U.S., U.K. Take Similar Stands on Telecom and Internet Issues
LONDON -- The U.S. and U.K. see eye-to-eye on many telecom and Internet issues despite differences in their respective infrastructures, NTIA, FCC and State Dept. officials said Wed. “Technology doesn’t recognize any borders,” said NTIA Dir. Michael Gallagher. Given their common heritage and common approach to difficult issues like spectrum and broadband, he said, it’s not surprising the countries’ positions are in alignment. Investment challenges associated with broadband deployment exist in every country, said FCC Comr. Kathleen Abernathy. Neither the U.S. nor the U.K. directly subsidizes deployment, she said, meaning “we're all looking at the same things to spur investment” through regulatory approaches. Their comments came during an interview with Communications Daily.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Gallagher, Abernathy and David Gross, U.S. State Dept. coordinator for international communication & information policy, met Tues. with officials from the U.K. govt.’s Dept. of Trade & Industry (DTI) and Office of Communications (Ofcom). The wide-ranging talks included: (1) Comparing notes on opportunities to work together on issues involving 3rd countries. The U.K. assumes leadership of the European Union (EU) for 6 months in 2005, and the U.S. wants some idea what Britain hopes to accomplish on telecom and how the U.S. can help, Gross said. (2) Comparing experiences dealing with China on issues such as 3G and spectrum. (3) Discussing opportunities for working together in China, Southeast Asia and Africa.
FCC-Ofcom talks were “a love fest,” Gross said. Both regulators are trying to spur competition and incentive -- while ensuring they don’t overlay their traditional approach to monopoly regulation on a service without a dominant provider and where multiple platforms are being encouraged, Abernathy said. The countries approach broadband with very different resources, Gallagher told us. In the U.K., with dominant provider British Telecom and without strong cable infrastructure, the regulatory issues for broadband deployment are much more challenging than in the U.S., where multiple platforms -- beyond cable and DSL -- are the rule. Despite that, Gross said, U.K. broadband deployment has shot up dramatically recently.
Power Line Communications
The U.K. is “less enthusiastic” than the U.S. about power line communications (PLC) but is looking into it, Gallagher said. Differences in the U.K. power grid and in the way electricity is supplied make PLC deployment a bigger challenge than in the U.S., Abernathy said. PLC experiments are underway in the U.S., she said. Key issues unresolved are what technical standards are needed to prevent interference with other band users, and various business issues related to scope and scale. PLC, which is called broadband over powerline in the U.S., is “clearly an alternative that’s viable,” she said, but when 3 or 4 providers g after the same customer base, investors must decide. From a regulatory perspective that’s a great situation, Abernathy said.
The FCC will unveil interference standards in the next 30-60 days, Abernathy said. While they will affect PLC’s economics, she said, they can be met. A complication is the multiplicity of regulation PLC providers will face from the FCC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state regulators. But that won’t stop deployment, Abernathy said.
VoIP Views
The FCC and Ofcom are of like mind on VoIP, Abernathy said. The FCC began looking into regulation around 6 months ago, while Ofcom’s consultation launched several days ago. Both countries want to avoid burying the new technology “under a mound of traditional regulation,” she said, but both recognize that certain social obligations with a universal service component go along with VoIP. Ofcom’s initial view is that all voice services shouldn’t have to offer the same services as available telephony and providers of new voice services shouldn’t have to provide access to emergency numbers -- but should have to fully advise consumers of the lack of access. The U.S., too, wants to avoid burdening providers, Abernathy said, but is also concerned with universal service charges, law enforcement access under CALEA, and consumer access to 911. Most consumers don’t know the difference between dialing from a home phone and calling on a cell phones, she said: They expect to reach 911 regardless.
If done right, VoIP could make emergency services more effective, Gross said. Imagine calling 911 and, as the ambulance races toward you, having information electronically relayed to medics about your condition, he said. VoIP also holds out “triage” possibilities, Abernathy said -- firefighters with real-time fire diagrams sent to their trucks. Encouraging capabilities like that are why it’s important to get the regulatory framework right, she said.
It’s becoming clear VoIP isn’t simply about voice, but can be a fundamentally different service, Gross said. It “really helps break down a lot of the international barriers,” he said. The U.S. wants to see low-cost, international connectivity, he said, because it’s economically, socially and politically important that people be able to communicate with each other. VoIP offers exciting opportunities by banishing monopolies, increasing competition and reducing prices, Gross said, “a lot of the things we love.”
Talks now move to the EU. Among other items teed up for discussion in Brussels this week are: (1) A briefing on the status of follow-through on the EU e-communications directives in member states. (2) What the recent changeover of leadership in the European Commission might mean for telecom policy. (3) How to develop a “very aggressive, proactive agenda” for U.S.-EU cooperation on economic and other issues, particularly those involving 3rd-party nations. A “fair bit of attention” is likely to focus on opportunities in the Middle East for U.S.-EU coordination, Gross said.