National Broadband Plan (United States)

Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, unveiled March 16, 2010, is a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plan required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for improving broadband Internet access throughout the United States. Its goal is providing 100 million American households with access to 100 Mbit/s (megabits per second) connections—as much as 20 times faster than what is generally available in 2010—by 2020. In order to "ensure every American has access to broadband capability", the purpose of the plan is to "include a detailed strategy for achieving affordability and maximizing use of broadband to advance consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, employee training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.".

As of October 2010, broadband.gov , the official Obama administration conduit for information about the plan, highlighted its poorly publicized energy and environment features. Other goals listed were "21st century care", "economic opportunity", "health care" again, "energy and environment" [again], "civic engagement" and "public safety". Broadband maps, tests and reporting of "broadband dead zones" were also featured therein.

Large areas of the United States would be wired for Internet access, and the federal program providing some rural areas with landline telephone service would be upgraded. The Obama Administration considers high-speed Internet to be essential rather than a luxury.

In addition, the plan calls for broadcasters to give up as much as 120 mHz of spectrum for wireless broadband access. By 2015, channels 46 through 51 would be reassigned and the extra 36 mHz sold to wireless Internet providers. The remaining spectrum would be given up through voluntary efforts. A total of 300 mHz would be needed, with mobile satellite service giving up 90 mHz.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, in an interview with The Associated Press, named the plan as "his top priority".. It was also repeatedly stated as a key goal of the Obama administration as a whole, and central to many other plans. President Obama himself called for "updating the way we get our electricity by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation. It means expanding broadband lines across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world."

Details of the plan

Goals

The goals of the plan are:

100 Mbit/s service, capable of downloading an hour-long standard definition TV program in 30 seconds, will be affordable to residential customers everywhere. Verizon, Comcast, and Cox planned to offer this speed, and Cablevision already did, for $100 a month. Time Warner Cable planned to offer 50 Mbit/s for $100 per month.

All libraries, schools and hospitals will have 1 Gbit/s (gigabit per second) service.

Emergency service workers will all be connected to high-speed service.

a program similar to No Child Left Behind would have the goal of making all children "digitally literate".

ambitious energy demand and supply management goals, which amount to universal secure megabit-or-better connections between buildings, and up to a gigabit within buildings

Energy demand management goals

The Plan's most significant qualitative infrastructure impact was expected to be its smart grid features, said to be capable of reducing greenhouse gas consumption by 12 percent, the same as if 55 million cars were no longer being driven. Research has consistently shown that individuals could reduce their energy use by 5 to 15 percent (saving $60 to $180 a year) if provided with information about their daily usage, something fewer than 1 percent of Americans had access to. Proponents of a national smart grid say it would likely result in decreased electricity use, allow energy companies to more efficiently distribute electricity, encourage homeowners to co-generate electricity by renewable means, but most importantly enable consumer energy conservation by informing them of waste, and (almost as important), enable large-scale co-operation between electricity producers and consumers to better match supply and demand, eliminating extremely expensive and dirty peak power generation, typically coal. In this context the plan's Goal 6 was a very revolutionary change to spread the reach of the smart grid technologies into literally every AC outlet:

Goal 6 of the US National Broadband Plan states that Americans would or should or will have the right to redirect live usage data securely to any third party energy demand management service provider they chose, for assistance in managing demand of all kinds (including potentially fossil fuel use, water and other utilities). In practice, this would require up to a megabit of reliable backhaul to every home at high enough security to also be suitable for VoIP, home security, medical monitors and a great many other high-reliability applications. The difficulty of this would more or less require over-provisioning homes with up to a gigabit so that the cost of this secure energy demand management connection could be subsidized by these other applications (as XCel did in its Smart Grid City project, laying aside 5 megabits of secure bandwidth for these premium uses). In addition, the deployment could be subsidized by ordinary data uses (voice, TV, internet, the so-called triple play) and mobile ("quadruple play"). With the revenue from energy sales, energy demand management, and these higher security and reliability applications, power distributors would be in a position to compete with incumbent providers that have already deployed networks. Many American companies responded to this goal with immediate action announcing long term plans to exploit this secure metering connection.

Goal 6 implies access to supply-side opportunities such as turning on devices (such as sump or cistern pumps or battery chargers) that can use intermittent or off-peak power when it is available (more cheaply than at peak). In October 2009, General Electric and Whirlpool announced the Smart Green Grid Initiative. "Smart appliances" could schedule energy use at times when less energy was being used or when renewable energy such as wind was more available. This plan would require the type of broadband access the plan would provide.

More importantly to achieving Goal 6, smart appliances would need to communicate to the energy metering and management system and accept commands to change state. This is not practical with multiple unreliable cables or wireless connections and is generally believed to require AC powerline networking in the home. As an interim step to this, Apple released a patent filing for a powerline networking outlet suitable for combining data and AC power on one outlet with two plugs. Intel, Texas Instruments and others also showed more traditional one-plug one-cable powerline networking options and home energy management systems. To deal with concerns of older X10 and other heavily used low-bandwidth powerline protocols, in October 2010 the IEEE 1901 protocol was ratified for coexistence of all such applications, including the proposed advanced metering infrastructure envisioned by the Broadband Plan - the G.9960 protocols were also ratified and made compatible with the IEEE framework. As of October 2010, then, the metering and home-powerline-based communications standards existed to implement Goal 6 exactly as stated, using secure TCP/IP over P1901/G.9960 to communicate with a meter gateway, which would then communicate using any of several reliable secure megabit backhauls (using anything from Motorola Canopy to WiMax to 5G networking to fibre optics).

It was also increasingly practical to extend powerline networking beyond the transformer: E-line, a proprietary system from Corridor, passed technical and frequency tests showing that it was capable of fibre-like performance over the last 1000m of a connection. Unlike the EU OPERA or other BPL standards in the 30-50MHz range E-line passed all ARRL tests for spectrum interference avoidance for outdoor powerline networking. Accordingly, power distributors gained the option of connecting subscribers to a closet or pole or shed up to a kilometer away, where there would be sufficient bandwidth to justify fibre optic connections (almost certainly using existing dark fibre connectivity there).

Reasons for the plan

Among developed nations, the US has fallen behind Japan, the EU and South Korea in power grid technology, and has made it a national priority to improve its energy demand and supply management. Reliance on dirty oil and other diplomatically dangerous sources that cause the US to be targetted as the cause of climate change was noted by the Pentagon in several reports as a growing US national security concern. Consuming more energy per unit productivity than any other developed nation is no longer an option for the US according to the Obama administration which has made it a high priority to implement 'smart grid' technologies that are impossible to deploy without secure reliable and universal wired networking. The prior Bush administration had made powerline networking a priority to ensure that broadband access would be at least co-extant with the power grid's reach.

More obviously, only about 65 percent of Americans have access to broadband service. The United States ranks 16th in the world, with South Korea at 95 percent and Singapore at 88 percent. Genachowski said over 20 countries had plans for broadband access, and that the lack of access in rural and low-income areas in the United States resulted in "leaving millions behind".

By 2020, the goal is for 100 million people to have 100 Mbit/s service. 200 million people had broadband in 2009  (nationwide, the average connection speed was 3.9 Mbit/s), up from 8 million in 2000. But 14 million have no access whatsoever to broadband.

An FCC survey, "Broadband Adoption and Use in America," gave the average price of broadband access as $41, and said 36 percent those non-users surveyed said the service was too expensive. 12 percent lacked skills, 10 percent worried about "safety and privacy", and 19 percent were just not interested. One way to increase access would be to provide a block of spectrum to service providers who agreed to offer free or low-cost service to certain subscribers. One way to pay for this would be to transfer $15.5 billion to a Connect America Fund for areas not adequately served. This money would come from the Universal Service Fund created for telephone service for individuals and Internet access for schools and libraries. In addition, a Mobility Fund would provide funds for states to offer their own broadband programs. Also, Digital Literacy Corps would help people learn about the Internet in areas with low usage rates. And broadband would be added to the FCC's Lifeline and Link-Up program to provide phone service to the poor.

Regulatory framework

The FCC considered broadband to be an "information service" and, therefore, "lightly regulated". Although the commission believed this status gave the ability to impose the necessary restrictions in order to implement the plan, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said this was not the case, in an April 2010 ruling. In 2007, Kevin J. Martin, FCC chairman at the time, ordered Comcast to allow the use of BitTorrent, which Comcast considered to be competition to its cable business. Comcast argued that with deregulation under George W. Bush, the FCC had no authority to make such decisions. The United States Supreme Court sided with Comcast in 2005, and in a related ruling on April 6, 2010, the Appeals Court denied FCC's 2008 cease and desist order . As a result, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski wanted to redefine broadband as a "common carrier", requiring equal access to all traffic as on roads.

On May 6, 2010, Genachowski said rules for broadband companies would be less strict than intended, in order to keep the FCC from appearing "heavy-handed". Republicans in the United States Congress and at the FCC, and cable and telephone companies were expected to oppose the regulations necessary to make the broadband plan work. Network neutrality, for example, would require broadband providers to allow competitors to use their lines for telephone service, streaming video and other online services. However, Genachowski said networks would not be required to share with the competition.

Three of the five commissioners would have to approve the regulations. Genachowski, a Democrat, believed the other two Democratic FCC commissioners would support him. Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a Democratic member of the House committee overseeing the FCC, supported the proposal, saying the FCC needed to make sure consumers and businesses were protected.

The two Republican FCC commissioners, Robert McDowell and Meredith Baker, feared "burdensome rules excavated from the early-Ma Bell-monopoly era onto 21st century networks" which would prevent companies from making the necessary investments to improve their networks.

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio called the plan "a government takeover of the Internet."

Comcast appeared more likely than Verizon and other companies to work with the FCC on new regulations, but only because the company needed its merger with NBC approved.

Genachowski said regulations would "support policies that advance our global competitiveness and preserve the Internet as a powerful platform for innovation."

History of efforts to increase spectrum for wireless broadband

In the United States, more of the broadcast spectrum was needed for wireless broadband Internet access, and in March 2009, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry introduced a bill requiring a study of efficient use of the spectrum.

Later in the year, the CTIA said 800 MHz needed to be added. David Donovan of The Association for Maximum Service Television said the 2 GHz band, allocated for mobile satellite service, was not even being used after ten years, and switching to this band would be better than asking broadcasters to give up even more. Because of the digital transition, television had lost 100 of its 400 MHz. The National Association of Broadcasters and the AMST commented to the FCC that the government should make maximum use of this newly available spectrum and other spectrum already allocated for wireless before asking for more, while companies that would benefit asked the government to look everywhere possible. A Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) study claimed that $62 billion worth of spectrum could become $1 trillion for wireless, and one proposal would require all TV stations, including LPTV, to give up all spectrum, with subsdized multichannel services replacing over-the-air TV, even after viewers spent a great deal of money on the DTV transition. Broadcasters responded, "In the broadcasting context, the 'total value' is not a strict financial measure, but rather is one that encompasses the broader public policy objectives such as universal service, local journalism and public safety." Broadcasters pointed out that the government, viewers and the related industries spent $1.5 billion making sure that a minority of the audience would be ready for the DTV transition. Any change could mean the loss of free TV to people in rural areas, broadcasters said, particularly "local journalism, universal service, availability of educational programming, and timely and reliable provision of emergency information." FCC broadband advisor Blair Levin wanted a plan by February 2010. Among the possibilities were restricting over-the-air stations to a single standard definition channel, and requiring each network affiliate to be one of a group of subchannels of a single channel, with HDTV only available from a MVPD. Although other spectrum was being considered, Levin said of the broadcast spectrum, "It's very attractive for wireless." As for the CEA "total recall" proposal, Levin said, "The discussions to date between the broadcasters and the commission would free up spectrum but allow all channels to broadcast over the air."

Bob Powers, vice president of government relations for the National Religious Broadcasters, pointed out that the Levin proposal did not provide for religious broadcasters.

Regarding the CEA study's findings, Donovan said to Broadcasting & Cable magazine:

Wireless companies are asking the government to participate in the biggest consumer bait-and-switch in American history. For the last few years, the government told consumers that digital television would bring them free over-the-air HDTV and more channels. Now, after purchasing billions of dollars in new digital equipment and antennas, wireless advocates are asking the government to renege on its promise. High-definition programming and more digital channels would become the sole and exclusive province of pay services. The American public simply will not stand for this.

PBS and its stations also opposed the plan, saying they had spent a lot of money on the digital upgrade which they need to earn back, and viewers had contributed expecting the digital broadcasting to continue. They claimed PBS was "efficient and productive, and abundantly serves the public interest." Noncommercial broadcasters said they needed broadcast spectrum for superior educational and children's programming. PBS said 85 percent of its stations used HDTV and 82 percent had two or more standard channels. Ohio State University said it had "no excess" spectrum.

An FCC workshop on November 23, 2009 produced several ideas. Virginia Tech professor Charles Bostian said sharing should be done, but not in the white spaces; WiFi spectrum should be used instead. Vint Cerf of Google said cable companies could share some spectrum, which the companies would like to do except they have "must-carry" rules that will not allow this. BBN Technologies chief engineer Chip Elliott called for government-funded broadband to be shared by researchers. Collaboration was the key to advancing the technology, and the word "collaboratories" referred to broadband as "not only the goal of the research, but the vehicle as well."

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) opposed ending broadcast TV because the industry spent $15 billion, in addition to giving up spectrum already. On December 14, 2009 at a hearing before the Communications Subcommittee of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, NAB president Gordon H. Smith said the government and individuals had spent too much money on the DTV transition and for HDTV for further changes to make their efforts worthless, and that broadband and broadcasting could co-exist. He pointed out that in the 1970s, broadcasting used 60 percent of the spectrum that it does now to deliver a much higher quality product, and that existing regulations required more efficient use of the spectrum than would be the case for new devices. On the subject of what could be done instead, Smith recommended using white space in rural areas with fixed devices rather than mobile devices, and new types of broadband service such as those developed by Sezmi. CTIA president Steve Largent said that the industry needed spectrum, "wherever it comes from." He said government spectrum probably was not efficiently used and would "likely" be "repurposed", while other broadcast and satellite spectrum "may" be used better for wireless. Largent also said without more spectrum, companies might merge to better use what they had. Consultant Dave Hatfield, former FCC engineering and technology chief, said making maximum use of existing spectrum through compression and modulation would help, but it would not be enough. Oregon Republican House member Greg Walden criticized the FCC for hiring Distinguished Scholar in Residence Stuart Benjamin, whose essay recommending replacing broadcast spectrum entirely Walden called an "abomination".

The February 17, 2010 deadline was extended by a month. Phil Bellaria, the director of the FCC broadband team, said any plan calling for broadcasters to give up spectrum would be voluntary, and the focus would be on more efficient use of existing spectrum rather than taking that away. Some stations might choose to be paid to give up their position, for example, and some might pair up with other stations using DTV subchannels (or two channels might both be primary channels within the same 6 MHz). Without voluntary action, though, changes could be mandated in 2011 or 2012. On March 16, at the FCC's monthly meeting, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan was revealed. By 2015, broadcasters would have to leave channels 46 through 51, allowing another 36 MHz to be used for wireless Internet access by "repacking", or relocating channels now on those frequencies. A total of 120 mHz needed to be reclaimed from broadcasters, the rest voluntarily. Failure to act could make Internet access more expensive and leave the United States less able to compete with other countries, the FCC report said. House Communications Subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat, said it would take four years from the time a bill passed to determine where the new spectrum would come from.

The FCC had 50 mHz of spectrum available for wireless broadband, but this was expected to increase to between 500 mHz and 800 mHz over 10 years. 300 mHz would be made available by 2015. The National Association of Broadcasters opposed the plan, issuing this statement:

We are concerned by reports today that suggest many aspects of the plan may in fact not be as voluntary as originally promised. Moreover, as the nation's only communications service that is free, local and ubiquitous, we would oppose any attempt to impose onerous new spectrum fees on broadcasters.

(source:wikipedia)