Expert Opinion
Aspen Dispatch: US Engagements and Competitiveness in the Global Economy
ASPEN, COLORADO, August 19 – Day two of the Aspen Summit examines the state of global innovation and economics and the outlook for US performance. Leading global public affairs and trade experts considered the state of the global economy and the health of US competitiveness in the day’s first panel.
Blog Entries
ASPEN, COLORADO, August 19 – The last day of the Aspen Summit began with a plenary address from the inimitable President of the Fed Reserve Bank of Dallas, Richard Fisher. One of the day’s themes will focus on US global economic competitiveness and a notorious optimist in regards to the sustaining entrepreneurial and innovative spirit that drives the US economy like Mr. Fisher was a great choice to get everyone thinking about what it will take.
The First Panel of the day:
Moderator:
· Bret Swanson, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Global Innovation, The Progress & Freedom Foundation
Participants:
· Katherine McGuire, Vice President, Government Relations, Business Software Alliance
· Peter Pitsch, Director, Communications Policy, Intel Corporation
· Steve Stewart, Director, Public Affairs, IBM Governmental Programs
Timothy Stratford, Assistant US Trade Representative for China
Leading off, Bret Swanson asks the panelists on their outlook for the future of free trade, US global economic engagements, and the innovation economy and asks “engage or retreat?”
Katherine McGuire says “clearly we can’t retreat, we’ve moved into the eye of the storm” in terms of our integration with the global economy. In considering the current state of US global competitiveness, Ms. McGuire focuses on soon-to-be-released research by her company (and the Economist Intelligence Unit), the 2nd annual competitiveness index. The study focuses on global economic indicators like Human Capital, the Innovation Friendly Culture of a nation (including infrastructure capacity like broadband deployment and computers per capita), Open Competitive Business environment, and Government leadership that strikes a balance between open-market principles and policies to facilitate innovation.
Some early results from the study, according to Ms. McGuire: the US is still #1 in terms of its overall global competitiveness and Taiwan, Sweden, Denmark, South Korea earn high ranks, with Taiwan moving from 6 to 2; Denmark from 8 to 5 thanks to business environment and infrastructure; Canada from 9 to 6; Japan suffered the deepest decline because of changes to R & D and Patent filings, which is down. According to the latest Economist data, the number 1 area where US competitiveness is under threat is in infrastructure, with broadband penetration levels well below Western Europe and East Asia. Ms. McGuire concluded by saying that the US’ open competitive business environment is now also under threat because of increasing protectionist calls to restrict access to markets.
Steve Stewart of IBM is not about to echo those protectionist calls – his company’s growth last year was immensely imbalanced in favor of international markets. “Global integration is the new playing field and innovation is the way you win the game” Steve says, quoting his boss.
The importance of integration and international trade was re-iterated by the US Trade Representative for China, Timothy Stewart who posited that if US businesses want to succeed globally, then they can’t ignore China. But China also “creates problems for us,” like IP infringement and problems associated with a (now partially) centrally planned economy that doesn’t always respect the rule of law. Mr. Stewart’s advice to US business owners: “Make sure you know what’s going on in China in regards to your industry and when you see things you don’t like, let’s talk.”
Meanwhile, Intel’s Peter Pitsch had his own advice for the US government, urging policy makers to sustain a sound currency, facilitate free trade, support sound education policies…and facilitate the discovery of innovations that positively impact the global market place. Peter also warned against the type of isolation that Katherine MaGuire fears is approaching, saying that “there’s a bit of a regression going on…in part it’s the fault of the dot-com bust and imperfect markets, but more fundamentally…there seems to be a reversion to a very old approach to these economic problems.”
There was some optimistic news to report from this panel on the continued openness of the global economy with Timothy Stratford saying that Doha is not quite dead. “The dust is still settling,” he says, and Pascal Lamie is making the diplomatic rounds as we speak. Additionally, Mr. Stratford submits that current ruptures in the global economy could shift the interests of China to bring them more into line with other parties to Doha.
The key policy recommendation that emerged from the panel’s discussion is that if the US is to enhance and expand its global economic engagements (and thus, its global economic competitiveness), then policy makers will have to facilitate a shift in America’s skill set so that it can both benefit and compete. Math and Science education was the foremost priority according to many of the panelists and audience members. The US needs to work towards creating a vibrant laboratory at home where innovations can develop and be easily exported to the rest of the world.
Broadband's Impact
Lindsay Mark Lewis: As Inflation Spiked, Broadband is ‘The Dog That Didn’t Bark’
Why have internet prices remained constant while demand surges? It all boils down to investment.

There are many lessons to be learned from last year’s midterms, but Democrats should not take the results as some broad endorsement of the economic status quo. Midterm voters identified inflation as the most important issue driving their votes. And while the latest Labor Department data shows the producer price index decreasing by 0.1% in February, prices remain 4.6% higher than a year ago, which means lawmakers still have work to do to bring inflation under control.
And as they search for ideas, they may want to examine the dog that didn’t bark – in particular, the one sector of the economy that has been an interesting counternarrative to the otherwise troubling inflation story.
Home internet service is one of the few major living costs that isn’t skyrocketing. In fact, the most popular broadband speed tier one year ago actually costs 15% less today, on average.
This success story – and the bipartisan policies behind it – offers important lessons.
Remarkably, broadband prices are declining even as demand surges. The pandemic made home internet service more essential than ever for education, job opportunities and health care – all driving internet traffic 25% to 50% above pre-pandemic levels.
So why have internet prices remained constant – even declined by some measures – while demand surges? In short, it all boils down to investment.
When the pandemic cratered economic activity in the spring of 2020, executives in many industries – from lumber to oil refineries to computer chips – made the snap decision to pull back on long-term investments in new factories and manufacturing capacity. When the economy roared back, those industries couldn’t meet demand, sending prices soaring.
In the broadband industry, conversely, providers responded by investing $86 billion into their network infrastructure in 2021 – the biggest one-year total in nearly 20 years. These investments are fueling faster speeds – fixed broadband speeds are up 35% nationwide in the past 12 months – while making sure networks have the capacity to handle growing traffic needs.
This teaches us three things.
First, we should observe a Hippocratic oath and “do no harm.” America’s broadband system has thrived under a decades long bipartisan consensus for light-touch, pro-investment policies. Nearly $2 trillion in private capital built the networks that now deliver American consumers higher speeds at lower per-megabit prices than consumers enjoy in Europe, despite having to cover greater distances and more difficult terrain.
This further tells us that it’s precisely the wrong time to abandon this successful model in favor of price controls and utility-style regulation, as some House and Senate progressives have proposed. Even Democratic policy experts acknowledge that approach would be toxic for private investment.
Second, policymakers need to recognize that broadband isn’t immune from the supply chain crunches plaguing so many other sectors of the economy. Broadband buildouts are already getting delayed by shortages in fiber cable, network hardware and skilled labor. And that’s before $42 billion in federal infrastructure funding goes out the door starting next year, which will only intensify demand for these scarce supplies.
That means rural buildout projects funded by federal dollars are likely to see inflationary pressures – and take longer to complete – than Congress expected when it passed the infrastructure bill in 2021. That will put pressure on state broadband offices to be even more diligent about waste, and to emphasize reliable supply chains with experienced network builders. Bidders will also need the flexibility to buy fiber from wherever they can manage to source it, even if that means relaxing the program’s strict “Buy American” rules. This requires a regulator ability to do smart tweaking of rules to expedite buildouts cost-effectively.
Third, we need to help more financially struggling households get connected. Thanks to President Joe Biden’s Affordable Connectivity Program – and an agreement with 20 broadband companies – 48 million households can now get home internet service for free.
But more than a year later, just over a third of eligible households have signed up. Investing in enrollment campaigns and digital literacy training programs is the fastest way we can crank up the dial on enrollment. Relatively small investments here could pay huge dividends in bringing millions more Americans into the digital economy.
Even with these remaining challenges, the overall contours of American broadband policy – encouraging investment, competition and affordability – are working well. And as the saying goes: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” In an inflation-roiled economy that defies easy answers, we should learn from – not mess with – this all-too-rare success story.
Lindsay Mark Lewis is executive director of the Progressive Policy Institute. Contact him at llewis@ppionline.org. This piece was originally published in the Richmond Times on March 24, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.
Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.
Expert Opinion
David Strauss: How Will State Broadband Offices Score BEAD Applications?
Fiber, coax and fixed wireless network plans dependent on BEAD funding demand scrutiny.

Given the vital ways in which access to broadband enables America, adequate Internet for all is a necessary and overdue undertaking. To help close the digital divide, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes $42.5 billion in Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment funding for the last mile. Add to this the estimated level of subgrantee matching funds and the total last mile figure rises to $64 billon, according to the BEAD Funding Allocation and Project Award Framework from ACA Connects and Cartesian.
The federal funds will be disbursed by the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration to the State Broadband Offices who will then award subgrants to service providers. On June 30, each state will find out their allocation amount. By 2024, the states will establish a competitive subgrantee process to start selecting applicants and distributing funds.
A critical element of the selection process is the methodology for scoring the technical merits of each subgrantee and their proposal. Specific assessment criteria to be used by each state are not yet set. However, the subgrantee’s network must be built to meet these key performance and technical requirements:
- Speeds of at least 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 20 Mbps upload
- Latency low enough for “reasonably foreseeable, real-time interactive applications”
- No more than 48 hours of outage a year
- Regular conduit access points for fiber projects
- Begin providing service within four years of subgrant date
What level of scrutiny will each state apply in evaluating the technical merits of the applicants and their plans?
Based on our conversations with a number of state broadband leaders, the answers could be as varied as the number of states. For example, some states intend to rigorously judge each applicant’s technical capability, network design and project readiness. In contrast, another state believes that a deep upfront assessment is not needed because the service provider will not receive funds until certain operational milestones are met. Upon completion, an audit of the network’s performance could be implemented.
We, at Broadband Success Partners, are a bit biased about the level of technical scrutiny we think the states should apply. Having assessed over 50 operating and planned networks for private sector clients, we appreciate the importance of a thorough technical assessment. Our network analyses, management interviews and physical inspections have yielded a valuable number of dos and don’ts. By category, below are some of the critical issues we’ve identified.
Network Planning & Design
- Inadequate architecture, lacking needed redundancy
- Insufficient network as-built diagrams and documentation
- Limited available fiber with many segments lacking spares
Network Construction
- Unprotected, single leased circuit connecting cities to network backbone
- Limited daisy-chained bandwidth paths on backhaul network
- Lack of aerial slack storage, increasing repair time and complexity
Network Management & Performance
- Significant optical ground wire plant, increasing potential maintenance cost
- Internet circuit nearing capacity
- Insufficient IPv4 address inventory for planned growth
Equipment
- Obsolete passive optical network equipment
- Risky use of indoor optical network terminals in outdoor enclosures
- Sloppy, untraceable wiring
Technical Service / Network Operations Center
- Technical staff too lean
- High labor rate for fiber placement
- Insufficient NOC functionality
While the problems we uncover do not always raise to the level of a red flag, it happens often enough to justify this exercise. Our clients who invest their own capital in these networks certainly think so. The same should hold true for networks funded with taxpayer money. Fiber, coax and fixed wireless network plans dependent on BEAD funding demand serious scrutiny.
David Strauss is a Principal and Co-founder of Broadband Success Partners, the leading broadband consulting firm focused exclusively on network evaluation and technical due diligence. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.
Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.
Expert Opinion
Raul Katz: Can Investments in Robust Broadband Help States Limit the Downside of Recession?
If managed effectively, the BEAD program could play a key role in allowing our economy to weather the storms ahead.

The United States economy is still undergoing persistent inflation rates, high interest rates, and stock market volatility. According to a Wall Street Journal survey conducted in January, economists put the probability of a recession at 61 percent.
Simultaneously, we are also on the eve of the largest federal broadband funding distribution in American history. All 50 U.S. states have begun formulating plans to help connect their communities through the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment Program, and its funds are expected to be distributed within months. That, coupled with the Affordable Connectivity Program and other initiatives designed to subsidize broadband access, will play a critical role in connecting every American to the internet. This once-in-a-generation investment in building more robust and resilient broadband networks can help states weather the coming economic storm. To learn how, we simply need to look back to March 2020.
When the COVID-19 pandemic initially cratered the economy, states that had a higher rate of fixed broadband penetration were more insulated from its disruptive effects. Simply put, better-connected states had more resilient economies according to a study I authored for Network:On. In a separate study, by using an economic growth model that accounts for the role fixed broadband plays in mitigating the societal losses resulting from the pandemic, I also found that more connected societies exhibit higher economic resiliency during a pandemic-induced disruption.
In the study conducted for Network:On, we documented that U.S. states with higher broadband adoption rates were able to counteract a larger portion of the economic losses caused by the pandemic than states with lower broadband adoption rates. The states most adversely affected by the pandemic, such as Arkansas and Mississippi, were those exhibiting lower broadband penetration rates. Conversely, states with higher broadband penetration, such as Delaware and New Jersey, were able to mitigate a large portion of losses, as connectivity levels allowed for important parts of the economy to continue functioning during lockdowns.
Nationally, if the entire U.S. had penetration figures equal to those of the more connected states during the pandemic, the GDP would have contracted only one percent— a much softer recession than the actual 2.2 percent. These findings show that investments in closing the digital divide and ensuring everyone can access a high-speed Internet connection are critical to building economic resilience.
Today, wide penetration rate disparities exist between states — such as Delaware’s rate of 91.4 percent compared to Arkansas’ rate of 39.7 percent. Because of this, public authorities should focus on creating policy frameworks that allow operators to spur infrastructure deployments and find the optimal technological mixes to deliver the highest performance to users.
Broadband access matters. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum and is crucial to an area’s economic health. As state broadband offices around the country prepare to deploy BEAD funding, they must remember that broadband access and adoption are imperative to building economic resiliency.
Beyond my own study, a review of the research examining the economic impact of digital technologies over the past two decades confirms that telecommunications and broadband positively impact economic growth, employment, and productivity. This reinforces how consequential these government investments in broadband infrastructure and adoption are to protecting America’s economic health.
The BEAD program still has its challenges, but if managed effectively, it could play a key role in allowing our economy to weather the storms ahead.
Dr. Raul Katz is the president at Telecom Advisory Services LLC and author of the study: The Role of Robust Broadband Infrastructure in Building Economic Resiliency During the COVID-19 Pandemic. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.
Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.
-
Broadband Roundup4 weeks ago
AT&T Floats BEAD in USF Areas, Counties Concerned About FCC Map, Alabama’s $25M for Broadband
-
Big Tech3 weeks ago
Preview the Start of Broadband Breakfast’s Big Tech & Speech Summit
-
Big Tech4 weeks ago
House Innovation, Data, and Commerce Chairman Gus Bilirakis to Keynote Big Tech & Speech Summit
-
Big Tech3 weeks ago
Watch the Webinar of Big Tech & Speech Summit for $9 and Receive Our Breakfast Club Report
-
Infrastructure2 weeks ago
BEAD Build Timelines in Jeopardy if ‘Buy America’ Waivers Not Granted, White House Budget Office Told
-
#broadbandlive3 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on March 22, 2023 – Robocalls, STIR/SHAKEN and the Future of Voice Telephony
-
#broadbandlive4 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on March 8: A Status Update on Tribal Broadband
-
Infrastructure4 weeks ago
Nearly 80 Service Providers Engaged Equipment in Secure Networks Blacklist: FCC Report