We've been very hard lately on the FCC's broadband plan, noting repeatedly that it fails to tackle competition, and that the agency seems completely unwilling to make any significant decision that would ruffle feathers at the nation's wealthiest and largest carriers. Recent comments by plan architect Blair Levin only served to support that assessment, indicating that Levin and several high-ranking officials at the FCC fear incumbent lobbying influence and possible political fallout from actually trying to change things. That's business as usual at the FCC.

"(the plan) accomplishes very little for affordability, quality, speed, or availability of broadband in the U.S." -Broadband analyst Dave Burstein

Why? According to Burstein, lots of talented and bright people collected data and worked on the plan internally at the agency, but the end result is a timid mess due to three factors. One, it's not clear that the money or Congressional support is there to accomplish what needs to be done. Two, Levin and a number of FCC higher ups are playing it politically safe, and the political influence of carriers like AT&T is too potent in DC. Three, FCC boss Julius Genachowski is unwilling to impose tough, substantive regulation where necessary (see point number two).

"Genachowski made it almost impossible for the plan to accomplish very much when he pulled strong government action off the table," says Burstein. "Where the market doesn't work, you need to use government power to get results -- that could be direct regulation or indirect influence," he says. "Companies that large are constantly coming to government for favors, from tax breaks to merger approvals. Refuse those occasionally and they have to make a deal. Almost every government except the U.S. sees the regulator as a negotiator for a better deal for consumers," argues Burstein.

Here in the States, regulators exist these days for one purpose: to get a better deal for the company with the most money. Half of the time, they wind up employed at those same companies, either directly or via hired think tank. With companies like AT&T now freelancing as NSA analysts and wielding one of the most potent lobbying operations in the world (with the ability to change the law should they break it), it's fair to wonder where AT&T ends and Uncle Sam begins these days.

For those in the sector who equate "regulation" to puppy murder, Burnstein's saying you don't even need regulation much of the time -- you just need government officials that are willing to take a stand and upset incumbent carriers now and again on principle. Every indication is that at no point have Levin and Genachowski been willing to really stand up to companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast when it comes to the national plan.

"Julius has adopted a policy of relying on voluntary cooperation of the carriers to get things done rather than using the authority he has," says Burstein. "Except for net neutrality -- promised repeatedly in the campaign -- he hasn't been willing to make a decision they would strongly oppose," he notes. He's actually being kind to the FCC, given most analysis of the FCC's early network neutrality rule drafts indicate that like the national broadband plan, they new rules also lack backbone.

The result of this timidness? A national broadband plan that looks like it covers a lot of territory but accomplishes very little in terms of really helping consumers with broadband price, availability and quality. "High speed Internet in the U.S. is telco and cable both watching each other closely for how high they can raise prices," notes Burstein. "Verizon and AT&T have raised basic DSL rates 30% recently despite their own costs going down." We reported AT&T's latest price hikes just this morning.

The FCC will be beginning a public relations onslaught soon as they gear up for presenting the plan to Congress in thirteen days, and it's going to be important for the press to look beyond the plan's shiny exterior to the hollow cavern within. The press will be wowed by some of the numbers put forth, but much of it will be empty if they bother to dig -- like Genachowski's claim of delivering 100 Mbps to 100 million homes, something that will happen with or without government help thanks to DOCSIS 3.0. Cable already passes 125 million homes, and DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades would be relatively inexpensive to deploy fully -- assuming competitive motivation is there (hint: it's not).

That's not to say there won't be some scattered noble efforts within the plan, but they'll be focused on uncontroversial accomplishments, most of which in one way or another put money in the pockets of the biggest operators. Like the creation of a national emergency wireless communications network (guess who'll get that contract?), or the expansion of available spectrum for the nation's incumbent wireless operators. There's an endless ocean of things covered by the plan that are simply fluff, including giving taxpayer dollars to what's essentially an ad campaign for cable service.