Broadband Access and Net Neutrality

Technology is defined unambiguously as “the adaptation of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.” Certainly thought, and by extension technology, are the primary defining characteristics of humanity. Biologically speaking we are rather unremarkable. We lack the natural defenses and adaptations that grant so many other species a competitive edge, and our rate of reproduction is so many orders of magnitude slower than that of, say, a bacterium, that we are wholly unable to adapt. However, biology has had little to do with our success as a species on earth. It is instead our technology that has granted us such powers and abilities beyond what nature has supplied, and its evolution is exponential.

As an example, consider communications. From the emergence of Homo erectus and on through the emergence of Homo sapiens, the speed of long-distance communication was essentially that of a walking man – roughly 5mph. About two million years later, after the agricultural revolution, the breadth of communication was greatly increased with the advent of sailing ships. Likewise, the speed of communication was increased by a factor of about six with the domestication of the horse. Then, about six thousand years later, the speed of communication was rapidly increased to that of the locomotive, then that of electricity, and finally that of light – an increase by a factor of close to 25 million.

Of course in this case our story of exponential growth comes to an abrupt end, as we cannot exceed the speed of light. Still, the trend is quite clear. Communication has evolved from precarious, many-day or many-week voyages on foot to signal relays via satellites suspended in geosynchronous orbit above the earth. Now, however, our struggle is not upward growth but outward growth.

The most mind-boggling, prodigious scientific innovation ever witnessed does us little good if we fail to address the practicality inherent to the definition of “technology.” Certainly the question of broadband availability and access is hard to quantify. According to a June, 2007 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the U.S. ranks fifteenth in broadband subscribers per 100 people, with 22.1 subscribers for every 100 citizens. This doesn't look good next to the number one Denmark, with 34.3 subscribers per 100 citizens, or the former number one South Korea, with 29.9 subscribers. Here in New Hampshire, as in other states with a highly rural demographic, the discrepancy is even more apparent.

However, there are a few problems with such international broadband statistics, primarily in that they tend to make broadband “penetration” sound like an arms race between nations acting as entities. Such numbers often fail to take into account the economic and demographic factors motivating broadband adoption in the first place. In a recent paper published by The Phoenix Center, authors George S. Ford, Thomas M. Koutsky and Lawrence J. Spiwak propose a “Broadband Performance Index” designed to take such considerations into account. A particularly telling thought experiment contained within the paper is that of the “Broadband Nirvana,” in which every single household and business within the OECD countries is a broadband subscriber. Ostensibly, each country is thereby on equal footing in the information technology arena. However, due to current demographic differences such as average family and business size, the U.S. would have 38 broadband subscriptions per 100 people, while Sweden would have 54.1 and South Korea would have 25.4.

Such numbers tell us a few things. First, Korea has already attained Broadband Nirvana, but more importantly, they tell us that raw numbers without backing credentials are of little value. According to the Phoenix Center Report's Broadband Performance Index, “the broadband subscription rate in the United States is commensurate with its demographic and economic endowments, no better but no worse.”

We may be tempted to rest on our haunches upon hearing such reassuring words of information competency, but I argue this would be a mistake. JFK didn't usher the U.S. into the Space Race with a promise of mediocrity. Such arguments to excel may sound overly nationalistic, like a new Manifest Destiny, but the Internet has the ability to cross national boundaries like no other media ever devised. Innovations within any one nation now have the opportunity to spread like never before.

Time and time again the Internet has proven itself as an adaptive, resilient organism, composed of users who quickly react to efforts at manipulation and commercialization. It is also one of the most inherently democratic constructs in human history. While we have watched a war effort ostensibly engineered to bring democracy to a far corner of the globe falter and then ultimately collapse, information technology has continued its evolution towards increasingly uniting people across the globe.

Here in the U.S., we need to guarantee net neutrality to keep communication open for all citizens and to ensure an even playing field for innovation. Up until now, the history of computing and the Internet has largely been written by startups – the Googles and Apples of the world. It would be a great hindrance to subsequent growth if we were to favor pre-established companies that could effectively act as highest broadband bidders. However, the broadband market is still a very young one, and so we should not be overly anxious to force regulations before we are fully aware of their effects on the market dynamics at work. Net neutrality legislature has been a highly controversial issue, but should continue to be considered should Internet carriers begin to exhibit high levels of favoritism and/or discrimination.

In many ways, grassroots campaign efforts such as Jay's benefit from a level playing field, and so it should come as no surprise that Jay strongly supports net neutrality, both for us here in New Hampshire and for citizens across the country. Jay also supports efforts to step up the development of affordable, ubiquitous broadband access, because the Internet does little good if it remains out of reach for those who could most stand to benefit from it.

All in all, while we should be glad of any reports of competency in the broadband arena, we should also stay committed to continuous information era innovation. All of this is new territory, and as such any attempts at industry regulation will require caution. Net neutrality is not a direct issue as of yet, but is something that should nonetheless be monitored and regulated by the FCC for the time being. No matter what regulations should or should not be adopted, the intended end result is the greatest broadband availability and quality of service for both individual consumers and businesses of all types and sizes. As such, we must take a pragmatic approach to broadband market regulation, with the emphasis being on results and technological innovation.