Technology Neutrality: A Policy Failure

Christopher Ali, a professor at the University of Virginia, says in his upcoming book Farm Fresh Broadband that technology neutrality is one of the biggest policy failures of our time. Technology neutrality is a code word for allowing all internet service providers (ISPs) and technologies to be eligible for grant funding. It has been argued, mostly by ISPs that use slower technologies, that the Federal Communications Commission should not be in the game of picking winners and losers. As the Senate was crafting legislation for the major infrastructure program, the original draft language included a requirement that any technologies built with the money should be able to immediately deliver speeds of 100/100 Mbps. That requirement would have locked out fixed wireless and cable companies from the funding – and likely also satellite companies. In backroom wrangling (meaning pressure from the big ISPs), the final legislation lowered that threshold to 100/20 Mbps. The reason that Ali says that this is a policy failure is that the broadband policymakers are refusing to acknowledge the well-known fact that the need for broadband speeds continues to increase year after year. We just went through a miserable pandemic year where millions of homes struggled with inadequate upload broadband speeds, and yet the technology neutrality canard was rolled out yet again to justify building technologies that will be inadequate almost as soon as they are built. I would argue that the FCC has an obligation to choose technology winners and losers and shouldn’t waste federal broadband money on technologies that have no long-term legs. The decision by regulators and legislators to allow grant funding for slower technology means that the speed that current ISPs can deliver is being given priority over the speed people need.

[Doug Dawson is the President of CCG Consulting.]