Copyright 1999 Journal of Commerce, Inc.
Journal of
Commerce
March 1, 1999, Monday
SECTION: EDITORIAL/OPINION; Pg. 4A
LENGTH: 837 words
HEADLINE:
FCC lags on high-speed tech
BYLINE: BY MATTHEW J.
FLANIGAN
BODY:
Imagine being able to check on your
child in class from your computer at work, or sending vital signs to your doctor
over a phone line.
These high-tech services aren't waves of the future;
they are today's technology. But these exciting advances still elude millions of
consumers in part because of regulatory burdens and red tape.
The
Federal Communications Commission had an important opportunity to address this
issue several weeks ago and take concrete steps to begin to bring these
technologies to consumers. Unfortunately, the FCC erroneously concluded that
these capabilities are being deployed to all Americans at a reason- able and
timely rate.
The telecommunications industry knows what this technology
can do, and we believe that the FCC missed a chance to help Americans improve
their lives by gaining access to the latest high-speed offerings.
In
assessing Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the commission
seems content with the regulatory status quo instead of creating an atmosphere
that inspires the kind of vigorous competition and investment in all sectors
that will bring the benefits of this broadband technology to millions of
Americans.
We fear that the wait-and-see approach adopted by the FCC
will only serve as an obstacle to its stated goal of achieving growth in
broadband deployment comparable to the rapid proliferation of
Internet use.
For businesses, increasing competition would keep the
economic expansion going. Today, broadband services are available to fewer than
750,000 Americans, many of whom live or work within very limited areas of major
cities. By promoting the expansion of these services to all Americans, the FCC
would enhance the competitiveness of a growing number of small and medium- sized
businesses that compete globally.
Unfortunately, the commission based
its findings on a comparison of apples and oranges.
It reasoned that the
new broadband technology is reaching as many people now as television and
cellular phones did in the early stages of their development. Such comparisons
are incongruous due to the sheer numbers of consumers who regularly access the
nascent Internet.
According to Section 706, advanced telecommunications
capability calls for a robust capability that will allow users to both send and
receive information in real time via broadband signals, including voice, data,
graphics and video.
By virtue of this mandate, the technology must be
made available to all Americans. This means that the last mile of wires, which
carries signals to homes and offices, will have to accommodate this capacity.
Haggling over access to networks among competitors and slow issuance of
regulatory guidance has created bottlenecks along the last mile, rather than
timely delivery of these advanced products to consumers.
There are
measures that can get broadband on a fast track to the American people.
First, parity should be reached by equally deregulating all providers,
not equally regulating them. In addition, there should not be a preference for
the technology that will deliver this capability because the market is too new
to predict that any particular category of providers will dominate.
The
commission should guard against placing a greater value on the opening of all
broadband infrastructures to competitors than on the competition that may
develop between different broadband mediums, including wired, cable, and
wireless services.
Incumbent local phone companies and new competitive
providers are already in a position to increase the level of investment
necessary to expand deployment of advanced technologies to a majority of
Americans.
To further facilitate and demarcate the marketplace, the FCC
appropriately set a minimum data transmission rate by which advanced
telecommunications capability is defined, specifically 200 kilobits per second
(kbps).
The Telecommunications Industry Association understands that
this isn't a fixed requirement, but more of a benchmark by which to judge a
product's level of performance in relation to the statute's call for enhanced
capabilities. We support 200 kbps as a good starting point. In light of the
tremendous pace of innovation, however, this rate should increase, as current
technologies become widely available.
This would acknowledge the
forward-looking scope of Section 706 and encourage the industry to concentrate
on developing and deploying the next generation of broadband technologies.
We applaud the commission's determination to review the progress of
deployment on at least an annual basis. But this does not mean that the
commission should wait until next year to unleash broadband capability. The
process should never be put on hold.
Even if the commission doesn't
formally revisit this year's report, it should take immediate deregulatory and
pro-competitive actions needed to bring the latest technology to American
consumers.
It's time to make the promise of these technologies a reality
for American consumers.
GRAPHIC: Graphic - CARTOON:
""You know what I miss most? - Media hype.'';
LOAD-DATE: July 5, 1999 
