Editorial

In less than three months, nearly 800,000 low-income people who receive telephone subsidies through the Universal Service Fund's Lifeline program will be negatively impacted by changes scheduled to go into effect at the Federal Communications Commission on December 1, 2021. The FCC needs to change course and help more Americans keep connected to communications services that are essential to navigate the ongoing public health and economic crisis. Most importantly, the FCC should act swiftly and hit the pause button on the 2016 plan to zero-out support for voice-only services.

The biggest threat to competition and consumers in our time is the collusion of big business and big government. As a case in point, see how AT&T is urging the Federal Communications Commission to hobble rival T-Mobile. AT&T asked the FCC to limit how much mid-band spectrum providers can acquire in future government auctions. T-Mobile acquired loads of mid-band when it purchased Sprint in 2020.

If passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act leads to even a significant portion of President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda through budget reconciliation, it will herald a new age of government investment and intervention in the economy, and a reversal of decades of pullbacks in public spending. On the surface, a $65 billion investment in broadband, with an emphasis on getting low-income and rural households connected and closing the digital divide, is an unalloyed positive.

Although Republicans recoiled when President Biden unveiled his sweeping infrastructure plan in March, a bipartisan group of senators has thrown its support behind one of the less conventional ideas in the package: making a massive investment in broadband networks. But as crucial as these networks are to the 21st century economy, it’s not just the amount Congress spends that matters.

When it unveiled its National Broadband Plan in 2010, the Federal Communications Commission declared that every American should have access to affordable and robust broadband service by 2020, along with “the means and skills to subscribe.” It was the right goal; as the COVID-19 pandemic has made painfully obvious, broadband is key not just to economic growth and productivity, but also to equal access to education, jobs, healthcare and an array of opportunities.

Calls for symmetrical broadband speeds (the same speeds for uploads as downloads) have circulated in telecom policy circles for over a decade. Early support for broadband symmetry was largely ideological in nature, based on the belief that individuals could play a bigger role in generating content, and symmetry was necessary to put production on equal footing with consumption of content. Recent efforts to promote symmetrical networks, however, appear aimed at shaping a potential infrastructure subsidy program.

Recently, Deb Socia posted a brilliant suggestion online: “[Internet service providers] need to identify the floor instead of the potential ceiling. Instead of ‘up to’ speeds, how about we say ‘at least’”. ISPs must report the slowest speed they are likely to deliver. I want to be fair to ISPs and I suggest they report both the minimum “at least” speed and the maximum “up to” speed. Those two numbers will tell the right story to the public because together they provide the range of speeds being delivered in a given Census.

Despite clear evidence to the contrary, lobbyists have long claimed that U.S. broadband is extremely competitive and incredibly affordable.

The National Urban League’s Lewis Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and Inclusion wants to ensure that everyone can fully participate in the world the Web has created — from their education as children to their employment as adults to their health all along the way.