Fast Net News, DSL Prime, DOCSIS Report

Mignon Clyburn is staying out of the limelight but providing thoughtful comments. She was particularly cogent at MMTC addressing what really affects broadband costs for poor people. There's a lot of lobbyist's lies circulating in D.C. on this, and she steered the conversation  back to important issues. She's now commented on new ex parte rules about what lobbyists and others tell the public , many of which are totally meaningless. "We discussed opinions consistent with our previous filings on the subject" is a typical comment. She now is forceful on the secrecy of most presentations to the FCC and improved disclosure rules. "I am particularly interested in receiving comments on our Notice concerning the Commission’s ex parte rules." My comment on her remarks below is simple: right on.

   "It is essential that the substance of ex parte presentations are made public in an accessible manner. This is imperative not only for purposes of judicial review, but also to encourage meaningful public participation. If we are serious about increasing transparency – and I believe each of us is – it is critical that we give the public a window into the information we receive. That window must not only illuminate exactly what was covered in those meetings, but must also be opened in a timely fashion."

 

  Some ex partes are very helpful. Dell and Microsoft came in to discuss computer subsidies they are likely to present as part of the plan. They brought with them One Economy and Connected Nation, who they presumably will propose to administer things.  One Economy is a non-profit that in New York is supporting good work bringing free wireless toHarlem and the South Bronx; I haven't looked at their projects in depth. 

    Crandall several times has pointed out in prominent D.C. events that the 2003-2005 data in his work probably does not apply  today. During that period, broadband was first reaching many homes and businesses, many of whom couldn't connect at high speeds. In 2010, 95% of the U.S. can get landline and the remainder satellite. 65% of homes are connected and nearly any business with a major economic return is likely online. It's a good thing to help the poor, elderly, and possibly even the illiterate get connected; there's no reason to believe it will have a major impact on the economy. 

    The original Verizon funded claims have been strongly challanged by objective researchers. Shane Greenstein, the Elinor and H. Wendell Hobbs Professor at Northwestern told a recent NTIA hearing "We don't know the economic impact of broadband" and I know visited the FCC that day as well. Raul Katz of Columbia presented a paper in D.C. that pointed out broadband could either create or destroy jobs depending on which of several plausible assumptions one makes. http://www.elinoam.com/raulkatz/Dr_Raul_Katz_-_BB_Stimulus_Working_Paper.pdf  As Raul notes,

"First, a "saturation" effect (i.e., when broadband adoption reaches high penetration levels nationally) might limit the economic impact of broadband. Second, ongoing research on the productivity impact of broadband
indicates the potential for capital-labor substitution and consequently, the likelihood of job destruction resulting from broadband deployment. Third, since broadband tends to enable the outsourcing of jobs, a potential displacement of employment in the service sector from the area targeted for deployment might occur. Fourth, some job creation in the targeted areas could be the result of relocation of functions from other areas of the
country, and therefore, should not be considered as creating incremental employment.

     Most dramatically, the most careful study of the economic impact of broadband was presented in D.C. in January. http://bit.ly/4SoNQL Jed Kolko finds a "positive empirical relationship" between availability of broadband in the U.S. early this century and economic growth. He goes on to point out that doesn't imply "broadband expansion causes economic growth." "The reverse might actually be true," he points out, "if broadband providers choose to offer or expand service in areas that are growing faster." During that period Bellsouth emphasized a "smart build" that looked at factors like the local economy. That might be a substantial confounding variable, although Kolko looked for effects like that and sees little evidence they are the explanation.

"The overall relationship between broadband expansion and employment growth, as measured by the NETS, is positive." That's good news, and corresponds to my belief that broadband is a good thing. However, "both the average wage and the employment rate—the share of working-age adults that is employed—are unaffected by broadband expansion. The economic benefits to residents appear to be limited. ... Broadband expansion is associated with no change in average pay per employee and a decrease in median household income. Broadband expansion has no statistically significant relationship with the employment rate. ... the economic development benefits of broadband are ambiguous." Jed, like I, believes broadband is a good thing and he was looking for a major economic impact. It just isn't in the data.