Jonathan Spalter

In 1996, Congress required incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to unbundle and resell portions of their networks to upstart companies at discounted and government-set rates. These network-sharing rules applied exclusively to ILECs in an era before there was substantial competition from facilities-based rivals. Twenty-three years later that expected competition is here. (ILEC’s share of residential local voice markets fell from nearly 100 percent to only 11 percent of US households by the end of 2018.) Yet, these old-school regulations remain in place.

In a recent spending bill, Congress made $600 million available for additional broadband deployment to America’s rural areas. The US Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has been tapped to administer these funds through a new pilot program. Without question, this funding is a welcome and needed addition to the growing arsenal now aimed squarely at closing the digital divide to rural Americans once and for all. Private investment, paired with dedicated federal programs, will connect millions more in the coming years.

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has a lot on his plate. On top of running a critical independent federal agency, he now must do so under a cloud of hate speech and death threats directed at him and his young children. This behavior is unacceptable in any circumstance, and it is an especially sad irony that it’s being directed at a public servant who has made it his No.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission estimated in 2017 that to deploy high-speed broadband to 98 percent of American homes, it would cost $40 billion. For 100 percent, the cost doubles. Which is why greater broadband infrastructure funding — both public and private — is urgently needed in remote areas, where the cost of connectivity infrastructure remains extreme.

[Commentary] The Federal communications Commission’s rulemaking process is an important step toward shaping a modern network neutrality framework that doesn’t shackle innovation to a pole erected in the era of black and white films. But ultimately the best place for that debate to be resolved on a permanent basis is through our elected representatives in Congress.

Based on the original coding of our democracy by its founders, they alone have the power to codify this core American value into law, so it is above the reach of the ebb and flow of political tides.

[Jonathan Spalter is president and CEO of USTelecom]

[Commentary] The truth is: Our internet was open, dynamic and growing before the Title II disruption, and it will remain so after. Those who say there’s only one true path to net neutrality need to join the rest of us in the real world where heavy-handed, archaic policies have zero shot at being as quick, nimble, smart, adaptive and transformative as the dynamic and transformative technology they seek to manage.

There is near-universal support for enforceable open internet safeguards. There is no such mandate to regulate US internet infrastructure back to the Stone Age. These are two very different debates that must be kept distinct. Title II can’t deliver a modern, thriving and open internet. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s more surgical approach likely can. It’s time to take the clean and clear win.

[Jonathan Spalter is president and CEO of USTelecom]

[Commentary] Everyone in this country passionately supports an open internet. In many respects, the so-called Title II debate reflects everything voters most resent about Washington: Fear-mongering, Armageddon-style arguments with a dubious connection to the facts. The central fact of this debate is its true subject: This policy battle is not about whether we safeguard an open internet. It's about how we go about doing so.

The application of these retro rules to our modern internet is the policy equivalent of using a sledgehammer to deal with a mosquito on your arm. Technically, it may get the job done. But everything breaks in the process. If we don't want to continue what our nation has long enjoyed — an open, innovating, strong, dynamic, pro-consumer internet, then by all means let's keep Title II. But if we do want to advance the opportunities the internet brings to our economy, nation and consumers — and keep the progress and investment coming—then it's high time we embrace a more constructive path forward.

[Jonathan Spalter is President and CEO of USTelecom.]

[Commentary] The Trump administration has rightly recognized the importance of advanced communications networks, having included telecommunications in an initial list of critical infrastructure priorities. More than 100 members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, also recently joined in urging President Trump to include broadband within any broader infrastructure initiatives. As our policymakers gear up for action, here’s a simple roadmap for ensuring a brighter broadband future for all Americans:

Build on What Has Worked: Leveraging of the existing Universal Service Fund programs could, if done right, provide the most effective path to ensuring greater broadband access at lower costs and also avoid problems of delay and duplication.

Remove Regulatory Barriers: While the challenging business case for ongoing operations may be the greatest barriers to greater rural broadband deployment, regulatory burdens involving permits, pole attachments, franchising requirements, and rights-of-way can increase costs and cause lengthy delays that in some cases postpone promising projects for more than a year. Streamlining or eliminating regulations and addressing other deployment obstacles could help alleviate these burdens.

[Shirley Bloomfield is chief executive officer of NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association. Jonathan Spalter is president and chief executive officer of USTelecom.]

[Commentary] Few lawmakers could have envisioned how the world has changed since Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which promoted competition and lifted some regulations, allowing phone, cable TV and media companies to transform their business models to compete head to head. Just 20 million American adults had access to the Internet back then, through dial-up services like America Online, CompuServe or Prodigy.

While we have seen great progress and opportunity from broadband connectivity, we need updated telecom laws to acknowledge the dramatically shifting lines of competition, to clarify the rules of the road for internet providers and ensure that consumers and businesses continue to enjoy the benefits from our increasingly connected world. The Telecom Act was a remarkable success story but to keep our innovation economy moving, American consumers deserve a blockbuster sequel.

[Jonathan Spalter is USTelecom President & CEO]

[Commentary] It’s been more than 60 years since President Dwight D. Eisenhower, fresh from World War II Europe and its front-row seat to the efficiency of the German autobahn, vowed to create our nation’s interstate highway system. Now, President-elect Donald Trump is pledging to invest upwards of $1 trillion in a long-overdue upgrade of U.S. infrastructure.

A new administration and Congress present an opportune moment to take a fresh look at how we build for the future. This includes determining what from the past we must let go. Many believe a major push on infrastructure holds out the greatest hope for meaningful, bipartisan progress. It is essential that this push include broadband. Shoring up aging brick-and-mortar infrastructure is essential to maintaining our country’s safety and economic health. But only by smartly connecting the dots between this largely analog effort and U.S. digital infrastructure can we achieve national outcomes that are truly transformative.

[Jonathan Spalter is president and CEO of USTelecom, the nation’s leading trade association representing broadband service providers and suppliers for the telecom industry.]