IT'S UNCLEAR IF BROADBAND COMPETITION IS FEASIBLE, FCC'S MARCUS SAYS
Broadband deployment isn’t race to be won by one technology, FCC Senior Adviser-Internet Technology Scott Marcus said at Wed. meeting of FCBA’s Online Communications Committee. Deployment is dependent on such factors as location, continuing incremental investment in existing infrastructure, continuing exploitation of technical skills and varying levels of technological maturity, he said. It’s not important to bring single pipe to everyone in U.S., Marcus said, and deployment will look more like crazy quilt. He said his comments were his own, and not those of his agency.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
There are good policy reasons for making more than one broadband technology available to as many U.S. homes as possible, Marcus said. FCC wants all parts of country to have as much competition as market will drive, he said. However, question is how much competition is economically sustainable and whether it will drive technological developments agency would like to see, he said. The jury’s still out, Marcus said. Since Dec., European Union has viewed markets pursuant to its own definition under competition law -- that is, whether particular player has “significant market power.” There shouldn’t be significant market power for broadband services, Marcus said. If different services -- wired, wireless, satellite and so on -- are mutually sustainable at comparative prices, there should be competition, he said. But it may not matter much, he said, whether there are 3 services of one kind vs. 3 different but mutually sustainable kinds.
Some 80% of U.S. homes now have access to a broadband- wired medium, Marcus said, but that technology may never be cost-effective in more remote parts of country. Satellite broadband, on other hand, has potential of reaching some 95% of U.S. homes, and wireless solutions continue to evolve as well, he said. In terms of most Americans having access to at least one technology, he said, broadband has been doing “pretty well.” Adoption -- as opposed to deployment -- rate compares favorably with many of most successful technologies rolled out in last 50 years, such as color TV and VCRs, Marcus said, and there’s nothing to suggest that broadband adoption rate is “wimpy.”
Still, there’s deployment gap, Marcus said, spurred in part by: (1) Uncertainty among consumers about broadband’s value. (2) Learning curve for consumers. (3) Lack of applications that drive demand. There’s “a ton” of narrowband Internet content around that may drive broadband deployment, he said. At same time, many people are happy with their dial-up access and see no reason to switch to high-speed technologies, Marcus said. Moreover, he said, copyright rules are “something of an impediment” to growth of broadband demand.
As it’s used today, broadband mostly helps users do same things they do on narrowband, but more rapidly, Marcus said. While it’s possible to view broadband as faster pipe, he said, technology has other, distinctive capabilities, such as latency, jitter (variability of delay), mobility. Different applications have different requirements, he said. For video-on-demand, broadband’s greatest benefit is its speed, while for Internet chat it’s broadband’s always-on characteristic. Real-time online videogaming is nearly impossible without broadband, he said, because it relies on speedy connections, latency and response times. By contrast, streamed audio calls for very low delay rates and jitter, he said.
Internet Protocol (IP) telephony presents another broadband opportunity, Marcus said. While technology originally was motivated by need to avoid international accounting rate payments for telephone services, he said, that driver has grown less important as customers opt for cheaper conventional long distance or flat-rate phone calls. Cost savings for carriers has been argued as reason for IP telephony, he said. In cable world, voice telephony represents entirely new business opportunity, Marcus said, but its widespread acceptance would require new applications and “absolutely seamless interoperabilty.”
Govt.’s role in broadband deployment should be threefold, Marcus said: (1) Identify real problems and target real solutions. There’s perception that not much govt. intervention is needed now, at least until first level of wireline broadband has been deployed. (2) Remove barriers to deployment by creating framework for innovation and investment. (3) Avoid market disruptions caused by intervention. Internet has taught several lessons, he said, including need not to impose old rules designed for monopolies on new and emerging services, and to start deregulating old dominant providers when new services compete with them.
Many at FCC think broadband is “step on a journey” to facilitating user experience, Marcus said, and next steps could include bringing fiber deployment for both cable and DSL closer to home, and finding more uses for wireless technologies. “End game,” Marcus said, must be “fiber to the home.” Question, he said, is when that will be viable.