If FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel is still looking for
some late summer reading, I have a recommendation, and one that ought to give
her pause – a pause at least long enough to prod her to do some rethinking. I
have in mind the Wall Street Journal's article, "The
Truth About Faster Internet: It's Not Worth It," published on August
20.
The gist of the article is this: Most broadband consumers
are using only a small portion of the bandwidth that they purchase from their
Internet service providers, even when they are simultaneously streaming
multiple videos from Netflix, Amazon Prime, and the like. The article reviews
the marketing practices of the ISPs, which currently advertise speeds in the
range of 250, 500, and 1000 megabits per second, and concludes: "But for a
typical household, the benefits of paying for more than 100 megabits a second
are marginal at best, according to the researchers."
The Journal article was based on a study conducted by
53 of its own journalists, in coordination with researchers at Princeton
University and the University of Chicago. So, the sample was not large, and I'm
not vouching for the reliability of the study or suggesting it should be
considered the "last word" on the subject. In the still rapidly
evolving, technologically dynamic broadband world, we are far from a "last
word," and will be for a long time. Nevertheless, some of the conclusions
are interesting and perhaps surprising – and warrant consideration by Commissioner
Rosenworcel and other policymakers.
The WSJ reports:
"Our panelists used only a fraction of their
available bandwidth to watch streaming services including Netflix, Amazon Prime
Video and YouTube, even simultaneously. Quality didn't improve with much higher
speeds. Picture clarity was about the same. Videos didn't launch quicker."
And this:
"We found similar results across
our 34 testers who ran five, six or seven streams at once. The eight users with
speeds 100 Mbps or higher who had seven streams going used only about 7.1 Mbps
of capacity, on average."
Now back to Commissioner Rosenworcel. As
you may know, for many years she has urged that the FCC's general threshold for
defining "broadband" – now 25 Mbps for downloads – be increased to
100 Mbps.
Here is only a small sampling of her
statements:
2016: "I think we need to go
big and be bold. I think our new
threshold should be 100 Megabits—and Gigabit speed should be in our sights."
2016
Broadband Progress Report, GN Docket No. 15-191, released January 29, 2016.
2018: "It’s past time for the FCC to go big and update its
national broadband standard from 25 Megabits to 100 Megabits." 2018
Broadband Deployment Report, GN Docket No. 17-199, released February 2,
2018.
2019: "It's time for the FCC to adopt a 100 Megabits per second
standard and set Gigabit speeds in our sight." 2019 Broadband
Deployment Report, GN Docket No. 18-238, released May 29, 2019.
Most of
these statements and others to like effect by Commissioner Rosenworcel are
accompanied by a claim that adoption of anything less than a 100 Mbps
definition of broadband by the Commission "shortchanges our children."
Of course, making broadband deployment and availability as ubiquitous as
possible and reducing any remaining digital divides is an important goal for
federal and state policymakers. Under FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's leadership, the agency
has undertaken important initiatives to further this goal. Indeed, in the first
paragraph of its 2019 Broadband Deployment Order, the Commission reiterated
that "it has made closing the digital divide between Americans
with, and without, access to modern broadband networks its top priority."
And many Internet
service providers themselves have undertaken their own private sector initiatives
to address the goal of ubiquitous availability of broadband. In this regard, I
recently took note of another significant expansion of Comcast's "Internet
Essentials" program that subsidizes
broadband service for low income families, seniors, and veterans, as well as
providing support for computers and digital literacy to these groups.
The WSJ report makes clear that a
family – including children in the family – can stream six or seven videos
simultaneously using a fraction of the 100 Mbps definitional threshold that
Commissioner Rosenworcel, for years, has advocated. I don't know with any
certainty, but I suspect that Commissioner Rosenworcel doesn't believe children
are being "shortchanged" because they can't stream enough videos –
because clearly, even with 25 Mbps service, they can.
So, you might wonder what's behind
Commissioner Rosenworcel's advocacy to raise the threshold definition of
broadband to at least 100 Mbps. It's pretty simple, really. With a higher 100
Mbps threshold in place, she wants to bolster her claim, wrongful in my view,
that broadband is not being deployed on a "reasonable and timely"
basis, a determination that the Commission is required to make periodically
pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Moreover –
voila! – by applying a 100 Mbps standard rather than 25 Mbps, there would be
fewer competitors offering "broadband" service under the revised
definition, although the differential between the two in terms of service
offerings is decreasing rapidly.
In other words, the redefinition of what
constitutes "broadband" service almost certainly would be used by
Commissioner Rosenworcel to claim that it is necessary to regulate broadband as
a public utility in order to ensure its reasonable and timely deployment. And it
would be used to claim, with the move to the higher threshold, that any
reduction in the number of "competitors," however magically derived, justifies
more regulation.
To be sure, the way to deployment of ever
more ubiquitous broadband, at ever faster speeds, is not down the road marked
"More Regulation," especially public utility-like regulation of
broadband like Commissioner Rosenworcel consistently has advocated. The
evidence shows that path only discourages more investment and innovation.
I don't begrudge Commissioner Rosenworcel touting
her own boldness or urging her colleagues to be "bold," as she does in
each of her statements above. There is nothing wrong with expressing hortatory
aspirations about the future, and, in fact, it's admirable for
policymakers to look ahead in attempts to account for the future. What's
wrong is to suggest that, in the here and now, nothing less than 100
Mbps qualifies as broadband service.
The WSJ report should give
Commissioner Rosenworcel some pause in that regard because I don't think she
wants to be in the position of advocating that consumers should be cajoled into
purchasing more broadband than they need to satisfy their present demands.
And when you get right down to it, shouldn't it be actual consumer demand as expressed in the marketplace, rather than aspirational expressions by government officials touting the fastest possible service, that frames the way public policymakers think, realistically, about broadband regulatory policy?
Posts
