The FCC is Preparing to Weaken the Definition of Broadband

The FCC is Preparing to Weaken the Definition of Broadband

Under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, the FCC is required to consistently measure whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans uniformly and "in a reasonable and timely fashion." If the FCC finds that broadband isn't being deployed quickly enough to the public, the agency is required by law to "take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market."

Unfortunately whenever the FCC is stocked by revolving door regulators all-too-focused on pleasing the likes of AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- this dedication to expanding coverage and competition often tends to waver.

What's more, regulators beholden to regional duopolies often take things one-step further -- by trying to manipulate data to suggest that broadband is faster, cheaper, and more evenly deployed than it actually is. We saw this under former FCC boss Michael Powell (now the top lobbyist for the cable industry), and more recently when the industry cried incessantly when the base definition of broadband was bumped to 25 Mbps downstream, 4 Mbps upstream.

We're about to see this effort take shape once again as the FCC prepares to vote in February for a new proposal that would dramatically weaken the definition of broadband. How? Under this new proposal, any area able to obtain wireless speeds of at least 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps would be deemed good enough for American consumers, pre-empting any need to prod industry to speed up or expand broadband coverage.

Under the previous FCC, wireless was deemed important, but not yet anywhere near a suitable replacement for fixed-line broadband, especially in more remote areas where cellular connectivity will likely remain spotty for decades to come. This fact was made abundantly clear again recently when Verizon began booting rural customers off of its network entirely after it heavily marketed unlimited data plans -- then didn't like the numbers due to roaming costs.

As folks like industry analyst Doug Dawson note, the goal is to allow the FCC (and more importantly the broadband industry) to declare that the country's broadband coverage issues have been fixed -- just by fiddling with the numbers.

"In effect, by a definition change the FCC will have done away with a lot of the digital divide," Dawson notes. "And if they lower the definition of landline broadband they will categorize even more homes as having adequate broadband."

Most importantly, Dawson notes that the FCC is ignoring the pricing and usage limitations on many cellular connections, especially in more rural markets.

"There is a monstrous difference in price between landline and cellular data. A household using 100 gigabytes of cellular data in the month might pay nearly $1,000 per month," he notes. "Most ISPs report that the average US household now uses between 150 and 200 gigabytes of broadband per month. It’s hard to think of cellular broadband as a substitute for landline broadband with such disparate pricing."

Again, if you've followed history, this is how regulatory capture in the telecom market works -- and has worked for decades. When giant ISPs are calling the shots, the goal has long been to try and manipulate data until it suggests that neither coverage -- nor competition -- are real problems. Once you've "proven" that these problems don't exist, it's far easier to justify your complete and total apathy toward actually doing something about it.