President Obama is beginning the final two years of his presidency facing the daunting task of working with a Republican controlled House and Senate. That fact has not stopped him for announcing several initiatives aimed at improving cyber security, expanding the availability of high speed Internet and defending the nation against cyber warfare. This the second of a three part article by the AACR reporting on these initiatives.
President Obama’s cyber push continues with an effort to bring broadband to small and rural communities. The president called for the repeal of laws that block local communities from creating their own broadband networks.
The president’s efforts brings to light a question the FCC has been dodging for nearly a decade. The question is; How much authority does the FCC have to regulate and promote the Internet? On one side of the argument is FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler with the support of Democrats including the president who believe existing regulations empower the agency to promote broadband and expand competition over states rights. The Republicans and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai do not believe that the federal agency can pre-empt state laws.
According to Wheeler the FCC’s authority to bypass state laws comes from a provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act Section 706. This section gives the agency a basis for all of its regulatory authority over the Internet.
Section 706 says the FCC “shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.” The section also states that the agency should use it’s authority to “promote competition” in local markets and “remove barriers to infrastructure investment.”
Section 706 was bolstered last year when a federal appeals court struck down the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet rules but upheld the agency’s authority to regulate other aspects of the Internet.
The FCC is preparing to clash with the Republican controlled Congress and states by taking the first steps to overturn state laws during an open meeting February 26. At that meeting the agency is set to vote on petitions filed by Chattanooga’s Electric Power Board and the government of Wilson, NC, which wants to expand existing gigabit broadband networks. The petitions asks the FCC to strike down state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that limit municipal broadband deployments. Should the FCC vote to strike down these state laws there is sure to be opposition in Congress leading to a long drawn out legal battle possible ending up in the Supreme Court.
Currently 19 states prohibit local governments from building or running their own broadband networks. The president said that needs to change to encourage competition and the rollout of higher-speed networks.
“Count on 20-plus state attorneys general to challenge, constitutionally, the FCC’s frontal assault on their core sovereign state functions of determining economic and fiscal policy,” said Scott Cleland, president of Precursor, a Washington, DC-based consultancy that works with broadband clients. He expects it to be one of the agency’s toughest fights.
President Obama’s position is not popular with large cable and telephone companies that provide the bulk of the nation’s Internet service. In a release from Mediacom, the nation’s eighth largest cable television company and one of the leading cable operators focused on serving the smaller cities in the United States the company wrote “The president’s remarks clearly show that the White House wants to waste taxpayer dollars to supplant our nation’s private-sector broadband providers with government-owned utility companies.”
The telecommunications industry is also opposed to allowing the FCC to regulate the Internet as a public utility.
The president believes greater broadband speeds would create jobs and allow local businesses to compete in the global economy. In a speech at Cedar Falls Utilities the president said,”Today high-speed broadband is not a luxury, it’s a necessity.”
President Obama is pushing the Federal Communications Commission to pre-empt state laws he believes squelches competition and promised the White House will work to cut red tape so more communities can get connected.
A new White House report revealed that in urban areas 94 percent of Americans can purchase an Internet connection of 25 megabits per second while only 51 percent of Americans have the same access in rural areas.
“Tens of millions of Americans have only one choice for that next-generation broadband. So, they’re pretty much at the whim of whatever Internet provider is around,” Obama said.
In a related announcement The White House stated that the Commerce Department would promote greater broadband access by hosting regional workshops and offering technical assistance to communities. The Agriculture Department also will provide grants and loans of $40 million to $50 million to assist rural areas.
Breaking It Down
This is far more important than just bringing high speed Internet to rural communities. The real issue here is the monopoly many cable and Internet companies have in small towns and rural communities and how that monopoly impacts the community. And that problem has some profound repercussions. Such as the lack of high speed Internet for rural schools. In order for a district to provide the best quality education for its students it must have access to the Internet. That means every classroom and office and every home. Leaving any community out in the cyber cold is doing a dis-service to the people of that community. Much like denying a town phone service. You cut them off from the world. The president is right. Its no longer a choice but a necessity to be connected to the rest of the world. Many local business could also benefit from high speed Internet as well and many would agree. Being deprived of the ability to communicate does not benefit anyone. Neither does being trapped and restricted by the local cable company. The only way to change things is to open the playing field for more competition. Those small local cable companies don’t like that idea. They have a captive market and seeing someone else come in and improve upon what they are doing is bad news.
These companies often control not only Internet but also telephone and television access in these small towns and communities. Its a monopoly and I have seen it first hand. Current state laws allows this and it is possibly the result of elected representatives not acting against the wishes of big campaign contributors. Yeah, I might be out of line for saying it but its the truth.
In order to bring broadband to a rural community someone has to invest in the infrastructure. There has to money spent to pay for the equipment and cable, especially if its fiber optic cable. Where is that invest going to come from? The same people that pay for roads and bridges to connect local communities. But if there is no willingness to invest then nothing gets done. The president must fan the flames of competition in order to get these people connected.
Comments are closed