Comments on article at: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269004575073872840105024.html

As I write this posting, there are very few details known about the FCC’s national broadband plan. I would say the FCC is still trying to figure out how to implement net neutrality without crippling the US telecom network infrastructure.

The FCC has hinted at a goal of 100 million households having Internet access speeds of 100 Mbps by 2020. This is about 10 times faster than Internet speeds most Americans experience. This sounds like a laudable goal and one that will require lots of capital.

Pundits believe the FCC will set a goal of 90% of American households subscribing to broadband service.

In the last few months we have seen the FCC trying to think through the net neutrality issue. The FCC appears to want to implement net neutrality in wireless and wireline telecom but is trying to determine if comments made by Verizon, AT&T, and other large carriers have any validity. Verizon and AT&T have openly made comments against rushing into net neutrality. The carriers have made some very good points.

In regard to the FCC not including a consumer proposal to have carriers and cable companies share lines with Internet companies and other rivals, the FCC was wise in delaying any decision as it relates to what amounts to network sharing.

I believe that network sharing must be considered. The problem is network sharing is a fundamental change in the way carriers manage their networks. As a rule, carriers do not share network equipment. Think about it, why would an army share equipment with its enemy? The answer is they normally would not. Carriers are trying to beat each other’s brains in, in the competitive marketplace, hence you r are not going to do anything to help each other.

Internally, carriers have always worked to optimize their networks by sharing resources of various network elements. However, network sharing as it is envisioned today is about network operators working together to reduce capital expenditures and reduce time to market. These network operators can be competitors, customer-suppliers, or operators that have absolutely nothing to one with one another. At an engineering/technology level, network sharing offers an opportunity to reduce capital costs and reduce service deployment times.

Network sharing requires both carriers to have complementary networks and technology viewpoints. Network sharing also requires network management tools and processes that likely do not currently exist for a combined network. Imagine fitting a square peg into a round hole.

You can plan a step-by-step way of integrating or sharing network functions. Careful scheduling of resources can avoid resource access conflicts. Careful network planning can ensure that two different networks operated by two different operators can evolve together in an intelligent and thoughtful fashion, which can support user services.

Sharing networks is not impossible but requires a great deal of coordination and work. In this case, you can make a square peg fit into a round hole by adjusting the peg and the hole.

In regard to net neutrality see my posting entitled, “Net Neutrality – Is There an Impact on Telecom/Infocom Investment”.

My big fear regarding the FCC’s goal of establishing a national broadband policy is that it is done for the sake of politics and hence done poorly.

The best telecom regulations are the ones developed from real world and practical experiences. The best telecom regulations literally evolve from the experiences of the carriers and the consumers.

The FCC needs to set a broad set of