The Report has triggered vigorous dissent from the two Republican Commissioners, sponsored researchers and libertarian leaning publications by stating what I thought was obvious: there are plenty of areas in America where marketplace forces work against the offering of any affordable broadband access option, particularly wire-based services. I will go so far as to use two words that apparently cannot be uttered: market failure.
Broadband wireline options from carriers such as Verizon and AT&T do not even serve many urban and suburban locales. These carriers are hell bent to jettison their rural customers and the obligation to service as carriers of last resort offering telephone service. They have doubled down on wireless and do not seem to care about declining DSL subscribership and the need to migrate to faster transmission speed services outside the metered and more expensive wireless option. Smaller carriers do want to provide broadband services and generally have expressed support for FCC efforts to extend universal service subsidies.
Some time ago both Democratic and Republican Commissioners at the FCC typically would thank the staff for doing such a comprehensive and conscientious job in preparing a Congressionally-mandated Report. They would consider factors such as the public interest as their foremost concern, not whether they could accrue brownie points for their party and its ideology. FCC Commissioners of both parties gladly supported extraordinary and admittedly too generous and inefficient universal service programs. These initiatives included “rate integration” that required carriers to average in the higher costs of providing telephone service in non-continental United States locales, e.g., Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. No one balked at providing “free” satellite earth stations to Pacific island residents whose governments have an affiliation with the United States, e.g., The Federated States of Micronesia. Nobody invoked Ann Rand to suggest that rural residents should suffer any cost disadvantage for the various upside opportunities from living in the hinterland.
Now a Report to Congress somehow has all sorts of underlying messages. By truthfully answering a question posed by Congress that more work needs to be done to achieve ubiquitous and affordable broadband, the FCC apparently is foreshadowing a broad agenda to preempt the marketplace. See Larry Downes, How the FCC sees Broadband's 95% Success as 100% Failure, Forbes (June 23, 2012); available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/08/23/how-the-fcc-sees-broadbands-95-success-as-100-failure/. And what kind of preemption would there be? Most subsidies flow directly to the carriers! But instead of acknowledging that carriers stand to benefit financially from such subsidies, opponents of candor strive to see some hidden agenda, including an effort by the FCC to impose network neutrality—if not the public utility, common carrier regime—on broadband.
At an unprecedented rate, the entire telecommunications policy ecosystem has become so politicized as to ignore the first principle of serving the national interest. Instead we have warring parties arguing over whether and how government is subverting market forces that time and again work against making service available absent government efforts to stimulate supply and demand.