National broadband plan certain to stir competing interest groups

The FCC's massive national broadband plan appears designed to please a wide array of constituencies, but maintaining the support of competing interests will be challenging when the political daggers come out during the implementation phase, experts said Monday.

The technology blueprint, which will serve as a roadmap for extending affordable broadband service to all Americans over the next decade, makes dozens of recommendations to Congress and the commission.

The 360-page document will be the focus of an FCC meeting this morning in advance of Wednesday's congressional deadline.

"There is no way to make big decisions in this area without pissing somebody off," a telecommunications lobbyist said. "If you really want to push on any one or several of these [proposals], you are going to make somebody angry."

While the main telecommunications and cable industry associations and several watchdog groups were quick to express support, the specifics of how the plan is implemented, and the fate of separate proposals to toughen broadband regulation, threaten to unravel the delicate coalition.

"The support for the plan is one thing. Support for each individual initiative is another," observed Paul Glenchur, senior communications analyst at the Potomac Research Group. "We can suspend some of the political disagreements and the policy disagreements for now," he said, explaining that as legislative and rulemaking proposals emerge, "that's when the disputes will be aired."

House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., one of a few Democrats to immediately endorse the plan, will hold a March 25 oversight hearing featuring the testimony of all five agency regulators -- the first in a series of such congressional sessions. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., also weighed in with support.

Senate Commerce Commitee Chairman John (Jay) Rockefeller, D-W.V., was noncommittal in his reaction, saying he looks forward to perusing the recommendations. "But above all, I look forward to the FCC moving ahead to make broadband a reality for everyone in this country, no matter who they are and no matter where they live," he said in a statement.

Within hours of the plan's release Monday, parties were grumbling about various provisions. In a statement, Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., the ranking Republican on Boucher's panel, complained "that the plan may contain stalking horses for investment-killing ideas, such as so-called net neutrality mandates or a return to outdated, monopoly-era regulation."

The FCC approved tentative rules in October that would toughen its network neutrality guidelines designed to preserve the Internet's openness. There's also growing concern among industry executives that the agency may reclassify broadband as a heavily regulated service.

Both moves are strongly opposed by dominant broadband providers, who warn of dire consequences and reduced private sector investment.

The National Association of Broadcasters, which waged a public battle with the FCC over language recommending that television broadcasters relinquish some of their spectrum for mobile broadband use, wasn't pleased with the final version.

While the plan urges TV broadcasters to give up some frequencies voluntarily, it warns that mandatory steps could be imposed if the agency is unable to retrieve the projected 120 megahertz it wants from stations.

"We are concerned by reports today that suggest many aspects of the plan may in fact not be as voluntary as originally promised," NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton said in a statement. "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," he added, referring to the one of the ideas discussed in the document.

"We like a lot of what we've heard about the plan so far," Joe Waz, senior vice president and public policy counsel with Comcast, wrote in a blog posting.

"This is not to say that we will agree with everything. With a project of this magnitude, that would be impossible," he added, expressing a widely held view in industry circles.