Football analogies may be in poor form in Washington, D.C. these days as the Washington Redskins flounder.  But when I think about one of the biggest challenges we face in meeting the broadband needs of this nation - lack of available spectrum for mobile broadband --  I think of Doug Flutie.

Doug Flutie was a quarterback in both the Canadian and National Football Leagues.  Flutie was a great quarterback.  He had a lot of great attributes.

But he was 5' 10".  And while he had some great moments, let's face it, he was destined to be a star… in Canadian football.  He had a career very different from that of 6'2' Joe Montana, 6'4' Tom Brady, or 6'5' "Big Ben" Roethlisberger of Pittsburgh.

The point is this: Unless we get more spectrum, we as a country are destined to be the Doug Flutie of mobile broadband.

Spectrum is like height.  If you don't have it, it's pretty hard to be in the big leagues. As they say, you can't coach height.

Now it's not an exact analogy.  Technology and other capital inputs can help overcome the lack of spectrum.

But let's not kid ourselves.  Lack of spectrum will mean that our mobile service will be more expensive and of a poorer quality than if we had more of it.  And that's very bad news unless we figure out a way to solve that problem.

Why?  Mobile broadband is going to be the fastest growing segment in communications ecosystem. The 75,000 iPhone applications show us a huge pent up demand to do things to do things based on where you are, to do things no matter where you are.

And AT&T projects that by 2018 mobile data traffic expand by a factor of 250 to 600.

This is potentially a fantastic story for America.  It's the story of an America where citizens have access to information everywhere, and where entrepreneurs have the opportunity to reach consumers in ways never before possible, were no one has to be a prisoner of geography.

And, this story becomes even greater as we enter the era of pervasive computing, where devices and machines of every kind become "smart" by virtue of the wireless connections to the Internet.

But none of this can happen without spectrum.

The wireless industry says we need 800 Mhz more. How much is in the pipeline now?  50 MHz. And it's not very good spectrum for mobile broadband.

Moreover, it takes an average of 6 to 13 years to clear spectrum.  For example, in the Clinton years we sold about 198 Mhz. During the last administration, we sold about 276 MHz.

What does that mean?

A few years ago, the Congressional Research Service concluded that "American competitiveness in advanced wireless technology may be constrained by the limited amount of exploitable bandwidth that is available."

So the challenge over the next 110 days we have to develop a National Broadband Plan is to understand the tough trade-offs, come up with creative options, and produce a plan that can truly help deliver all the fantastic opportunities that mobile broadband can provide. Touchdown!

In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Congress requires the FCC to submit a national broadband plan that seeks to “ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability.”   Congress does not look for a plan that provides access to a majority of U.S. citizens, but to all people.  This is consistent with Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which instructed the FCC to regularly report to Congress on whether advanced telecommunications services (what we now call broadband) were being made available to all Americans in a timely fashion.  On October 2, the FCC conducted a day-long workshop that looked closely at what it would mean to craft a plan to extend broadband service to all Americans, regardless of age, gender, income, race, ethnicity, religion, political orientation, or disability.

As FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell put it in opening the day’s proceedings: “How are we going to be able to get these powerful technologies that can really improve the human condition so dramatically and so quickly – how do we get those resources into the hands of as many people as possible?” This is the first in a series of blogs on that day-long program focused on ensuring that the national broadband plan takes into account the rich diversity of our nation in accordance with equal rights under law. This first blog will address the overarching goal of the day and describe the blog entries to come.

All too often, it seems, words become political noise and cease to carry the meanings conveyed by the dictionary or intended by the user.  Perhaps the term “civil rights” and the word “diversity” have suffered this fate.  One goal of the October 2 workshop was to recapture and clarify those terms.

Diversity means diversity.  It is not a code word for minorities, or creating privileges for some specific group.   The panelists who generously gave of their time, and the staff members who created and managed the various platforms for the panelists to speak, represent the true meaning of the word diversity.  The concerns of the poor, of people of color, of different religious beliefs, of people with different physical and mental impairments, of immigrants and of Native Americans, of Republicans like Commissioner McDowell and Democrats like Commissioner Copps, all of this diversity was represented in the day’s discussion.

All Americans have civil rights.  Civil rights are not passé.  The struggle for civil rights, for equal rights under the law for all Americans, did not begin and end with Dr. Martin Luther King.  That struggle continues and involves the concerns of all Americans, of all colors and incomes and ages and genders and abilities and regions.  As Commissioner Michael Copps said at the start of the second panel, “Access to modern telecommunications is a civil right.”

The connection between equal rights under the law and broadband is not difficult to understand.  A struggling rancher in Idaho has a right to participate in the public debate equal to the right of the wealthy lobbyist living on Capitol Hill.  The migrant worker has a right to participate in the marketplace equal to the right of the Wall Street broker.  Whether it is civic discourse or economic activity, in today’s world the effective engagement in these activities requires access to broadband.  Whether the goal is public safety, education, health care or some other great national purpose, that purpose is either limited or expanded today through broadband.  The great hope for broadband is that it will improve the ability of all Americans to participate in the robust life of our nation.

The diversity of our nation, our different cultures and religions and languages and abilities, is one our great strengths. This diversity also requires the government to take special care to ensure that the needs of all Americans are reasonably addressed. Structural poverty, continuing segregation, unequal opportunities in education, and discrimination in financial markets can all have a profound affect on access to broadband and adoption rates. These challenges affect some groups differently than others. To meet the congressional requirement of making broadband service possible for all Americans, the FCC must recognize the different needs of a diverse America, while holding to the core American principle of equal treatment under the law.

Getting the advice of experts on these complex issues was the work of the day.  Responding to that advice in a national broadband plan will not be easy.

The first challenge, as Rutger’s Dean Jorge Schement noted, is to rethink “the metaphors we develop that cause us to understand policies or proposed policies.  We need new metaphors.”  The first problem is to better understand our diversity.  Dr. Schement described a rapidly changing population, a population that is becoming browner and speaking more languages, in the midst of a massive internal migration.  America is embracing more immigrants, not only from Mexico, but also from Germany and Southeast Asia.  But as Mark Pruner of the Native American Broadband Association points out, “American Samoa is better tracked by the FCC than … the 563 federally-recognized Native American tribes.”  Jim Tobias, an expert on the challenges faced by the disabled, adds that the population is also aging, joining an ever growing number of Americans who need help seeing and hearing.  Dr. Schement noted that the actual makeup of the American household is changing more rapidly than our conventional definition of the word is.  For example, many households are multi-generational, while others are made up of families without children.

Santa Clara Law Professor Catherine Sandoval makes the additional point that not only is the population diverse, but the new technologies we want to make available are diverse as well.  Professor Sandoval also notes that we have to be much more careful about the questions we ask in polls.  “If you ask somebody do you subscribe to broadband?  Well, the FCC is spending a lot of time trying to figure out what broadband is and how we should define it.  And, so, that question assumes that … the person knows what broadband is.”

As all the panelists throughout the day emphasized, we need much better data on who has access and to what, and who is choosing not to adopt broadband and why.  That was the focus of the first panel, and it will also be the focus of the next blog.  The second panel was a very rich discussion of what the government can do, mindful of equal protection law, to extend broadband to a diverse nation.  The third blog will describe that discussion.  And the third and final panel examined best practices in encouraging access and adoption to a diverse nation.  The fourth blog will report on best practices.

As referenced in my last post, we have a few follow up questions from the October 20^th workshop.  We would very much appreciate your input on these questions no later than November 16^th and sooner if possible.  In some cases, we may have some information in the record about a certain topic, but we would like more information from a broader range of stakeholders.  It is not necessary to repeat things that you've already put in the record (but feel free to cite back to comments you've already filed).

If you think it would be useful to meet with us and discuss, please request an ex parte meeting by clicking here.

Please respond with  your ideas to this blog post, or file your comments using our Electronic Filing Comment System, using either ECFS Express or our standard submission page if you need to attach a file.

*********************

1. There was a lot of discussion at the roundtable about the concept of getting companies, independent software developers, consumers, government, and universities together to share best practices, understand consumer needs, and foster innovation. What are the next steps to establishing an innovation center or focus center program?  Are there some specific ideas on this and more information about models we can follow?

2. There were some general concerns expressed that applying regulation to broadband services and equipment might hamper innovation.  Have the processes mandated under Section 255, including as they relate to equipment and devices developed for VoIP services, hampered innovation? Have the FCC's existing captioning rules or wireless Hearing Aid Compatibility rules hampered innovation?

3. What is the effect of Section 255, HAC, and Section 508 regulations on the telecom and electronic and information technology marketplace?

4. The record contains a few examples of companies voluntarily making devices used for Internet access accessible to people with disabilities - in particular, the Apple I-Phone was mentioned several times at the workshop.  What are some other examples of which we should be aware?  What motivates companies to make their products accessible on a voluntary basis?  Will companies consider accessibility issues in the design and development of their broadband products and devices on a widespread basis if there is no mandate to do so?

5. What can the government do to attract additional capital investment to make products accessible?  What can the government do to incentivize independent software designers to create innovative assistive and adaptive technologies?

6. How is the development and distribution of assistive and adaptive technologies currently funded, including assistive and adaptive technologies used to access the Internet?  What specific recommendations should we make to address concerns expressed in the record about the expense of assistive and adaptive technologies?  Are there specific recommendations regarding how state programs could partner with a federal universal service program?

7. Are there specific recommendations about the best way for the FCC to get more involved in International efforts to harmonize standards relating to accessibility?

How do you sum up over seven hours of rich and thoughtful content from our October 20 workshop in one blog post?  I'll do my best to follow the model of the 22 participants of the afternoon policy roundtable, each of whom managed to state their views of what recommendations we should include in the National Broadband Plan succinctly and passionately -- while at the same timing beating the three-minute buzzer.

In the first panel, Leveraging Federal and State Resources to make Broadband Accessible and Affordable, we heard about the efforts of Department of Commerce/NTIA, Department of Agriculture/RUS, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the Government Services Administration, and the State of Missouri (from Danny Weitzner, Gary Boles, Jennifer Sheehy, Richard Horne, Terry Weaver, and Marty Exline, respectively) to support broadband access for people with disabilities.   While each agency is clearly making an important contribution, the daunting task before us is to figure out how we can better coordinate our efforts at the tribal, local, state, federal, and international levels.

In the second panel, we heard consumers discuss very movingly the specific barriers and opportunities that broadband presents to those who have speech, hearing, vision, hearing and vision, mobility, and intellectual disabilities.  A consultant gave a "big picture" analysis of these barriers and opportunities.  The panel did a superb job of clearly articulating the problems that we have to solve.  Thanks to Eric Bridges of the American Council of the Blind; Rosaline Crawford of the National Association of the Deaf; Peggy Hathaway of Spinal Cord Advocates; Rebecca Ladew of Speech Communications Assistance by Telephone; Elizabeth Spiers of the American Association of the Deaf-Blind; Jim Tobias of Inclusive Technologies; and Elizabeth Weintraub of the Council on Quality and Leadership.

"Advancing National Purposes for People with Disabilities" was the theme of the third panel.  Jim Fruchterman of Benetech discussed how Bookshare allows people with vision, learning, and mobility disabilities to have online access to over 50,000 books and periodicals.  Peggy Hathaway of Spinal Cord Advocates discussed how broadband  provides new job and civic participation opportunities for people with mobility disabilities, and Claude Stout of Telecommunications for the Deaf discussed the urgent need for people in the deaf and hard-of-hearing community to be able to contact E-911 services directly using pagers, e-mail, and real-time text and video.  Kate Seelman of the University of Pittsburgh discussed how broadband-enabled telerehabilitation can help people with disabilities better manage their health and employment, and Ishak Kang of DOT UI discussed how the Smart Grid could benefit people with disabilities.

During the lunch break, people had time to check out some technology exhibits.  They included a demonstration of WGBH's Teacher Domain; Bookshare; PLYmedia's online video captioning solution; RIM's blackberry smartphones; and the Wireless RERC's emergency communications project.

The fourth panel was a fascinating exploration of the technological barriers and opportunities relating to broadband accessibility.  Among other things, the panelists addressed E-911 issues; the importance of interoperability and open architecture; the potential to address accessibility challenges through cloud computing; and the challenges related to captioning on the Internet.  We needed a lot more time than 55 minutes to cover these topics (and other topics that we wanted to cover).  Thanks to Greg Elin of United Cerebral Palsy and Life Without Limits; Jim Fruchterman of Benetech; Dale Hatfield of Silicon Flatirons;  John Snapp of Intrado; and Gregg Vanderheiden of the Trace Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for their participation.

The contributions of the wide variety of stakeholders who gave us their views on what recommendations we should include in the National Broadband Plan were amazing.  Most consumers and some in industry stated that it was critical to update the accessibility regulatory framework and promote universal design but others warned that too much regulation could hamper innovation.  A wide range of stakeholders thought that subsidizing broadband services and equipment -- particularly expensive assistive technologies used by people with disabilities -- was critical.  Most stakeholders thought that consumer/industry/government fora could play an important role in addressing some complex issues.  Most participants also thought that the government could take an active role in working with industry to promote best practices -- and perhaps foster some kind of innovation center.  Finally, many stated that government itself should be a better model of accessibility and do a better job of enforcing the accessibility rules that are already on the books, including the ADA, Section 255, and Section 508. We very much appreciate the participation of Rob Atkinson of IITF; Ellen Blackler of AT&T; Alan Brightman of Yahoo; Kathy Brown of Verizon; Deborah Buck of the Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs; David Capozzi of the U.S. Access Board; Larry Goldberg of the Media Access Group at WGBH; Patrick Halley of NENA; Dale Hatfield of Silicon Flatirons; Matthew Knopf of PLYmedia; Jane Mago of NAB; Helena Mitchell of the Wireless RERC at Georgia Tech; Randy Pope of the American Association of the Deaf-Blind; Ken Salaets of ITIC; Paul Schroeder of American Foundation of the Blind; Grant Seiffert of TIA; Dane Snowden of CTIA; Claude Stout of TDI; Karen Peltz Strauss of COAT;  Jim Tobias of Inclusive Technologies; Gregg Vanderheiden of the Trace Center at University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Joe Waz on Comcast.

This event could never have happened without the engagement of so many people throughout the Commission.  Moderators included Commissioner Copps; Sherrese Smith and Mary Beth Richards of the Chairman's office; Jennifer Schneider of Commissioner Copps' office; Erik Garr, General Manager of the Broadband Team; Workshop Coordinator and DRO Deputy Chief Cheryl King; Broadband Team members Elise Kohn, John Horrigan, Kristin Kane, Steve Midgley, Jing Vivatrat, and Kerry McDermott; Walter Johnston of OET (subbing for Chief Technologist Stagg Newman); and Jennifer Manner and Ronnie Cho of PSHSB.  Official Government Observers included David Furth of PSHSB; Jane Jackson of WTB; Mark Stone and Cheryl King of CGB; and Terry Weaver of GSA.  Finally, there were numerous people behind the scenes from CGB and DRO, the A-V team, and on the Broadband team policy staff who helped make the event run smoothly.

The input we've received is invaluable.  We do have some follow up questions and will be soliciting further ex parte submissions in a separate blog post in the very near future.  But for now, my three-minute buzzer has gone off!

Commissioners Clyburn and Copps - both have called South Carolina home though with a bit of a Low Country/Upstate rivalry - returned home for a series of public field hearings and events on broadband. On a rainy Monday night, in the rural town of Ravenel, SC (pop. 2,288) over 100 people came to the Community Hall for a Consumer Forum on Broadband. After brief remarks from a panel that included Commissioners Copps and Clyburn, the mayors of Ravenel, nearby Hollywood (pop 4,398) and Meggett (pop 1,363), local pastors and community leaders, the floor was open to the public. In an area with more than 18% of the population living below the poverty line (vs. 12.6% nationwide) the issue of what ‘affordable service' meant while residents were ‘struggling to put food on the table' was a recurring theme. Herman Allen, a local parade float maker, came to the mic to explain that he has been losing business because of the intermittent quality of his internet service which prevented him from promptly responding to email requests from customers. He then took a moment to apologize to some folks in the crowd and mayors on the dais for emails about pending floats that had yet to be responded to!

Tuesday morning was a standing room only field hearing at Trident Technical College in Charleston, SC. The broad range of panelists included advocates for the elderly, community development corporation executives, academics and wireless entrepreneurs. Commissioner Copps told the crowd, "South Carolina has been on the wrong side of too many gaps too many times … Truth is, government was asleep at the switch for too many years, thinking that somehow broadband would just magically appear-even in those places where there was no business plan to attract any business to build it.  But the good news is that change has come."

The last event of our brief trip to South Carolina was a visit to the Medical University of South Carolina to learn more about their telemedicine programs including stroke care. South Carolina has one of the highest rates of stroke in the nation. Effective stroke treatment with drugs like TPA, a clot buster, require very fast decision making and drug administration, often within only a few hours of stroke onset.  Leveraging broadband to deal with this challenge, MUSC set up a hub-and-spoke style system that connects their stroke specialists to physicians' practices in small towns in the region. MUSC provides on-call physicians available through broadband enabled online video for full consultations. Prior to the launch of REACH (Remote Evaluation of Acute Ischemic Stroke) only 39% of South Carolinians lived within 60 minutes of primary stroke care, with the 6 local doctors offices now participating in the program, 56% of South Carolinians are within 60 minutes of frontline stroke care. MUSC is also piloting telehealth projects for psychiatric care and high risk pregnancies, which have seen significant cost savings. These broadband healthcare applications have proven quite popular, saving patients a full day of travel from nearby Beaufort or Florence and the cost of gas and childcare traditionally required to see a specialist. MUSC Ob/Gyn Dr. Chris Robinson explained, "Every patient was offered the choice between telemedicine and coming to Charleston. No one chose to come to Charleston."

The recent Cyber Security Broadband Workshop was a fascinating discussion, featuring panelists from a diverse group of backgrounds and perspectives.  We explored solutions and discussed many of the challenges that government and the private sector face in achieving cyber security as a matter of public safety and economic security.  So much of our lives rely on the Internet and the need to secure our online infrastructure is critically important, so I want to highlight just a few take-aways from the workshop. The experts agree that cyber security is not a barrier to broadband deployment, but methods of prevention, detection and restoration must continually be developed.  The public must have knowledge of what cyber attacks are and where they may come from and stay alert.  We all must do our part.   As technologies get more sophisticated, so do the threats.

Our panelists acknowledged the need to expand cyber security awareness and education for consumers and provide user-friendly tools and best practices to help protect personal computers.  Dr. Don Welch noted that the return on investment for cyber security, for both private and public entities, is negative; in other words, all the money and resources spent to protect systems go to ensuring that nothing happens.  The business community and government face the challenge of implementing robust cyber security solutions without severely stifling innovation or devalue the user experience. These were just a few interesting items of discussion from a conversation I hope we continue to have as the broadband plan is developed.  A key measure of our success in this area will be the degree to which we help increase the American public's knowledge and awareness of cyber security and the actions they can take to protect themselves and their privacy. Please feel free to contribute to the on-going conversation by sharing your comments and questions. In case you missed the workshop, you can view the presentations and materials here.

It's not just the FCC that's interested in figuring out the best way to use and deploy broadband.   We've learned that lots of organizations: towns and cities, state governments, small businesses, non-profits, and others are also looking at the question. Several parties have suggested that an online clearinghouse of broadband data and best practices would make it much easier for everyone to get this information easily.  Indeed, the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Services has already launched its own clearinghouse at www.BroadbandBestPractices.org that provides an inventory of broadband projects, programs and best practices.  We welcome this contribution.   To continue the discussion about the idea of a broadband clearinghouse, the Commission has released a Public Notice seeking comment about the what, who, and how: What should the clearinghouse contain? Who is the intended audience? Who should maintain or edit the clearinghouse? And how should the clearinghouse be designed to maximize its potential benefit? Please read the Public Notice and file comments using either ECFS Express or our standard submission page if you need to attach a file.  Note that your comments pertain to Public Notice #10.  Or, you can post comments on this blog.  Your comments will be included in the record for the National Broadband Plan

Many of you may be familiar with the telecom term the "last mile"-the connection between your home (or wireless device) and your broadband service provider.  Somewhat less familiar, however, are the terms "second mile" and "middle mile," the connections between your broadband service provider and the Internet.  A Public Notice (PN) that we released today seeks comment and data on the pricing of second and middle mile connections to the Internet, and we hope that its release will inform us on the crucial-if not gating role-that these connections play.

As we noted in our mid-term presentation to the FCC last week, these connections-effectively high-speed "on-ramps" to the Internet-are critical links between communities and the broadband Internet.  Our workshops have indicated that in rural areas, calling these links a "second" and "middle mile" is somewhat of a misnomer, as these high capacity, multi-megagbit per second connections can be tens, if not hundreds of miles long-and can be very costly.  As a result, any plan to ensure broadband access for all Americans must examine closely whether these on-ramps are adequately available, reasonably priced, and efficiently provided in all areas of the country.

The PN seeks comment in five general areas:

• The Network Components of Broadband Availability, which focuses upon the needs and technology options for these second and middle mile links.
• Availability and Pricing of these high-capacity circuits, based on technology and regulatory treatment.
• Pricing of Internet Connectivity, which focuses upon the cost of access to the Internet backbone networks and whether that pricing is higher in rural areas.
• Economics of Deployment, which asks about the extent and cost of self-provisioning and potential pro-active steps that government might be able to do to spur more deployment.
• Nature of Competition and Availability of Alternatives, which asks questions on the nature and extent of competition for middle and second mile connections.

If you have examples and data that could contribute to the Commission's knowledge on this subject, please read the PN and file comments using either ECFS Express or, if you need to attach a file, our standard submission page.  Please note that your comments are responding to Public Notice #11.  You can also post comments on Blogband, and they will be included in the record for the National Broadband Plan.

As part of its effort to gather information for the development of a National Broadband Plan, the FCC will hold a field hearing in San Diego Thursday focused on the transformational change that is resulting from the confluence of mobility and broadband. Tune in today at noon (EDT) to watch the event live at FCC.gov/Live.  You can also watch the event live and discuss it with others at Facebook.

The hearing will provide a West Coast perspective on spectrum availability, mobile applications, and the role that they play in the development of America's broadband  infrastructure. The Commission will be represented by Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker.

We recently released a Public Notice (PN) seeking comment regarding Public Safety and Homeland Security matters.  The PN sought comment in four areas-Public Safety Mobile Wireless Broadband Networks, Next Generation 911 (NG911), Cybersecurity, and Alerting-as each of these poses unique challenges for keeping our Nation safe.  Some of the representative questions and comment requests include:

• Public Safety Mobile Wireless Broadband Networks: We seek comment on the specific network features and anticipated architecture that will allow the broadband network to operate seamlessly with disaster recovery capabilities nationwide, and the kind of connectivity needed with legacy and other commercial networks

• Next Generation 911 (NG911): Are there regulatory roadblocks that may be restricting more vigorous NG 911 deployment?  Which of these are within the Commission's jurisdiction and what actions should the Commission take in this regard?

• Cyber security: What type of computer-based attacks against government or commercial computer systems or networks (i.e. cyber attacks) are occurring or are anticipated to occur, and what are other federal agencies, commercial, and other entities doing to prevent, detect and respond to cyber attacks?

• Alerting: To what extent are broadband technologies currently being used as part of public emergency alert and warning systems?  Please provide specific descriptions of their use as part of these systems, including system capabilities and limitations and examples of jurisdictions where such systems are currently in use.

Help us keep America safe by sending us your comments.  Please read the PN and file comments using either ECFS Express or our standard submission page if you need to attach a file.  Please note that your comments are responding to Public Notice #9.