The FCC's National Broadband Plan: 100Mbps to 100 Million Homes by 2020

The FCC released its National Broadband Plan today — 376 pages of goals, recommendations, and policy proposals aimed at dragging American internet infrastructure into the modern era. The headline target: 100 Mbps connections available to 100 million American homes by 2020.

That sounds impressive until you look at where we stand today. The average American broadband speed is roughly 4 Mbps. South Korea averages 20 Mbps. Japan averages 15 Mbps. We're not just behind — we're lapped.

The Goals

The plan sets six major goals:

1. 100 Mbps to 100 million homes by 2020, with at least 1 Gbps connectivity to anchor institutions (schools, hospitals, government buildings) in every community.
2. Universal access to 4 Mbps broadband — every American should be able to get at least a basic broadband connection.
3. Leading mobile innovation — the U.S. should have the world's most extensive wireless broadband network.
4. Affordable broadband for all Americans.
5. Every first responder should have access to a nationwide public safety broadband network.
6. Every American should be able to track energy usage in real-time through broadband-connected smart grid technology.

The 100/100 target grabs the headlines, but the 4 Mbps universal access goal is arguably more important. Right now, an estimated 14 to 24 million Americans — mostly in rural areas — can't get broadband at any price. The plan proposes converting the existing Universal Service Fund (which currently subsidizes telephone service in rural areas) into a fund that subsidizes broadband buildout instead.

The Reality Check

Let's be honest about the gap between the plan's ambitions and current reality.

The average American pays about $45 per month for broadband service that delivers roughly 4 Mbps. For comparison, residents of Tokyo pay about $20 per month for 100 Mbps fiber. We're paying more than twice as much for 4% of the speed.

The primary reason is competition — or lack thereof. In most American markets, consumers choose between one cable company and one DSL provider. Often the DSL option maxes out at 3 to 6 Mbps, making it barely competitive. In some markets, particularly rural ones, there's only one option or none at all.

The plan acknowledges this competition problem but doesn't propose radical solutions. There's no mandate for open-access fiber networks, no structural separation of network owners from service providers, and no requirement that incumbents share their infrastructure with competitors at regulated rates — the approach that has delivered cheap, fast broadband in much of Europe and Asia.

Instead, the plan relies heavily on spectrum policy (freeing up 500 MHz of wireless spectrum for broadband), subsidies for rural buildout, and modest regulatory reforms. These are useful steps, but they're unlikely to produce the kind of competitive market transformation that would actually deliver 100 Mbps to most Americans at affordable prices.

The Spectrum Gambit

The most concrete proposal in the plan is the push to reallocate 500 MHz of radio spectrum for wireless broadband use within ten years. That's a big number — roughly doubling the spectrum currently available for commercial wireless services.

The primary target: broadcast television spectrum. The plan proposes voluntary incentive auctions where TV broadcasters would give up spectrum in exchange for a share of the auction proceeds. That freed-up spectrum would be auctioned to wireless carriers for LTE and future wireless broadband services.

This makes strategic sense. Broadcast TV spectrum occupies prime real estate in the radio frequency range — low-band spectrum that travels far and penetrates buildings well, ideal for wireless broadband. And broadcast television's audience is shrinking as viewers move to cable, satellite, and internet video.

But getting broadcasters to voluntarily surrender spectrum is going to be a political dogfight. The National Association of Broadcasters has already pushed back hard. This will take years and will almost certainly deliver less than 500 MHz.

What's Missing

The plan is a comprehensive survey of America's broadband problems. It correctly identifies the lack of competition, the rural access gap, the need for better data about broadband availability, and the importance of wireless spectrum. Where it falls short is in the solutions.

There's no funding mechanism for most of the plan's goals. The broadband stimulus provided $7.2 billion, but that money is being spent now and won't cover the plan's more ambitious targets. The plan suggests reallocating existing funds and relies heavily on private investment, but private investment flows to profitable markets — which is exactly why rural America is underserved.

There's no meaningful mechanism to increase competition in wired broadband. The plan encourages competition but doesn't create it. Without structural reforms — requiring incumbents to share their networks, building public open-access fiber, or other interventions that have worked abroad — the duopoly of cable and DSL will persist.

And the 4 Mbps universal access target is already outdated. Four megabits was a reasonable broadband connection in 2005. In 2010, with HD video streaming, cloud computing, and rich web applications becoming standard, 4 Mbps is the bare minimum. By 2020, it will be laughably slow.

Does This Plan Matter?

The National Broadband Plan matters as a statement of national priority and a roadmap for where policy should head. It matters because it puts concrete numbers on the problem and establishes goals that policymakers can be measured against.

But plans without funding and enforcement are just documents. The United States has been talking about broadband policy for a decade while other countries built world-class networks. South Korea started its broadband push in 1999. Japan launched its e-Japan strategy in 2001. Both countries set ambitious targets, backed them with real public investment, and hit their goals.

The National Broadband Plan is a solid diagnosis of America's broadband problem. Whether it becomes a real prescription depends entirely on whether Congress, the FCC, and the industry are willing to make the investments and structural changes necessary to deliver on its promises.

Given the political reality in Washington, cautious optimism might be generous. But at least the goals are on paper now. That's more than we had yesterday.