HF Benchmark Statement v2

Scott Burns

Informations

• Publié par: Oslu
• Nombre de lectures: 16
• Langue: English

Extrait

Statement of Harold Feld, Legal Director, Public Knowledge
Before the Federal Communications Commission
National Broadband Plan Workshop: Benchmarking

September 2, 2009

Thank you for inviting me to speak today on the subject of necessary benchmarks
for the National Broadband Plan. Rather than focus on specific benchmarks (although I
intend to address some of these as well), I would like to focus primarily on the nature of
1the benchmarks required by ARRA for the National Broadband Plan and how the FCC
can successfully monitor achievement against the benchmarks. Briefly:
1. ARRA requires an incredibly rich and complex set of benchmarks that
include not merely traditional quantitative metrics such as deployment, but
also qualitative metrics that ensure that all Americans receive the
projected benefits from ubiquitous, affordable broadband access. In other
words, the FCC should envision this not as a limited exercise in prodding
the broadband marketplace, but an exercise in understanding and
transforming the “broadband ecology” — by which I mean a recognition
that broadband exists in a complex, interrelated system going well beyond
producers and consumers, where these separate elements of the system all
have different needs and responses, and where benchmarks must reflect
this interrelation and complexity.

2. The FCC must examine whether to set benchmarks dynamically and with
reference to each other, as well as absolutely. For example, the FCC
should consider whether to set both an absolute benchmark for last mile
speed (e.g., “everyone to have access to 5 mbps down by 2011”) or
interim benchmarks for last mile speed measured as improvements over
existing speeds regionally (e.g., “improvements of 20% over previously
measured speed per year until ultimate goal is reached”) or both (e.g., a
“floor” and benchmarks for continued improvement). This, in turn, would
inform appropriate benchmarks for middle mile infrastructure to support
this last mile goal. Similarly, if the FCC determines that Americans are not
receiving the projected benefits of broadband, it must reexamine whether
it has set appropriate goals and benchmarks for affordability, capacity and
speed.

























































1
American
Recovery
and
Reinvestment
A ct,
Section
6002(k)(2). 

1



3. If the FCC relies exclusively on traditional means to track these
benchmarks, it will fail miserably. The burden of collecting the
information alone would constitute a significant drain on existing FCC
resources. On the other hand, attempting to limit data collected to
something manageable ensures that the FCC will develop a picture of
broadband deployment and the benefits of broadband so incomplete as to
be positively misleading — especially as significant data on the impact of
broadband access lies outside the FCC’s jurisdiction (e.g., impact on
education, economic development).

4. The FCC must therefore employ techniques for information collection that
adequately distribute the burden of information collection and processing
while remaining reliable. The FCC can achieve this goal by:
• Distributing information collection to the general public. This
includes not merely existing tools of “crowd sourcing,” but
automated systems of tracking and reporting that volunteers could
install on their own devices.
• Automating reporting processes for mandatory real-time reports by
providers and other stakeholders.
• Distributing information collection among other federal agencies.
• Close coordination with federal, state and local government to
leverage existing data collection.

5. The FCC should anticipate that it will need to revisit benchmarks
periodically as the national broadband plan evolves, its experience with
collection and analysis of data grows, and its systems for collecting data
improve. While this should not be done lightly (the entire purpose of
benchmarks is to provide a stable measure of progress), the FCC must also
recognize its very limited knowledge at the moment — particularly on the
question of how broadband will improve people’s lives. Specific
benchmarks, especially those used as proxies for complicated effects, will
need reexamination over time.

While this appears daunting, I observe that both the private sector and other
federal agencies engage in such activities every day. The Energy Information
Administration of the Department of Energy, for example, compiles weekly and monthly
reports and analysis tracking the complex energy needs of the country. The Commerce
Department requires coordination among multiple agencies within it department to
produce regular reports on the state of the economy — demonstrating that multiagency
2 


cooperation is both possible and beneficial. Indeed, it would be a useful first step for the
Commission to examine a wide variety of agency data collection and reporting practices
both to inform its own efforts and to determine where questions relevant to the National
Broadband Plan could be inserted in existing reports and surveys.
Finally, while “crowd sourcing” and other methods of directly involving the
public in a systemic way — rather than simply soliciting comments or complaints —
would be new to the FCC, the private sector has employed this practice for many years.
To take one example familiar to the Commission, such as Nielsen discovered more than
half a century ago that members of the public are not only able and willing, but can be
downright eager, to provide real time data on their behavior under the right conditions.
With modern tools and applications, the FCC can tap into a wealth of volunteers to crowd
source reliable information collection — including the suggestion of relevant new fields
to measure. These tools include not only familiar tools for interested individuals to
actively self-report, such as wikis, text messages, Twitter and so forth. They also include
monitoring and testing applications — voluntarily installed and expiring after a set time
— that would constantly test factors such as actual delivered speeds or network
congestion in real time and report back information directly to the FCC.
Such suggestions naturally raise privacy concerns. I do not suggest the FCC
should download spyware into everyone’s laptop and iPhone. Rather, working in
consultation with privacy advocates and others, the FCC can develop applications for
volunteers that would provide an extremely rich and useful set of reliable data that
minimizes traditional concerns about the accuracy and reliability of self-reporting.
3


Similarly, working with broadband access providers, the FCC can collect data without
2creating burdensome reporting requirements while protecting proprietary information.
Finally, we all recognize that the FCC ultimately has limits on the data it can
collect and analyze no matter how efficiently it distributes the burden, and that these
efforts will inevitably fall short of the ideal world. By adopting the methods proposed
here, the FCC can maximize the value of the benchmarks used for the National
Broadband Plan, and thus maximize its chance for success.
I. WHAT BENCHMARKS DOES ARRA REQUIRE?
A. Effective Benchmarks Include More Than Last Mile Measures.
The National Broadband Plan, like the broadband stimulus program generally,
marks a significant shift in the focus of federal policy from merely encouraging
deployment to ensuring that all Americans enjoy the economic, educational, and civic
benefits of broadband. Whereas Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
charges the FCC to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of
3advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans,” the ARRA requires much
more than mere deployment. Under ARRA, the National Broadband Plan:
shall seek to ensure that all people of the United States have access to

























































2
I
do
not
discuss
here
details
as
to
what
level
of
disclosure
of
the
data
collected

from
industry
sources
the
FCC
should
disclose.
There
is
an
obvious
tension
between

what
industry
stakeholders
would
like
to
disclose
and
the
value
of
disclosing
to
the

public
generally
as
much
information
as
possible
to
enhance
understanding
of
the

market
and
trust
in
the
reliability
of
the
FCC’s
studies.
But
the
discussion
of

disclosure
goes
beyond
the
discussion
of
benchmarks
and
tracking
these

benchmarks
by
the
FCC. 

3
47
U.S.C.
157
nt. 

4


broadband capability and shall establish benchmarks for meeting that goal.
The plan shall also include—
(A) an analysis of the most effective and efficient mechanisms for
ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States;
(B) a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and
maximum utilization of broadband infra-structure and service by the
public;
(C) an evaluation of the status of deployment of broadband service,
including progress of projects supported by the grants made pursuant to
this section; and
(D) a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing
consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland
security, com