Disappointed in DTV

Anyone else underwhelmed with digital television?

OK I admit I will never be confused with an Engadget blogger. For someone who works in educational technology and was a TV producer I am oddly a relic when it comes to television consumption. I am not a cable subscriber. I want to retire someday and I would rather pay myself a $100 a month than a cable company (I suspect the economy will drive others to join me.) My TV is a small 16 year old analog set.

So given my modest viewing experience, DTV seemed like an exciting possibility: clear reception, multiple channels. I eagerly requested my coupon. So far I have been roundly disappointed.

Despite living nine miles from downtown two of the major stations frequently stutter and halt, the signal too weak to play smoothly. And what happened to multicasting? The NBC affiliate gives a weather channel (gee I can't get that anywhere) and the ABC affiliate shows old movies -- bad movies -- on its alternative channel. PBS gives me some diversity -- legislative sessions and a channel dedicated to how to programs -- but not much that adds to my life or is particularly local.

So this transition to DTV was supposed to be in the public interest? You would think that given all the extra broadcast capacity stations now have there would be some local programming requirements. Even local sports is now almost entirely relegated to cable TV.

I hope a new FCC and Congress puts some meaningful public service requirements on broadcasters.

The Media Moment

No, it is not a moment of on screen performance but the opportunity to redirect media and internet policy in the United States. Media reform activists are energized by Obama's clear positions on preserving network neutrality, reversing policies promoting media consolidation, and rebuilding public media for the digital age.

The reform group Free Press just released a policy paper filling in some details of Obama's stated principles. It calls for:

• Protecting an Open Internet: The Obama administration should move swiftly to put Net Neutrality into law by urging Congress to pass Net Neutrality legislation.
  
• Promoting Universal, Affordable Broadband: The next FCC should set new speed standards for broadband; collect meaningful data on deployment; transition the Universal Service Fund toward broadband; and open inquiries to stimulate broadband competition.
• Increasing Diversity in Media Ownership: The road to media ownership reform begins by reversing the Bush administration's pro-consolidation policies. Obama's FCC should also investigate the impact of concentration on localism and diversity.
• Renewing Public Media: Urge Congress to substantially increase funding for all levels of public media; create a long-term funding strategy that protects public media from undue political interference and supports the digital transition; and promote new Low Power FM stations and existing PEG channels.

Broadband Stimulus

Some are arguing that building up the US broadband infrastructure should be a component of an economic stimulus plan. The US falls in the middle of the pack in terms of broadband adoption, with over 40 million people -- approximately 5 million in Ohio -- without broadband. Most communities have only one or two providers, a dearth of competition that keeps prices high and performance low. This compromises US competitiveness by limiting education, telemedicine, entrepreneurism and civic and economic participation.

In the National Governors Association letter to Congress Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont wrote:

"[I]nvestments in ready-to-go infrastructure projects are a cost effective creator of high paying jobs. These investments should include a broad array of infrastructure projects including airports, highways, transit systems, clean water, sewers and broadband."

The Brookings Institute has released a study in which it estimates that each percentage point increase in broadband adoption results in nearly 300,000 jobs each year.

I think the most intersting argument is made by Yochai Benkler who argues for British-style federal effort to build fiber to the home aligned with a massive "each one teach one" effort to build up our nations math and science knowledge:

"We are happily contemplating paying people to dig up roads and pour cement. They will be building our physical infrastructure. There is no reason why we should not be equally happy paying people to teach, learn, and share what they learned. They will be building our knowledge infrastructure. Coupled with fiber to the home, by the end of the recovery we will have more of our population connected to much faster networks that will allow them to work from home, and they will be much better prepared to use that connectivity in a networked information economy."

Given Obama's seriousness about technology -- he plans to create a cabinet level Chief Technology Officer -- we could have very different media landscape in the near future.

"Big Media is a Threat"

Sentiments such as the one above were common last night as a couple hundred citizens gathered in Columbus to provide testimony at the Future of Media hearing attended by FCC Commissioners Michael Copps, Jonathan Adelstein and Robert McDowell. Hear is bit of what I heard:

Panelists and citizens alike told stories of how minority-owned broadcasting was central to bringing attention to injustices in the community. They lamented how changes in ownership rules and lack of federal oversight on media mergers has decimated the ranks of minority broadcasters and, as a result, erased issues and communities from public discussion.

Plain-Dealer reporter Connie Shultz told of how she used to work about competition from broadcasters when she es investigating a story. Now she never fears competition but instead, found herself assisting a clueless TV reporter who didn't even know why he was covering a trial on white collar crime. Because of consolidation, broadcaster no longer have the personnel or the interest to do any investigative reporting.

Catherine Turcer from Citizen Action told of studies that showed that in Columbus and Cleveland, during the 2006 elections, that campaign coverage averaged only 1.5 minutes per newscast. Of that 4%, or 3.6 seconds, was dedicated to local news.

Citizens hoping to dialog with station managers found managers hostile to the idea of public input.

Of course, you will not read any of this in the Columbus Dispatch. You can read a nice summary in the Canton Repository. There was plenty of independent coverage of the hearing and as that media becomes available I will link to it from here.

[Update: Free Press posted this article about the hearing.]

And since I am running my own press here, I'll share with you the testimony I prepared and, for the most part, delivered in two minutes:

My airwaves are a $1 trillion dollars profit engine. I want some return on my investment. Instead, I see the following:

I see news anchors and DJs hosting charitable events. Yet I rarely see the work and concerns of hundreds of civic organizations in local media. Instead I see crime, fires, celebrity escapades and stories that look suspiciously of video news releases with the local anchor’s voice pasted over top.

I recently attended a community meeting where I learned that the foreign born population of Central Ohio is equal to the population of Youngstown. One would never know this from commercial media. How can we solve our local challenges if we do not even know our neighbors?

Two TV stations owned by Sinclair broadcasting with only one newsroom and one set of reporters yet taking double the opportunity to editorialize from the east coast without having to engage anyone locally about its content nor offer an opportunity to reply.

I spin my AM radio dial in the evening I hear the same syndicated talk shows on more than one station. Jumping to FM I hear sporting events that also heard on the AM side. And it’s rare when I hear local music instead of what is being pushed by the record or advertising industry.

During recent elections I was bombarded with campaign ads making the most provocative claims and accusations yet neither the ads nor the issues received any sustained or serious coverage on commercial media. How can we cast informed votes if this is what passes for political information?

We have what proposed rule changes would allow everywhere: One company owning the newspaper, television and multiple radio stations, and weekly papers. I do not trust this arrangement. I want my local media to be a check on power, not have the power to elevate or silence an issue because it controls much of the information flow.

Broadcasters say they are giving the people what they want. This is a hollow argument. The entire media industry is dedicated to turning me into a tidy demographic to be delivered, instead of treating me a citizen to be served.

Broadcasters say there are alternatives. But we are falling short there also. We are far from having truly universal and affordable broadband in Ohio, and even we did, the real work of journalism is still being done by the dwindling ranks of professional reporters. The power to create public space on local cable systems is seriously weakened by the FCC’s recent order limiting local regulatory power. And our local Low Power FM licensees, working to bring local voices to the airwaves, have to be on guard against full power predators who want spectrum to give us yet another prepackaged format.

No so-called alternative removes any responsibility from broadcasters. It is time to give the people what they want and what they deserve. Media that treats us as citizens and is worthy of the democracy we claim to practice.

Thank-you.

Technorati Tags: FCC, Media Ownership, Columbus, Media Reform

How to make comments at the FCC hearing

Michel Coconis has posted some instructions on how prepare and present testimony at the hearing. You can read it at the FreePress.org (local organization) site. There are also tips posted on the StopBigMedia site.


Technorati Tags: FCC, Media Ownership, Columbus, Free Press

The non-coverage of non-profits

From what I have red about other hearings, it seems a common practice by broadcasters in attendence is to tout their support of local charities. And they will bring leaders of local charities to publicly thank them for their support by reporting on fundraisers, sending anchors to act as Masters of Ceremony, occasionally running a PSA. Typically these efforts are done in support of a children's advocate, medical organization or United Way.

This is all fine. But it should never be confused with doing the actual work of journalism. When is the last time the issues cared about had a decent airing on local commercial broadcasting? How many of the smaller non-profits and neighborhood associations, who wrestle with complicated issues of poverty, sustainability, education and neighborhood development have access to media to tell their story, and engage the community in their issues?

If you belong to or support a neighborhood association or non-profit organization, do whatever you can to get its membership to attend the hearing and demand media that recognizes them and serves their needs.

Technorati Tags: FCC, FCC Hearing, Columbus, Media Ownership

Who Owns Media in Columbus?

Here is profile of the Columbus media market prepared by Free Press. For a detailed profile of who owns what in Ohio, see the Center for Public Integrity's Media Tracker.

The Columbus, Ohio, area is the nation’s 32nd-largest TV market and 37th-largest radio market. Columbus is dominated by a handful of media firms. Just four companies control 75 percent of the Columbus area's local news market. The Wolfe family's Dispatch Company, owners of the Columbus Dispatch, WBNS-TV 10, WBNS-AM 1460 and WBNS-FM 97.1, controls nearly half of the local news market for the entire Columbus area.

Television

The Dispatch Company and large conglomerates, such as Sinclair Broadcast Group, LIN Television and Media General, control the Columbus TV market. Sinclair and Dispatch together control nearly 75 percent of the revenue. WBNS-TV 10 (the Dispatch-owned CBS affiliate) and WSFJ-TV 51 are the only two locally owned and operated TV stations. Sinclair owns WSYX-TV 6 (the ABC affiliate, one of 47 stations the company owns nationwide) and runs the local Fox station, WTTE-TV 28, through a local marketing agreement. Cunningham Broadcasting actually owns WTTE, but the Smith family has the majority of voting stock in both Cunningham and Sinclair (current FCC rules prohibit Sinclair from owning both stations). Even though this duopoly is a clear violation of federal rules, the FCC has taken no action. There are no full-power commercial TV stations owned by women or racial and ethnic minorities in the Columbus market.

Radio

Clear Channel and Saga Communications dominate the Columbus radio market, with Clear Channel owning six stations (including WTVN-AM 610, the dominant news radio station), and Saga owning four. Together, these two companies own 30 percent of all the commercial radio stations in the market and control nearly half of the revenue. Nationwide, Clear Channel owns more than 1,000 radio stations, and Saga owns 89. Non-local owners control nearly 56 percent of Columbus’ commercial radio stations. Radio One, an African-Americanowned company, controls the market’s three minority-owned stations, WCKX-FM 107.5, WJYD-FM 106.3, and WXMG-FM 98.9. Columbus has four radio stations owned by women, WBZX-FM 99.7, WMNI-AM 920 and WTDA-FM 103.9 (all owned by North American Broadcasting Company, based in Columbus) and WHIZ-FM 102.5 (owned by Southeastern Ohio Television, based in Zanesville).

Newspapers

The Columbus Dispatch is the sole daily newspaper in the area, with an average weekday distribution of nearly 250,000 copies. The Columbus Citizen-Journal, a competing daily, ceased operation in 1985 after the owners of the Dispatch ended an arrangement to share their printing press. This move, a potential antitrust violation, prompted the Department of Justice to join a court case against the Dispatch which was later dropped. The Columbus Dispatch is locally owned and operated by the Wolfe family, who also own the area’s dominant TV news outlet and two radio stations.

Media Ownership in Columbus Doesn’t Reflect the Diversity of its Population

Racial and ethnic minorities comprise 23 percent of the population in the Columbus television market; 19 percent of population in the Columbus radio market; and 33 percent of the population in the city of Columbus. Despite the diversity in the Columbus area, only 7.5 percent of the area’s commercial broadcast stations are minority-owned. Women own just 7.5 percent of commercial stations.

FCC Deregulation Would Devastate the Area’s Few Independent Voices

According to an analysis by the Consumer Federation of America, the Columbus media market is already highly concentrated, with four firms controlling 75 percent of the area’s entire local news market, and the Dispatch Company controlling nearly half. If the FCC eliminated its few remaining ownership protections, then the top four firms would likely increase their share to nearly 90 percent of the Columbus area news market.

Technorati Tags: FCC, Media Ownership, Columbus, Free Press, FCC Hearing

The Real World Impacts of Media Consolidation

Common Cause has a page of example citizen testimony that reveals the direct impact of media consolidation our communities and nation.

Some examples:

Studies have shown that there are significant disparities in the treatment of African-Americans in local and national news. In addition, African-Americans still face a lack of quality programming in the media focused on their needs, interests and perspectives.I strongly believe that minority owned radio stations provide more minority focused content and a greater focus on the concerns of the minority community.

One of the most insidious byproducts of media consolidation is the practice of "voice-tracking" entire air shifts. Up to 70% of Clear Channel's radio broadcasts are voice-tracked...The end result - no local flavor, no local input, no local jobs, no local coverage and no local connection.

We believe that a station owner who resides in his or her own local community is more likely to understand and respond to local standards than someone making programming decisions from hundreds or thousands of miles away.

a chemical explosion happened a few months ago in Sioux Falls. That information was not captioned. So my wife was babysitting my granddaughter and was completely unaware of what had happened

Technorati Tags: FCC, Media Ownership, Columbus, Common Cause, FCC Hearing

Media Workshops Scheduled in Advance of FCC Hearing

There will be two local workshops on media issues to help citizens understand and prepare for the FCC Forum on March 7. Here is the info:

Learn how media policy affects ownership, content, and the information we need to participate in democracy. Workshops will give you the chance to consider your own hopes for media that meet your community’s needs, and to prepare a two minute testimony to present at the forum. All workshops are free and open to the public.

Download flyer here.

Monday, March 5

6:30 p.m.
Ohio Common Cause Office
50 W. Broad Street, #1705
Contact: Scarlett Bouder,
614-224-2497

Tuesday, March 6
6:30 p.m.
Columbus Metropolitan Area
Church Council
Jefferson Conference Center
65 Jefferson Ave.
Contact: 614-461-7103

Technorati Tags: FCC, Media Ownership, Columbus, FCC Hearing

Does the Internet obviate media ownership rules?

Some argue -- Michael Powell did when he Chaired the FCC -- that the rise of the internet has created a media abundance that makes ownership limits and public interest provisions unnecessary. It is certainly true that the old communications model is being upended. There was a night last summer when, during the typical TV viewing lull, there were more YouTube hits than there were TV viewers. The Internet -- and the publishing and networking innovations that have been built on it -- has indeed given us all powerful means to communicate.

This fact, however, does not eliminate the need for broadcast regulation. Powell and others were attacking the scarcity rationale for regulation, the argument that since so few have the privilege to broadcast on public airwaves, broadcasters must adhere to public interest obligations. Maintaining diversity of ownership was and is a content-neutral means of making content diversity more likely. In 2007, none of the above has changed.

Comparing the internet to broadcast airwaves is comparing apples and oranges. First of all, there is still a significant digital divide. Many lack broadband access -- much less affordable broadband access -- because providers have chosen to exclude communities and regions, especially rural ones, where they deem it unprofitable to build out the network.

Secondly, broadcasting and internet communication are different in nature. US Rep Rep. Mike Doyle (PA) pointed out the following in a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

The reality is that only small percentages — 11% of respondents in a recent survey — use the internet as a frequent source of local news and information. The reality is that the websites of local TV stations and local newspapers account for about half of the sites these Internet users visit most frequently.

The web is a valuable, perhaps essential, tool for expanding and enriching public debate in our country. It has already greatly enhanced the nation’s discourse on public affairs. But until it is as pervasive as broadcast media and newspapers — and until new websites truly compete with those traditional media outlets (and the web sites they control) — the web’s existence should not be used to justify media consolidation.

While bloggers and some websites cover local news extremely well, many are centered on opinion, food and theater reviews — or they simply aggregate links to websites of broadcasters or newspapers. The fact that most of these websites generate significant content reacting or responding to content produced by local broadcasters or newspapers underscores the internet’s importance as a complement and a supplement — not a competitor — to traditional media outlets.

Moreover, as evidenced by the fight to preserve network neutrality, telcos want to make the internet more like cable TV. They want a delivery platform for their content at the expense of conditions that make it a public sphere accessed equally by all. Simply glance at Free Press's media ownership chart and you can see that many broadcasters have internet holdings as either ISPs or content providers. In reality, battles over network neutrality and broadcast ownership are the same battle to save the public sphere from corporate control.

Concentration also creates a climate for corruption. In radio, it is called "Payola" --paying for airplay. In TV, it is the practice of undisclosed VNRs (video news releases) passed on as news. When there are few gatekeepers to the airwaves, and when content is more centrally controlled, the need to resort to extraordinary measures to gain access increases. And when that is coupled with the cost-cutting reduction and elimination of journalists, it becomes far easier for PR to pass as news.

For different reasons, I agree that we may want to abandon the scarcity argument for regulation. Because whether there is 1 channel or 1000, our media have to serve an affirmative First Amendment principle held by James Madison and others. And that is that democracy rests on the ability of citizens to be informed, to deliberate, and participate as fully as possible in public discourse. There are many ways to begin to achieve this end, a discussion I'll save for another time. But I think that doing so begins with preserving ownership diversity.

Technorati Tags: FCC, Media Ownership, Columbus

From Harrisburg to Columbus ... Despite the NAB

The FCC held one of its six “official” hearings on media ownership yesterday in Harrisburg, PA. Despite little public notice, 300 people attended and 150 spoke for over 5 hours.

A summary and links are below, but first, I have to add how surprised I was to do a Technorati Search on “FCC, Harrisburg” and find a paltry few blog posts on the hearing, much less the FCC ownership proceedings. Promoting these events and framing the debate is entirely in our hands! We have got to do better.

We must do better because big media wants to silence us. The NAB asked the FCC to limit public comment to those made only by people who live in the market area in which the hearing was held. Fortunately, the FCC did not listen. HearUsNow.org has a summary of the request and copy of the NAB letter which reads, with stunning contradiction:

We, of course, want hearings that reflect the complete and full viewpoint of America. One way to improve the dialogue and ensure all Americans have the opportunity to provide their viewpoints would be to have all individuals wanting to provide their personal opinions to the Commission identify the city or town where they reside. Making this simple procedure a standard part of these hearings will enhance the record of the Commission, and will also help ensure that the Commissioners hear from viewers and listeners who actually receive service from stations in the local markets where the hearings are being conducted. Our broadcasters who live and reside in local communities would embrace this wholeheartedly.

FreePress.net, an organizer of the Columbus forum, issued a reply:

"There are 210 television markets in the United States — and the FCC has promised to hold public hearings in just six of them," said Craig Aaron, communications director of Free Press. "Yet the broadcasters' lobby is shocked and dismayed that some people might care enough about their local media to take a day off work, get up at dawn, and drive four or five hours for two minutes at the mic during a public hearing. And — here's the real shocker — they're not even being paid to be there."

And Hannah Sasserman made a nice point on her blog:

“These aren’t the localism hearings — Chairman Powell started to organize those, and fell off around the same time as his Commission started researching the drastic decline in diverse radio station ownership. These are official hearings meant to impact Docket 06-121 — also known as the Quadrennial Review of the Media Ownership Rules . Whether you are from Honolulu or Harrisburg, the facts and anecdotes you offer from your life and your local community are the pieces the FCC is obligated to consider when they decide whether or not to deregulate the media. Every story is valid. ”

So what happened in Harrisburg? Check out coverage in Broadcasting and Cable:

While, the vast majority of the first open mike commenters were broadcasters and charity group heads praising the industry, on the other side was a woman who identified herself as the daughter of former FCC commissioner Clifford Durr. She said that the communications business was a mess and that competition was not the best way to insure the best broadcast service. Clifford Durr was a commissioner appointed by Franklin Roosevelt, who was also concerned about media consolidation.

The latter part of the hearing was dominated by consolidation critics, including one woman identifying herself as a former broadcaster and now a screenwriter, said that she would not vote for a presidential candidate unless he pledged to lower ownership rules . " Please, inform your friends that you own the license," she said.

One self-described media activist said he had gotten up at 5 a.m. to drive to the hearing and was missing a day of work. He said that most of the parade of pro-broadcasting comments had come from people "on the payroll" of big media.

Also see Radio Online, Patriot News and, of course, StopBigMedia.com

Tags: FCC, FCC Hearings, Media Reform, Columbus,

Does Big Media serve you? Sound off here.

Does media monopoly serve you?

• Tired of local "News" that is anything but?
• Tired of outrageous campaign ads replacing real campaign coverage?
• Tired of not seeing your community represented in media?
• Tired of bland radio formats that you can hear anywhere?
• Tired of absent or poor children's programming?
• Tired of offensive and outlandish content at every hour of the day?

Media is THE issue. Our media are the oxygen of our democracy, the gardens of our culture.

Are you being served? Add a comment about how media effects you.

Then prepare your comments for the FCC on March 7th.

Tags: FCC, FCC Hearings, Media Reform, Columbus,

Are Media Serving Your Community?

I'll have more to say on this later but it is time to start spreading the word that Columbus will host an FCC hearing on Media Ownership on March 7th.

You may recall the tremendous public backlash in 2003 against proposed rules to weaken ownership rules. Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein led the way by holding informal hearings around the country to get public input. Well, the FCC is at it again.

On June 21, current FCC chairman Kevin Martin issued a draft proposal -- called a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, or FNPRM -- that kick-started Big Media's latest effort to weaken the rules protecting local voices, vibrant competition and diverse viewpoints. The rule would eliminate two key protections:

• The rule on "newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership," which prevents companies from owning a television or radio station and the major daily newspaper in the same area.
• The local ownership caps that limit a company from owning more than one television station in most markets. (They can own two in larger markets as long as there are at least eight other competitors.)

The upcoming Columbus hearing will be significant because it will be the first hearing attended by a majority Commissioner, Robert McDowell. According to organizer Amanda Ballentyne

"having McDowell attend the hearing is a very big deal, as he is appears to be the possible swing vote on the issue of broadcast ownership at the FCC. There are 5 commissioners at the FCC, three republicans (the majority) and two democrats (Copps and Adelstein). Copps and Adelstein have been outspoken on these issues, pressing the FCC not to allow further consolidation. McDowell appears to be undecided. This forum will be an excellent opportunity to impress McDowell."

Below is text from a promotional flier that you can download here.

RAISE YOUR VOICE NOW — OR LOSE IT!

Do you want the media to do a better job of covering issues you care about? Do you want more quality journalism? Are you wondering whether a few giant media conglomerates will provide the diverse and independent viewpoints you need? The Federal Communications Commission and media industry lobbyists want to change the rules so one company can own more newspapers, radio stations and TV stations in places like Columbus. Now is your chance to weigh in.

For more information, visit freepress.net/future or contact Amanda
Ballantyne, aballantyne@freepress.net, 612-849-0195

Technorati Tags: FCC, Media Ownership Hearings, Columbus, Media Reform

House subcommittee to grill FCC on local franchising

[Update: this hearing was postponed. More info TBA.]

[Cross-posted to OneOhio]

The House Commerce & Telecommunications Subcommittee is scheduled to hold a hearing today, Thursday, Feb. 15th, to review the FCC. Among the many issues of concern is the FCCs December 20th FCC Ruling on Video Franchising. The ruling:

(1) imposes a 90-day shot clock for new entrants with existing rights of
way;
(2) requires the grant of a new entrant’s franchise after 90-days;
(3) limits the scope of a new entrant's build-out obligation;
(4) authorizes a new entrant to withhold payment of fees that its deems to be in excess of the 5 percent cap;
(5) undermines support for public, educational and government (PEG) access channels PEG and local, institutional networks (INET);
(6) authorizes a new entrant to refrain from obtaining a franchise when it is upgrading mixed use facilities that will be used for the delivery of video content.

FCC Commissioner Adelstein offered these dissenting comments:

“The policy goals of this Order, to promote competitive video offerings and broadband deployment, are laudable. But while I support these goals, today’s item goes out on a limb in asserting federal authority to preempt local governments, and then saws the limb off with a highly dubious legal and policy scheme that substitutes our judgment as to what is reasonable for that of local officials – all in violation of the franchising framework established in the Communications Act.”

Commissioner Copps dissented and wrote:

"My goal was to encourage an item that preserves a local authority’s statutory right to seek specific and far-reaching build-out requirements, protects each community’s ability to negotiate for PEG and I-NET facilities, and maintains truly meaningful local ability to deal with the huge companies that are coming into our cities and towns toPublish build important infrastructure."

Save Access.org has a online letter writing tool you can use to voice your opinion with the key house members of the subcommittee.

Technorati Tags: FCC, Broadband, Telecom

John Dingle on National Braodband Strategy

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) has piece in The Hill entitled affordable broadband for everyone. He writes:

there is significant concern that our ranking, by whatever measure, in the global information economy is less than it should be. While the overall number of United States households adopting broadband is growing, our relative position in the world is worsening. Consumers in other countries enjoy broadband connections that are faster, cheaper and offered by more providers.

Apropos to my previous post

we must examine whether the current measure of broadband speed in this country is adequate. In 1996, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission to encourage the timely deployment to all Americans of capability enabling users “to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications.” Curiously, the FCC continues to rely on the high-speed definition it set in 1999 as just 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in only one direction.

There is universal agreement that this is insufficient for cutting edge applications such as streaming video (1 mbps), medical monitoring (2.5 mbps) or videoconferencing (6 mbps). One need only ask any child playing educational games online whether our current broadband standard is too slow.

Next, we must consider how effectively we measure the level of broadband penetration in this country. Frankly, the FCC’s current zip-code method of measuring broadband is neither useful nor accurate. A realistic assessment that maps actual deployment and adoption will better enable policymakers to identify gaps in availability, price, and speed.

His solutions:

Encourage infrastructure investment: Telephone and cable companies are actively upgrading their existing infrastructure, but even services like DSL have limits presented by old legacy networks.

Promote competition: We should promote deployment and demand at the local level by any entity using any technology, including municipalities.

Manage spectrum wisely: Greater spectrum demands require us to continue to find ways to increase access and efficiency while protecting existing licensees.

Modernize universal service: We must carefully probe the stewardship of the nation’s universal service policies and consider supporting broadband service, especially in rural areas.

Foster innovation: The power of the Internet as an entrepreneurial medium for individuals and businesses, however small, must be preserved. Consumers should continue to go where they want, when they want, over the high-speed connections of their choice.

Protect consumers: Above all, we must remember that communications networks run over public resources such as spectrum or a community’s local rights of way. Our policies should demand that service providers adhere to appropriate social responsibilities that serve the common good such as public safety, law enforcement, privacy, and universal access.

Technorati Tags: Broadband, FCC, John Dingle, Spectrum