The following text is copyright 2009 by Network World, permission is hearby given for reproduction, as long as attribution is given and this notice is included.

Broadband subsidy: too much money - but mostly well targeted

By: Scott Bradner

A few weeks ago I wrote about my worries about how the broadband funding in the Federal stimulus package was going to be spent. (See It's the Internet, stupid http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2009/061709bradner.html) The US Government has now released the documentation on that part of the stimulus package and, so far, things look mostly OK. (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/070209-net-neutrality.html?hpg1=bn)

The government has set up a special web site for the broadband stimulus effort. (http://www.broadbandusa.gov) The web site is designed to let organizations, including states, apply for funding to support broadband deployment. And there is money to be had. The stimulus bill allocated $7.2 billion and directed the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce to hand it out. (Your tax dollars, or maybe your grand kid's tax dollars, at work.)

There are two separate programs. The Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) is run by the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) is run by the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA). The web site includes Notices of Funds Availability (a term that only Washington could have come up with) for these programs. (http://broadbandusa.sc.egov.usda.gov/files/BB NOFA FINAL with disclaimer_1.pdf) According to the web site the BIP will make loans and grants for broadband infrastructure projects in rural areas, and the BTOP will provide grants to fund broadband infrastructure, public computer centers and sustainable broadband adoption projects. There is also a separate document to be used by states that want to get some of the money. (http://broadbandusa.sc.egov.usda.gov/files/Broadband_Mapping_NOFA.pdf)

These programs require that the money go to Internet connections that meet the FCC policy statement on network neutrality (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.doc) and do not favor any lawful Internet applications and content over others (see, for example, lines 615 to 629 of the non-state program). The program does not prohibit all types of invasive behavior on the part of the service provider but the provider is required to "describe any business practices or technical mechanisms they employ, other than standard best efforts Internet delivery, to allocate capacity; differentiate among applications, providers, or sources; limit usage; and manage illegal or harmful content." I guess its OK for a provider to do bad things as long as they tell us that is what they are doing. Of course, the provider must support wiretapping and can make use of "reasonable network management." (lines 630-634)

There are a few things that not quite what I would have done if I had been in charge. One big problem is that the programs only talk about "advertised speed" of the connection to the Internet rather than what speed a user could reasonably expect to see. (lines 1449-1451) It does not take too much imagination to see how that can be (will be?) abused. The minimum speed that is specified (768 Kbps downstream and 200 Kbps upstream) is also very low in comparison to what is offered elsewhere in the world. (see Fast Internet for individuals and businesses? http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2007/090407-bradner.html)

Another problem is that our tax dollars can be used to create non-Internet managed services (lines 634-637) as long as some Internet connectivity is also provided. This is just what I was arguing against in the previous column - my tax dollars should not be used to subsidize carriers creating non-Internet services. At first blush, one might think that separate networks for public safety would be a good idea but, in reality, all that such networks do is to create incompatible islands of connectivity -- it would be far better if public safety communications were IP and Internet based.

disclaimer: A primary aim of education at a place like Harvard is to bridge the incompatible islands of knowledge student have or acquire but the university has not provided me with an opinion on the broadband stimulus program so the above is my own review.