Defining and Mapping Broadband Will Ensure Scarce Resources Are Used Effectively to Establish Universal Service, ITIF Testifies Before U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee

WASHINGTON—To ensure limited federal resources are used as effectively as possible to achieve universal broadband service, policymakers should continue to support defining and mapping broadband service nationwide so we focus first on unserved areas, said Doug Brake, senior telecom policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), in testimony today before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications Technology.

“Broadband access is increasingly necessary to participate in the 21st century economy,” said Brake. “While the existing private-investment framework for broadband has seen tremendous achievement, more can and should be done to ensure that virtually all U.S. residents and businesses have access to robust broadband services. Achieving the biggest return on limited federal investment requires a firm grasp of the geographic state of existing broadband offerings.”

Brake testified that the cost-per-home is significantly higher in rural areas than in more densely populated urban areas, and revenues from customers simply cannot recoup the cost of providing service in those locations, so the government must step in. Additionally, the tremendous benefits that reverberate throughout the economy and society at large from broadband further necessitate government intervention.

Policymakers should focus first on the truly unserved, until the incremental cost of connecting each additional premises becomes untenable, said Brake. Only after that task is completed should infrastructure support seek to increase speeds of existing networks—aiming for cost-effective upgrades, not necessarily “future-proofing.” Finally, the government should not be in the business of funding additional competitors in markets with at least one provider.

To understand the current landscape of broadband offerings, the government must continue to define and map broadband service. Definitions of broadband in law or regulation should be grounded in what is actually offered, not a prospective or aspirational goal, and should avoid getting too far ahead of trends, or risk unduly shaping the services offered. The FCC generally takes the right approach in defining broadband, with some notable exceptions, said Brake. He pointed to the recent decision, as a component of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2015 Broadband Progress Report, to adjust their definition of “advanced telecommunications capability” upwards from 4 to 25 Mbps download as an unfortunate change in the “definition” of broadband. This decision was rightly controversial, as the 25 Mbps threshold seemed carefully chosen to paint a particular picture of industry, defining away competition, and unhelpfully focused on the lack of overbuilds in areas that are uneconomical to serve.

We should continue to map broadband access, said Brake, and the FCC is generally on the right track with its data collection.

He concluded by cautioning that detailed, expensive mapping is unnecessary, especially if grants are allocated by auction. The less technocratic, top-down the approach, the less detailed mapping you need. Here the competitive auction process within the Connect America Fund shows a potential way toward a better method to allocate broadband infrastructure subsidies compared to some past projects.

“While more information is generally better than less, if infrastructure funding is provided through a market-based approach, for example through procurement or reverse auctions, the need for highly detailed maps is greatly reduced,” said Brake.

Read written testimony.