September 2013

The American Library Association (ALA) asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to accelerate deployment of the high-capacity broadband needed to serve students and learners of all ages through our nation’s libraries and schools.

ALA calls for new strategic investments in telecommunications and broadband infrastructure, as well as program changes to improve cost-effectiveness and streamline processes to enable greater participation. America’s 16,417 public libraries serve more than 77 million computer users each year, yet only half of these multi-user outlets offer Internet speeds above the FCC’s home broadband recommendation of 4 Mbps. Through these Internet connections, libraries support the education, employment and e-government resources and services all increasingly moving to “the cloud.”

Culminating two months of intensive review and research, the ALA’s response to the FCC’s most comprehensive E-rate proceeding since the program’s 1997 inception acknowledges this enormous opportunity for advancing the E-rate program. Monday’s filing also aligns with President Obama’s ConnectED goal to connect America’s students through libraries and schools to the Internet through high-speed broadband and high-speed wireless within five years. The ALA calls for new E-rate funding to jumpstart and sustain high-capacity and high-speed Internet connections that support digital learning and economic development through libraries and schools. The current funding cap on the program consistently falls far short of meeting basic demand for Internet-enabled education and learning services, and technology trends clearly show needs and future capabilities only are growing.

To address this, ALA supports a two-pronged approach: 1) New temporary funding is needed to support the build-out of high-capacity broadband networks and especially provide increased support for libraries with the lowest levels of broadband connectivity. 2) A permanent increase in funding is not only justified but is a sound investment for the country.

ALA’s comments also encourage the FCC to:

• Provide additional E-rate discounts for remote rural libraries that often confront the greatest broadband costs;
• Streamline the E-rate’s application review process to incent consortium purchasing and replace E-rate program procurement rules with those of the applicable locality or state;
• Lower barriers to deployment of dark and lit fiber and ownership of wide area networks when they are the most cost-effective ways to deliver high-capacity broadband to libraries and schools;
• Work in cooperation with the library and schools communities to develop scalable bandwidth targets and benchmarks for measuring progress against these targets; and
• Eliminate the Form 470 and allow applicants to file an “evergreen” Form 471 for multi-year contracts.

The surveillance court that oversees the US government's massive collection of telephone data gave its fullest defense to date of why it considers the program lawful, despite the uproar after its existence was made public in June.

In an opinion dated Aug 29, Judge Claire Eagan of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wrote that the program did not violate the basic privacy rights of Americans and was authorized under the 2001 law known as the Patriot Act. "The court concludes that there are facts showing reasonable grounds to believe that the records sought are relevant to authorized investigations," wrote the judge, one of 11 who serve on the surveillance court. US officials have said the database is valuable in preventing attacks by al Qaeda and other militant groups, and that access to the database is limited to trained personnel who are investigating international terrorist organizations. Judge Eagan's opinion is notable for its sweeping grant of authority to the government, perhaps because lawyers from the Justice Department are the only ones who argue before the secretive court, said Alex Abdo, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. "When the court has in front of it only the government's arguments, it's not surprising that the opinion reads like a brief written by the government," Abdo said.

“It is shocking that in this day and age, long-distance calls to rural Americans all too often are not being completed. Emergency calls to state troopers have failed. Families trying to check on the health and well-being of elderly parents cannot get through. Rural businesses have lost customers frustrated when it appears that no one is there to take an order. All told, this is a serious and unacceptable situation for people living in rural America. So I am pleased to announce that, today, I circulated an Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will help make sure that calls to rural areas are completed. The Order will enhance the FCC’s ability to investigate and crack down on this problem while also taking immediate steps that will improve the performance of long-distance calls to rural America.”

[Commentary] The broadband debate desperately needs new, creative thinking. And the first step is for each side to admit where they've gotten it wrong. Here are a few suggestions.

1. American wireless service is working pretty well. Some left-leaning thinkers still bemoan the state of the wireless market, blaming the problem on excessive control by wireless network operators. But the reality is that competition among the four major cell phone carriers has served American consumers pretty well.
2. We're falling behind on residential broadband. More recently, incumbent telephone companies have largely given up on competing with cable providers. That has given cable companies in many parts of the country a de facto monopoly on high-speed broadband service, resulting in slow innovation and poor customer service.
3. We desperately need more broadband experimentation. Our broadband present is mediocre, but the real problem is that for many communities, there's no serious plan for progress in the future. It's not clear what the best approach is for getting the whole country to gigabit fiber networks. More experimentation is needed. That means, for example, that state laws banning cities from building municipal networks are a bad idea
4. Discrimination concerns are mostly about video streaming. The emergence of smartphones with fast network connections has mooted both concerns. Telephone incumbents have far more to fear from cell phones than they do from VoIP applications. And with everyone carrying a web browser in their pockets, there's little danger of a residential broadband provider trying to censor websites.
5. "Network neutrality" probably isn't the answer. As the Internet becomes increasingly dominated by large players that interconnect directly with each other, network neutrality rules will become less and less effective at preventing incumbents from using their market power against competitors. Other approaches will be needed to ensure the Internet stays open and competitive.