COMNET - Broadband, 3G top policy makers' 2002 agenda

January 31, 2002 —

Rumors that the Bush administration is set to announce details of new policies concerning broadband deployment on March 18 are false, according to a U.S. Department of Commerce official.

"It could be earlier, or it could be later," said Nancy Victory, assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), who spoke during a panel discussion on telecommunication policy at the ComNet Conference and Expo in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday.

Nonetheless, Victory stressed that the Bush administration is focused on determining what role the government should play in deploying broadband -- high-speed Internet connections -- across the country. The NTIA is currently receiving comments from interested parties on the topic, Victory said, but she declined to specify when the administration will announce policies based on those comments and its own findings.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is also working to determine what role it should play in regulating, or deregulating, broadband infrastructure providers, another panelist said.

"It's a priority for the commission to get through this year," said Kevin Martin, a commissioner at the FCC. "It's a complex set of issues, (the commission) needs to try and put something in place in the next six to nine months."

The FCC must move quickly because broadband infrastructure providers aren't likely to pour additional capital into expanding networks until they understand the regulatory hurdles they may be up against, Martin added.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, supporters of a bill to partly deregulate broadband services, called the Broadband Bill, are hoping that the House of Representatives will vote on it in the coming weeks. That bill, also known as the Tauzin-Dingell bill for its sponsoring congressmen, would open up long-distance data services, including broadband, to the regional Bell phone companies without first requiring substantial competition in local phone service.

"If the House and Senate pass it, I expect the president would sign it," said Andrew Levin, counsel to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. However, the bill faces some strong opposition in the Senate, and observers don't expect it to pass both houses of Congress in its current form.

Another issue the panel discussed is the lack of spectrum available in the U.S. for third-generation, or 3G, wireless services.

"The U.S. finds itself staring at a little bit of spectrum scarcity," Victory said. "We need to look into spectrum management technology; we're looking into that this spring." Because spectrum, or airwaves, is a finite resource, some policy makers hope that technology such as voice and data compression will help wireless providers make more efficient use of the spectrum they already have licensed.

The NTIA is also looking at the viability of moving existing spectrum license holders, such as the government, out of the bands they control in order to make way for 3G services. That assessment will be completed in the second quarter, Victory said.

But without an abundance of applications designed to take advantage of 3G technology, Levin questioned whether finding spectrum for these advanced services is a pressing issue.

"We've seen evidence that the applications may not be here yet," Levin said. "There's the question whether 3G is the highest priority to get new spectrum for. We'd like to see existing carriers use their spectrum more efficiently, to wean them off analog and build more cell sites."

There's also the issue of using new spectrum to help improve existing applications, he added.

"I'm not sure new spectrum wouldn't be better put to use increasing the quality of voice applications," Levin said.

Regarding the question of foreign entities owning telecommunication companies, Levin said there are two bills -- one in the House and one in the Senate -- designed to limit such ownership. If a foreign telecommunication company were determined to be owned or controlled by a government -- as is the case in countries where the government still owns some or all of the national phone company -- investment in U.S. telecommunication companies would be limited, he explained.

ITworld.com