By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld Part of the ECT News Network
05/28/04 6:00 AM PT
Broadband is what America needs to be competitive and create more jobs for the future. President Bush knows this or he wouldn't have made a point of setting a deadline for its rollout. To reach this goal, the Axis of Old must be defeated. If it is not, the price will be high indeed.
How Much is 'Free' Costing You? Learn how DaveRamsey.com saw a 567% uplift in ROI with Omniture. This complimentary guide and webinar cover the most important factors in selecting an analytics solution. Download Now.
President Bush has called for ubiquitous broadband rollout by 2007, but to reach that goal, Americans must win the fight against the Axis of Old -- entrenched interests in government and industry that are fighting the progress that comes with new technologies.
The first member of the Axis of Old is the Federal Communications Commission. For the last eight years, FCC regulations derived from the 1996 Telecommunications Act have strangled phone companies with red tape. The constant micromanagement of this sector has squashed innovation and harmed America's ability to compete internationally.
It's a sorry situation when the nation that invented the Internet only ranks 11th in high-speed Internet use per capita, behind countries like Italy and Canada. And yet the FCC won't release its grip.
Communications Industry and Cash Infusion
Currently, the agency is working to overturn an appeals court decision to vacate harmful rules requiring local phone companies to share their equipment with competitors at government-set rates, a policy known by the ungainly name of "unbundling." If broadband is going to be deployed faster and better, as President Bush hopes, the communications industry needs an infusion of cash. But investors are unlikely to offer help if they think the company in which they're investing will have to share its property with competitors.
The second force in the Axis of Old consists of state public utilities commissions. A case in point is the California PUC, which voted this week to regulate California's wireless industry. The new rules contain useless provisions, such as how large the font size should be in a customer's bill. And because wireless companies now will be subject to new bureaucratic filing, administrative procedures and reporting requirements, prices for wireless services will rise, slowing the march toward broadband.
With moves like this, President Bush should start sweating about achieving his timeline. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger should be embarrassed that his state, which is supposed to be technology friendly, is allowing its representatives to act like Luddites destroying factories. As California Chamber of Commerce president Alan Zaremberg said recently, the California PUC is sticking "its fingers into the highly competitive wireless industry for no good reason other than it can."
Special Interests and Irrational Regulations
The third prong in the Axis of Old consists of the special interests and companies that benefit from irrational regulations. A key example is AT&T (NYSE: T), which has made a business out of whining to state and federal legislators that it can't possibly compete in the marketplace if there aren't rules that let it free-ride on its competitors' networks. After the current telecom mess is resolved, many telecom analysts fully expect AT&T's lobbyists to begin a profitable business selling bridges in Brooklyn.
At the moment, however, AT&T lobbyists are spending their time telling federal regulators that it is highly unlikely AT&T will be able to cut a deal with SBC without government intervention. But the mischief doesn't end at the federal level.
This month, AT&T and other groups like the California Cable Association were successful in stopping proposed California state legislation that would have required the PUC to streamline outdated telecom regulations. AT&T's interest is obvious, but if anyone's wondering why the cable companies don't want phone companies to rid themselves of the state's bureaucratic morass, it's because cable now competes with the telecom industry to provide broadband.
California Assemblyman Keith Richman argues that "California policymakers need to let new technologies flourish without the threat of heavy-handed regulations that thwart the development of products and services that help consumers and businesses." He's right, and his bill would have been a step in the right direction toward the goal of serious broadband rollout by 2007.
Outdated Rules on the Books
What most people outside the telecom industry don't know is that there are a whole host of outdated rules on the books, such as one that forces telephone companies to count the number of minutes it takes to answer a customer call -- and penalizes them if it takes too long.
That type of rule is ridiculous in an era where if someone doesn't like the service the phone company gives them, they can switch to another company or use a cell phone or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). The reactionary Axis of Old knows this but doesn't want anyone to realize it, because that would threaten the control and benefits they reap from the old rules. Fortunately, a brave few are trying to drag telecommunications policy into the 21st century.
One is FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who tried to start fixing the nation's telecom woes with the Triennial Review but was outvoted by his fellow commissioners. There's also California PUC commissioner Susan Kennedy, who has shown great courage and leadership on several telecom issues, including noting that opposition to Richman's streamlining bill was "ideological, not fiscal" in nature.
Broadband is what America needs to be competitive and create more jobs for the future. President Bush knows this or he wouldn't have made a point of setting a deadline for its rollout. To reach this goal, the Axis of Old must be defeated. If it is not, the price will be high indeed.
Sonia Arrison, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.
Using Tech To Fix Elections May 27, 2004
At present, the entire electronic voting process is a mess. Neither voters nor election officials have the experience and training needed to use the technologies. Audit trails are functionally nonexistent. The processes of vote accumulation across states or even precincts are easy to corrupt, and the majority of voting machines use absurdly vulnerable Microsoft technologies.
Related Stories
Loudeye Pushes P2P Antipiracy Tech May 27, 2004
When someone does a search for content protected by Loudeye, its software fills up their search screens with its own data, explained Loudeye vice president and general manager for digital media asset protection Marc Morgenstern. "Only they appear to come from thousands of different peers," he told TechNewsWorld.
SupportSoft Rolls Out Service Software May 26, 2004
SupportSoft's ActiveTriggers feature is analogous to what happens when a customer is wandering about in a retail setting and then is approached by a sales clerk asking if he or she needs help. Similarly, online representatives now can approach Web-browsing customers or employees and ask whether they need assistance.
Something Happened on the Way to Wireless Broadband May 21, 2004
The proposed merger between Cingular and AT&T Wireless is the first big step toward delivering a new generation of technology and services. A larger actor with greater resources will be able to roll out services more quickly and less expensively.
Lycos Ups E-Mail Ante to 1 Gig May 18, 2004
"There is some demand for larger storage," Yankee Group analyst Patrick Mahoney told TechNewsWorld. "Customers get frustrated when 10 pictures take up 25 percent of their storage. In terms of customer satisfaction with these services, it will help."
Gomez CEO Alex Stein on Web-Performance ROI - Part 2 May 14, 2004
"The challenge for our clients is, while the investment to support the Internet is not increasing -- staffs are smaller and more is being outsourced -- the impact on the overall corporate bottom line is increasing, and, therefore, performance reliability is getting to be that much more of an issue," Gomez CEO Alex Stein said.
Related News Alerts
More by Sonia Arrison
How to Solve the Net Neutrality Issue October 28, 2009
Regulation by the U.S. government is not the way to keep the Internet neutral. A better approach would be self-regulation. Now is the time for ISPs to support an independent, private body to monitor neutrality issues and forestall the possibility of the FCC "managing competition" on the Internet.
FCC's Genachowski Not Neutral on New Net Rules September 30, 2009
The proponents of Net neutrality say it's necessary for a free and open Internet, but history doesn't support that argument. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, for example, was supposed to bolster competition. Instead, by compelling companies to share their infrastructures, it reduced incentives for improvement. In the long run, it failed.
What Has President Obama Done for Silicon Valley? August 28, 2009
President Obama's appointments of Silicon Valley outsiders were only the first indications that his administration would be less than friendly to the high-tech industry, despite campaign promises. Since then, it has shown an inclination toward tight regulatory practices and away from transparency.