeds and beyond.” How this will come about is unclear. On one end of the spectrum, advocates want broadband internet to be a public utility. On the other end, corporations are pushing a broadcast model of few privately owned networks selling consumer content. The outcome, according Mark A. Luker, Vice President of EDUCAUSE, is critical to higher education.

“Done right, telecommunications reform would present higher education with major opportunities by rapidly concluding the deployment of an affordable broadband Internet that can be used by anyone, anywhere. Imagine a world in which no one is precluded by geography from benefiting from and contributing to campus programs of education, research, and service. Collaboration tools, now used only by students and faculty on campus or in those off-campus locations served by fast broadband networking, could be used by anyone, anywhere.”

“Done wrong, telecommunications reform could present higher education with major challenges. Broadband deployment to underserved areas could be slowed, if not stopped. Local and state governments (and even institutions of higher education) could be prevented from deploying new networks in their communities even though incumbent providers choose to focus on more profitable markets elsewhere…Prices could be set artificially high in the absence of real market competition. Providers could try to limit and control the content on the network. The Internet could become Balkanized, with full access to all information and services available only in certain locations.”

This issue needs to move beyond the policy papers of educational think tanks on to the campuses of America’s colleges. When teachers and students speak, policymakers will listen.

Technorati Tags: broadband, digital divide, network neutrality, distance learning, telecommunications act