Former FCC chairman’s plan: broadband in every home

HUNDT-ING BROADBAND: A former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is pitching a plan to wire American homes with true broadband data connections, and he wants taxpayers to subsidize the project directly, while ditching another federal mandate that amounts to a hidden tax.

By Dan Gillmor Mercury News Technology Columnist

A serious national broadband policy — designed to bring 10 to 100 megabits of information per second to every home — would be as crucial an economic-development and infrastructure tool as the roads of the previous century, Reed Hundt said at the Supernova technology conference in suburban Washington on Tuesday. Hundt served as FCC chairman during the first Clinton administration and is currently a senior adviser to consulting firm McKinsey & Co.

“There are some things you should throw money at,” he said.

Hundt is arguing that broadband should be subsidized by federal taxpayers to the tune of $20 a month per household for as long as it takes to build the system. This subsidy is enough incentive, he says, to create a business model for laying the fiber-optic data pipes we’ll need for this kind of speed. He’s arguing against the current model, which urges both the cable-TV and phone companies to deploy fast pipes.

Competing broadband lines — the generation beyond copper DSL and coaxial cable — would be superfluous because one fiber line is more than enough to handle data, voice and video needs. But Hundt says, wisely, that the entity installing the network should not control the data that flows through the pipes.

Hundt says the cost of this project, enough to bring fiber to 100 million homes, would be about $50 billion. We could quickly recover much of that by ending the universal service phone subsidies, which would no longer be needed once all voice traffic moved as data, he says.

And we could make the plan affordable at the outset by canceling the absurd requirements that local TV stations broadcast digital over-the-air signals — a transition that will oblige everyone with older TV sets (including most made even now) to buy converter boxes costing anywhere from $50 to $200 apiece.

It’s at least an intriguing idea, even if a bit fuzzy. Hundt is preparing a detailed paper on how he’d make this work. I’ll report more when it’s released.

But he’s doing a service: raising the profile of something that continues to make sense. A broadband connection to every home is the 21st century version of the interstate highways, and it requires us to pool our resources.

TRAVEL TIPS: Sunday, I offered some observations and tips about travel in this new age, which combines paranoia and constantly improving communications. I also asked you for your own tips and ideas.

You came through, with a raft of useful recommendations.

Several folks urged the use of noise-canceling headphones. I agree completely. These (or the models that go snugly into the ear canal) essentially remove airliners’ tension-making, low-frequency engine noise, which is especially bad when you’re in the back of the plane. I have a pair and use them, especially on long trips.

I also got recommendations on things ranging from slip-on shoes for security checkpoints, headphone signal splitters so two people can watch one DVD while they’re waiting out a delay, trying hard not to check luggage (I agree), and more.

I’ve posted some of the responses on my Weblog and will add more as they arrive. Thanks to everyone who’s offering tips.

SELL, DON’T USE: Samsung Electronics has banned camera-equipped mobile phones from certain factories, according to news reports. The reason is fear of industrial espionage.

Of course, Samsung makes these very phones. The bosses of the phone unit must surely be wondering what will happen when everyone starts passing rules like this.

The irony is temporary, because it begs a longer-range question. Cameras will soon be difficult, if not impossible, to notice. They’ll be embedded in our glasses, our clothing and eventually in our very bodies and will be so small that it’ll take serious effort to know if someone is using one. The implications for corporate spying, government surveillance and peeping-tom-ism are depressing if you value privacy and security.

Look for draconian laws — the kind where you potentially go to the slammer for using a hidden camera. Would that be the least bad solution in some circumstances?

All I know for sure is that this issue will not go away. We need to get out in front of it, not wait for it to boil over.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/6263548.htm