All posts by rebootmaine

Don’t neuter the net

government, innovation, internet April 11, 2019 rebootmaine

This week, the Maine Legislature’s Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology held a public hearing on LD 1364, a bill that would prohibit state funds from being transferred to internet service providers (ISPs) unless they commit to abiding by the now-repealed 2015 FCC order that instituted so-called “net neutrality.”

Curiously dubbed the “Open Internet Order”, the FCC deemed that companies who provide access to the internet would be considered communications utilities, instead of information services. Chairman Ajit Pai led the effort to repeal that order, and restore the framework for ISPs that had functioned since the 1990s.

Proponents of net neutrality sell the idea as a critical safeguard for a free and flourishing internet. These claims ignore the fact that the rules were only adopted in 2015, after two decades of explosive internet innovation and very few instances of ISP malfeasance.

What spurred the success of the internet was not heavy-handed government intervention but rather a light-touch approach that allowed entrepreneurship to thrive. This is the same framework to which President Bill Clinton and Congress committed in the 1990s to maintain the culture of pure innovation and information decentralization that is core to the philosophy of the World Wide Web.

Under this principle, those titans of the web (Google, Amazon, YouTube, and Twitter), institutions that we take for granted today, grew to hundred-billion dollar enterprises. In 2019, they provide immeasurable benefit to the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans who utilize their services daily.

Additional internet regulations were not needed in the 90s or 2015, and are not needed today. While net neutrality’s supporters claim that ISPs will block or throttle content to silence dissent and maximize profits, these fears have not materialized. In fact, average download and upload speeds in the U.S. climbed significantly over 2018. Speedtest, a site that measures internet speeds across the world recorded a 35.8 percent increase in broadband download speeds and a 22 percent spike in uploads over 2018. Mobile download speeds also increased over 20 percent last year.

Listening to the aspiring central planners, one might think that without net neutrality, the web has become a fascist-corporate wasteland, accessible only to those who can pay to play. In reality, the internet is the single-largest factor to democratizing economic growth in the 21st century.

As long as one owns a connected device–a group to which 95% of Americans belong–one can access the entirety of human knowledge and connect with like-minded individuals across the globe (even through the language barrier) to conduct business, study a new subject, spread their art or make a new friend.

In the scope of human history, this is truly a revolutionary shift. Low-income Americans can access this wealth of possibilities, empowering them to improve their economic standing. The internet is, at its core, an opportunity engine.

Despite predictions that repealing net neutrality would reduce incentives for internet providers to invest in capital improvements, the data show that investment actually increased in the months after the FCC’s 2017 decision. In fact, net neutrality itself had a dampening effect on investment. Between 2011 and 2015, when neutrality rules were being debated by the FCC, the mere possibility of implementing them reduced ISPs’ investments in network upgrades by $150-$200 billion. And while net neutrality rules were in place from 2015 to 2017, investment in broadband fell for the first time ever outside of an economic recession.

The FCC did the right thing in repealing net neutrality. Trying to pressure ISPs who service Maine into abiding by these rules is a mistake. The cruel joke of “net neutrality” is that the people who would suffer the most are the ones that advocates claim to be helping, those who need opportunity the most.

Originally published by The Maine Wire: www.themainewire.com

Research credit to Adam Crepeau

Airband tech connects rural Maine

business, innovation, internet, technology March 10, 2019 rebootmaine

Twenty-three million Americans–about 39 percent of the population–do not have access to broadband internet. As one can imagine, the brunt of this need is felt most in rural areas. Lack of a reliable internet connection can have huge consequences for students, teachers, and entrepreneurs seeking to better their lives.

In late July of 2018, computing and software giant Microsoft announced as part of its Rural Airband Initiative that it would partner with RTO Wireless to provide broadband internet access to 290,000 people in rural areas of Western Maine and New York State. Microsoft has already pledged a partnership with Axiom, a local internet service provider in Washington County, to connect homes and businesses to the World Wide Web.

Using empty TV broadcast channels, known as “TV White Space,” Microsoft’s ISP partners can transmit broadband internet signal much farther than Wi-Fi signal. Microsoft India reports that TV White Space signal can reach up to 6 miles, whereas the reach of Wi-Fi is limited to only 330 feet.

It is almost impossible to imagine the world today without the internet. Since its advent, the world has become much smaller. Today’s norm is near-instant global communication, access to enormous swaths of research and media, and attention of millions of potential customers, employers and investors. It may well be argued that internet access defines the age we live in today.

This is the reason why we cannot abdicate our responsibility as technological beings and cede to government the administration of internet service. Towns need not fall into the trap of a well-meaning but dangerously potent fiscal risk of a Government Owned Network (GON). A University of Pennsylvania study on the financial performance of 20 municipality-owned broadband networks showed 11 are cash-flow negative. The authors write:

“For the nine projects that are cash-flow positive, seven would need more than sixty years to break even. Only two generated sufficient cash to be on track to pay off the debt incurred within the estimated useful life of a broadband network, which is typically projected to be 30 to 40 years.

These results suggest that municipal leaders should carefully consider all of the relevant costs and risks before moving forward with a municipal fiber program. Underperforming projects have caused numerous municipalities to face defaults, bond rating reductions, and direct payments from the public coffers.”

Some argue that this is the place for government: to take the risks that the market will not, to incur debt in order to provide a service that the public needs. This observer would note that incentives matter, and government infrastructure projects–however well-intentioned–could not, and in reality do not, match the private sector in quality of service or overall cost.

In fact, cost comparisons for rural broadband infrastructure show TV White Space is well ahead of “Fiber-to-the-home” or other methods of transmission favored by town managers.

Once a municipality splurges its funds on broadband infrastructure, it is unlikely that administrators will take into account newer, more efficient technologies of providing the same service. What if a municipality has already paid to establish a network through conventional methods of distributing broadband signal across a ten square-mile town? No doubt that a “TV White Space” network would cover more customers with fewer towers and lower transmission costs, but the short-sighted town administrators opted for the best they could see in the moment. No such incentive exists for governments to move quickly to adapt and accept innovation.

In many ways this debate is much like the debate over so-called “Net Neutrality,” in which proponents argue for heavy-handed public regulation, treating the service as a public utility instead of allowing the interaction of competing wants and needs of providers and customers through markets. We forgo the unseen benefits of future innovation and instead embrace the superficial feeling of “doing something” in the present.

This the inherent problem of government “investments,” especially ones that concern rapidly-changing technologies.

And this is the benefit that markets give us: each of us does not have to know everything.

Prices are the signals. All of the distributed knowledge in a particular market is distilled into the prices we see, thus eliminating the need for complete information at the individual level. This is the defining characteristic of a market that no government or centralized decision-making institution can replicate.

Internet access is the great equalizer that Net Neutrality and GON proponents claim. The problem with their argument is that they assume that government won’t screw it up.

Open markets can help bridge the digital divide

business, government, innovation, internet March 10, 2019 rebootmaine

Many would agree that consistent access to the internet is an important part of life in 2018. It is crucial to participate and thrive in the global economy. We should do all we can to empower broader access to this “great equalizer,” especially because there are those who aim to slow the march of progress.

This summer, agency officials from several states, as well as companies like Alphabet (owner of Google), Facebook, and Amazon, filed suit against the FCC demanding reinstatement of the regulations known as “net neutrality.”

“Net neutrality” is not merely how its supporters explain it: the regulation of large internet service providers (ISPs) to treat all types of data traveling through their lines as equal and prohibit paid “fast lanes” for internet access. Its effects are more far-reaching than that. It means treating the transmission of internet as a public utility under Title II of the Federal Communications Act of 1934. Before, and since the FCC repealed the Obama-era rules, ISPs are classified under Title I, which regards the internet an “information service” rather than a utility. Because of this action, companies in that space are subject to a looser regulatory structure.

If you love the internet, lighter regulation is a good thing. It provides companies with greater incentive to invest in infrastructure and innovate. In the last 10 years, new technologies have been developed to enable more widespread connectivity, especially in underserved rural areas. From TV White Space administration to advances in small cell deployment of 5G mobile networks, private companies–with the blessing of the FCC–are finding better ways to connect us that will ensure America’s place at the forefront of opportunity.

We must not let this moment pass us by.

Consumers, workers, and investors benefit when public servants understand the importance of maintaining an open and transparent market. Lovers of the web should commend Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC for his efforts to cut out unneeded bureaucracy and preserve incentives for ISPs to invest in their systems. These reforms benefit real people. Lower costs in the market mean lower prices for customers, more innovative technology and increased infrastructure investment (a.k.a. jobs). An open market means a more connected world, which empowers more people to pursue their passions and interests, to explore new cultures and ideas, and to participate in economic growth.

The more we can do to empower industry to solve issues of reliable coverage, the quicker we can bring vital connectivity to underserved areas and enhance the ability to start and grow a business, study for school, facilitate medical access in remote areas or communicate across continents. For those of us living in areas of strong and reliable internet access, these are aspects of life that are so ubiquitous, we almost take them for granted. It is remarkable that our expectations have changed so quickly, since it has been not more than 30 years that some of the public has had access to the internet at all. In much shorter time than that we have had wireless access on mobile devices.

It can be very difficult to make the case for freer markets because we cannot predict precisely what will happen, but that’s the point. Those skeptical of capitalism will point to this uncertainty and say that companies will neglect their customers in pursuit of the slimmest profit and higher pay for executives. What a painful vision of human nature to inherit! It is ridiculous to assume that a corporation will snub customers while it has to compete for those same customers. If people have choices, companies must compete and they will become more accountable.

The market for internet today is less than ideal. It’s most likely that your ISP is one of a small cohort of cable companies dividing up territory in which they provide exclusive access. This is what both free market supporters and skeptics are trying to avoid, and is the best reason to open the market for internet service providers.

Supporters of “net neutrality” do not understand that further restrictions on these companies (current and future) will end up blocking competitors from entering the market and potentially offering cheaper and better service. By treating internet connection like a public utility, we decide–with substantial hubris– that we have the best answer at the present moment. We double down on a potentially inefficient solution to a crucial part of life.

The companies seeking protection from competition–the “rent-seekers”–are only those large companies who have the legal resources to lobby regulators. They are the only ones who can leverage the immense power of government to their advantage. Make no mistake, this is not capitalism.

This is corporatism: the collusion of government and private industry.

To eliminate this phenomenon, we should reduce the power held by government these rent-seekers seek to exploit. They would not spend so much on lobbying if it didn’t work. Get rid of the looming power of the state, and you will see the money spent to influence that power start to wane.

The best safeguard against corporatism and corruption is diffused, lighter, and less-centralized government power. Restoring “net neutrality” would concentrate that power in government, and the only beneficiaries will be the companies who can afford to go to the dance.

This piece was first published in The Maine Wire

Lessons in disruption: 19th century edition

business, government, innovation March 10, 2019 rebootmaine

Today’s world in many ways is at a crossroads, especially as technology continually reshapes the economy and specifically models of service delivery. Think Uber, Khan Academy, and even Bitcoin. New and exciting ways to innovate and disrupt capture our collective attention as we wonder what the future could bring.

It causes one to wonder: how long can some industries insulate themselves from the coming storm and resist competition? How long can public services survive in a world where private, digital solutions move faster than government by orders of magnitude?

There were other Americans in history who faced this challenge, but the major players are still the same. Would the visionaries of the 19th century (considered by some at the time to be crackpots) have been able to fight the inertia of today’s massive bureaucracy?

The story of Lysander Spooner comes to mind. In the mid-1800s, he endeavored to provide a more efficient method of delivering mail than the early Post Office. He was repeatedly targeted and punished by the U.S. Federal Government for his efforts.

Spooner was born on a farm outside Athol, Massachusetts in the frigid January of 1808. The family were outspoken abolitionists, and as a young man, Lysander Spooner immersed himself in the law, clerking under future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Charles Allen. He became an activist for many causes related to individual liberty, which led him to confront the United States Postal Service and its shoddy work.

Spooner succeeded in his early efforts to provide a better mail service at a lower cost. In 1844, postal rates had become so expensive, Spooner determined competition was sorely needed. It cost 18 ¾ cents to send a letter from Boston to New York and 25 cents to get it to Washington D.C. A letter sent from Boston to Albany, written on a quarter-ounce sheet of paper cost almost as much as the Western Railroad’s freight charge to carry a barrel of flour along the same route! To answer this, Spooner offered to carry letters daily in between each of the early American hubs: Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston (twice daily between Philadelphia and New York)–for only 6 ¼ cents per half-ounce letter. He audaciously dubbed his outfit the “American Letter Mail Company.”

He was fiercely targeted by Congress and the Postal Service for usurping their de facto monopoly on letter delivery. Multiple suits were filed against Spooner and his rebel cohorts for infractions like using Postal-owned railways for his letter-carrying, but the courts absolved him and even expressed doubt that the Federal Government could monopolize mail delivery under the Constitution.

By mid-1845, Congress saw no other option than to lower rates. It was decreed that any letter weighted under a half-ounce and delivered within 300 miles would only cost 5 cents. Spooner was making a measurable impact on the cost of mail delivery for early Americans, demonstrating a real-world need for competition. He lowered his rates in turn, but by 1851, Congress had enacted multiple protections on the government monopoly of mail, included the power of the Post Office to declare any local road a post road. This move crippled the American Letter Mail Company, and the handful of other private mail carriers still in operation, that Spooner had to disband it.

He died in 1877, and not much has been told about him since, but his story bears remembrance. Like so many innovators and entrepreneurs today, Spooner faced the prospect of a government so cumbersome, yet so protective of its own power, that an existential threat from a more nimble, more efficient private actor meant he had to be quashed.

Technology entrepreneurs–the disruptors–are needed now, more than ever to challenge the status quo across the economy. From goods to services to software, Americans are demanding more responsive, individually-tailored service. Who among us believes that our government agencies today would thrive under new competition from an army of 21st-century Lysander Spooners?

This piece was first published in The Maine Wire

Let virtual schools flourish

education, innovation, internet March 2, 2019 rebootmaine

Recently, State Representative Michael Brennan of Portland introduced a pair of bills concerning the future of virtual schooling in Maine. One of these bills, LD 513 proposes to cap enrollment at Maine’s virtual charter schools. If passed, these schools would not be allowed to accept any more students, nor expand to new grade levels beyond their current charter. The other bill introduced by Brennan, LD 576 would direct the state Department of Education to develop and implement an online learning platform, and report to the Education Committee on its findings.

These two bills, both of which Brennan is the prime sponsor, should raise red flags for school choice advocates across Maine. Virtual schools connect students in disparate rural areas with lectures, lessons, interactive activities, certified faculty, and other students in similar situations. They provide a crucial educational outlet which would be otherwise unattainable for many students.

There are only two virtual charter schools operating in Maine: Maine Virtual Academy, and Maine Connections Academy, for which the state renewed the charter agreement last November. Does forcing these otherwise successful schools to suppress expansion advance the cause of public education? Will Maine’s rural families continue to have access to the educational options they need and crave?

Surely Rep. Brennan believes that technological competence is crucial for rising generations, and that students in the most rural areas of Maine deserve access to schooling that works best for them. But why then would he submit a proposal stifling these schools?

As a former mayor of Portland, he should know the value of a diverse educational landscape. He has seen the benefits of specialized learning that schools like the Baxter Academy for Technology and Science and PATHS, Portland’s public charter school and arts and technology-focused CTE school, deliver to students and families in the greater-Portland area every day.

Even with only 9 out of the 10 allowed charter school spots filled across the state, Maine’s chartered school program ranks among the top 10 states in the country by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he has yet to be convinced that charter schools benefit students whom the traditional schooling model leaves behind. Maybe he is worried that a virtual charter school could operate without the same accountability standards as brick-and-mortar schools. I reached out to Rep. Brennan to gather some of his reasoning behind these two bills, but as of this printing he has not responded.

Now, there have been mixed reviews on the academic results of full-time purely-online schools nationally, especially looking at test scores, but these alternative learning environments should not be judged the same way that we judge the traditional schooling model. In order to even compare, the authors of a 2015 CREDO study had to develop a methodology that created a “virtual twin” for every student in a traditional public school (page 16). They didn’t have data tied to real virtual charter students, so they had to extrapolate the data based on test scores of students in traditional schools.

You see where this is going. Now is not the time to close the book virtual schools.

Considering the mediocre results of the broad public school system, educational models that dare to challenge the status quo should not be measured by how well students can regurgitate material on a test. After all, school choice advocates support alternative schools precisely because they experiment. They attempt different methods to reach students of all types of learning styles. We cannot rely on the old model to assess a new model.

Many opponents of charter schools offer kneejerk condemnations, blaming charters for competing for public school resources and attendance. The fact is, these schools provide a much-needed, diverse array of approaches to a problem that requires diverse solutions. The system should encourage experimentation.

Maine’s elected officials must do everything they can to empower parents and educational entrepreneurs, not unions and bureaucrats.

This piece was first published in The Maine Wire