Johannes M. Bauer
Changes in government usually motivate stakeholders to generate wish lists and recommendations for the new administration. This transition is no different, with numerous think tanks and advocacy groups in op eds, white papers, panel discussions and conferences offering directions to the Administration, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
I have my own wish list and will have to say more about it in time: Renewal of spectrum authority, a more rational system of universal service support, policies that facilitate meaningful innovation in advanced and emerging technologies, consideration of distributional effects of policies, and safeguarding free speech against politically motivated intimidation are among them.
Today, rather than adding to the chorus of pundits, I want to comment generally on how policies that truly would serve the American people would best be developed. This requires strong efforts from those who care about the public interest to seek workable solutions. Such solutions must be rooted in a shared understanding of the role of good governance for a prospering digital economy.
During my recent tour of duty in the federal government, I have observed the strengths, shortcomings, and biases of Democratic and Republican visions of how regulation should be designed and how it affects the digital economy. Each view is incomplete and partial. Building policy on either one of these visions and their often-unquestioned policy prescriptions is bound to fail many Americans.
The Biden Administration, and many voices on the democratic side, saw larger, more active government as the solution. Adding policies, rules and regulations was often deemed the most appropriate solution. Pressure to act swiftly and top-down directives often quenched rational and critical discussions of whether the proposed rules were the most efficient solutions to a problem and how outcomes would best be evaluated.
The plan of the Trump Administration seems to be to disrupt government in erratic and haphazard ways and eventually shrink it. This is good for headlines and media coverage, and it creates division between those how respond with anger and outrage and those who relish the measures and the outcry. However, it is not the best path to good governance by a lean and effective government that the American people deserve.
Federal policymakers must address numerous communication policy challenges that require informed responses, not ideological fervor. Starting point should be the observation that the overall performance of the U.S. information and communications system is at best mixed. The overall picture combines excellence in some areas with inferior performance in others. There is no single point of failure, as U.S. Congress, the administration, and regulatory agencies are jointly responsible for the policies contributing to these outcomes.
It is true that the U.S. can boast tremendous success in digital innovation. Silicon Valley is home to the most valuable companies on the planet. Fixed broadband and wireless service providers have invested tremendous amounts of private capital into network expansion and upgrades, providing high quality digital connectivity to large swaths of the country. Private entrepreneurship is also driving an extraordinarily successful space communications industry.
However, that more than 20 million American households do not have access or cannot afford to subscribe to broadband of sufficient quality is a national disgrace. About five million live in locations without terrestrial but only satellite Internet access. Many more, including residents in these unserved areas who cannot afford the high start-up costs of satellite service and its higher monthly charges, are priced out of the market.
So, what should be done?
First, fixing broadband access problems is not rocket science. Targeted, efficient supply and demand side programs should be able to extend affordable access to all serviceable locations. Instead, the U.S. is struggling with an abundance of programs and initiatives intended to reach universal service. Even though the number of 133 programs published by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) exaggerates the program, a streamlining to a lower, requisite variety of programs sufficient to address the differing local challenges is urgent.
The universal service and digital equity goals of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 were well intended. But their implementation was handicapped by complicated rules and flaws in the overall program design. The pending proposals to eliminate or simplify labor, environmental, and other rules and to introduce technological neutrality are politically motivated and distract from that fact that the more serious issues with BEAD lie elsewhere. Changing the program rules when it has finally reached the implementation stage in more than half of the states could easily generate new inefficiencies.
One of the biggest problems is that BEAD allocated funds based on 2022 broadband access data, but connectivity has changed during the past three years. Consequently, the fund allocation is not well aligned with state needs. Allowing satellites to fill the gaps will likely create problems down the road. What is needed is not just a tech-neutral design, but a dynamic, forward-looking vision that allows transition solutions to reduce the wait of unserved households while safeguarding the ability to scale the connection for future bandwidth needs.
Second, and related, universal service policy needs a thorough overhaul, independently of what the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision will be later in the year. Both the contribution side and the uses of funds need serious overhaul and redesign. Some of the proposed models, for example to rely on appropriations or to expand the base for the contribution factor to include big tech companies, have both advantages and serious disadvantages.
Developing workable solutions will require pragmatic and workable approaches and a good deal of common sense. This will likely be complicated and the stakeholders that have historically prevented reforms (e.g., telcos benefitting from the current high-cost funding systems), will likely seek to derail the initiative. Nonetheless, these reforms must not be delayed further.
Third, U.S. Congress must renew the spectrum authority of the FCC to bring more spectrum to advanced wireless services and allow innovative approaches to the sharing of spectrum. In an intense global race to unlock the potential of next generations of wireless, this can only disadvantage American businesses and American consumers.
Fourth, securing the national information and other infrastructures from cyberattacks should be a high priority. I am encouraged to see the early emphasis at the FCC, even though security would benefit, like most other areas, from an all of government approach. Not in the sense that all government should be involved, as this has been misconstrued in the past. But an approach where the tasks are assigned in a rational way to assure finding the least cost, most effective solutions.
Fifth, the U.S. must develop a workable approach to AI. The administration rescinded the previous administration’s executive order on AI and is working on a new AI Action Plan. Whereas the rescinded order had many flaws, there is a risk that this administration will not properly recognize the need for a framework that allows the entire AI ecosystem, not just big tech companies, to flourish. Contrary to the widely held view that regulation is antithetic to innovation, such a flourishing innovation ecosystem requires appropriate, agile governance to curtail harm while granting the freedom for entrepreneurs to pursue innovation.
Finally, an increasing number of the challenges listed above require a regular and systematic evaluation of the outcomes of policy measures. Most policies are currently implemented without a plan for rigorous evaluation of their outcomes. There is tremendous fear of the political repercussions of evidence that a program is not as effective as intended. Paradoxically, not knowing the effectiveness of a policy is preferred to systematically learning about ways to improve, modify or terminate programs.
These are only a few of the pressing challenges. Others include a more robust framework for space policy, Congressional action to strengthen the protection of children online, an overhaul of Section 230, and, perhaps most importantly, a modernization of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended. Without such a legal update, the FCC does not have the guidance and instruments to effectively address the challenges of digital platforms and an AI-enabled economy.
One can only hope that the agency will not succumb to daily political pressure despite early signals from the White House to take the FCC on a short leash. The FCC is intentionally set up in a way that is independent of the vagaries of the policy process, as an independent agency to pursue its mission informed by expert knowledge. This does not mean that it should not coordinate with Congress and the White House, but it should not be beholden to their whims.
Congress and the White House repeatedly had sought to dictate policy by informal pressure and intimidation in the past. Strong FCC chairs were able to fend off pressure and to sustain an independent, professional course. Similar professional approaches should be pursued in other agencies and departments. Pragmatic, workable approaches to the key issues that weaken American information industries and harm consumers is what the country needs most.
March 24, 2025
The positions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Quello Center or of Michigan State University.
