Blair’s opinion piece generally supports competition as opposed to more regulation as proposed by FCC Chairman Wheeler. While he has the facts to make a case that more regulation stifles innovation and cements the incumbents market position, he does not fully utilize them to make a strong case against Title II regulation. Instead he uses this opportunity to support municipal broadband and his Gig.U organization. Still I am delighted that re/code published is opinion article against more regulation because they have been a strong supporter of Title II regulation.
By Blair Levin, Executive Director, Gig.U
On Feb. 26, the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate broadband under Title II and challenge two state laws constraining municipal broadband deployment efforts. Progressives, longtime advocates of both actions, owe a huge “thanks” to Verizon. Its legal challenge to earlier, weaker FCC rules opened the door to the reclassification and a footnote in the court decision provided a path for the FCC to champion municipal broadband, a valuable lesson for all considering responding to adverse agency decisions.
So how should progressives react to these positive decisions? Professor Susan Crawford suggests it’s time to “pop the champagne corks.” Perhaps we should keep those bottles on ice a little longer.
Despite the considerable merits of the decisions, a sober analysis reveals they will not broadly stimulate upgrades or new deployments. To achieve affordable, abundant bandwidth, our work in the trenches remains in front of us.
Advocates of Title II argue openness drives applications that stimulate deployment while opponents argue it will discourage investment. As an empirical matter, I see evidence of neither. My organization, Gig.U, has communities involved with more than two dozen such initiatives already, involving more than 75 cities. All the new investments were driven by a combination of changes in city policies and/or in the competitive market, particularly the threat of Google Fiber entry.
