Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy
In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had
ongoing highperformance computing programs, but no central coordinating
body existed to ensure long-term coordination and planning. To provide
such a framework, Congress passed the High-Performance Computing and
Communications Program Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194) to enhance the effectiveness
of the various programs. In conjunction with the passage of the act, the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released Grand Challenges:High- Performance Computing and Communications. That document outlined a
research and development (R&D) strategy for high-performance computing
and a framework for a multiagency program, the High-Performance Computing
and Communications (HPCC) Program. The HPCC Program has evolved over time
and is now called the Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development (NITRD) Program, to better reflect its expanded mission.
Current concerns are the role of the federal government in supporting IT
R&D and the level of funding to allot to it. Proponents of federal
support of information technology (IT) R&D assert that it has produced
positive outcomes for the country and played a crucial role in supporting long-term
research into fundamental aspects of computing. Such fundamentals provide broad practical
benefits, but generally take years to realize. Additionally, the unanticipated
results of research are often as important as the anticipated results.
Another aspect of government-funded IT research is that it often leads to
open standards, something that many perceive as beneficial, encouraging
deployment and further investment. Industry, on the other hand, is more
inclined to invest in proprietary products and will diverge from a common
standard when there is a potential competitive or financial advantage to
do so. Proponents of government support believe that the outcomes achieved
through the various funding programs create a synergistic environment in which
both fundamental and application-driven research are conducted, benefitting
government, industry, academia, and the public. Supporters also believe
that such outcomes justify government’s role in funding IT R&D, as
well as the growing budget for the NITRD Program. Critics assert that the
government, through its funding mechanisms, may be picking “winners and losers”
in technological development, a role more properly residing with the private
sector. For example, the size of the NITRD Program may encourage industry
to follow the government’s lead on research directions rather than
selecting those directions itself.
The President’s FY2014 budget request for the NITRD Program is $3.968 billion
and the FY2012 NITRD actual expenditures totaled $3.810 billion. FY2013
actual expenditures have not yet been calculated. The President’s FY2013
budget request for the NITRD Program was $3.808 billion. FY2013
appropriations bills from the Senate and the House were not passed before the
end of the 112th Congress. H.J.Res. 117, passed by the House on September 13, 2012,
provides a framework for a six-month Continuing Resolution that began on
October 1, 2013. On March 26, 2013, the President signed the Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113- 6), which
funded the majority of the federal government at close to FY2012 levels for the remainder
of FY2013. Further, on October 17, the President signed the Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-46), that continues appropriations through January 15,
2014.
Date of Report: October 22, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: RL33586
Price: $29.95
To Order:
RL33586 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing
Charles B
Goldfarb, Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
The statutory framework for the communications
sector largely was enacted prior to the commercial development and
deployment of digital technology, Internet Protocol (IP), broadband networks,
and online voice, data, and video services. These new technologies have driven changes
in market structure throughout the communications sector. Technological
spillovers have allowed for the convergence of previously service-specific
networks, creating new competitive entry opportunities. But they also have
created certain incentives for market consolidation. Firms also have used
new technologies to attempt to “invent around” statutory obligations or prohibitions,
such as retransmission consent and copyright requirements. In addition, firms
have developed new technologies that are attractive to consumers because
they allow them to avoid paying for programming or allow them to skip the
commercials that accompany video programming, but present a challenge to
the traditional business model.
The expert agencies charged with implementing the relevant statutes—the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and the Copyright Office—have had to determine if and how
to apply the law to technologies and circumstances that were not considered
when the statutes were developed. Frequently, this has led parties unhappy
with those interpretations to file court suits, which has delayed rule
implementation and increased market uncertainty. The courts, too, have had
to reach decisions with limited guidance from the statutes.
Members on both sides of the aisle as well as industry stakeholders have
suggested that many existing provisions in the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, and in the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, need to be
updated to address current technological and market circumstances, though
there is no consensus about the changes needed. Three broad, interrelated
policy issues are likely to be prominent in any policy debate over how to
update the statutory framework:
-
how to accommodate technological change that already has taken place and, more
dynamically, how to make the framework flexible enough to accommodate future
technological change;
-
given that underlying scale economies allow for only a very small number of efficient
facilities-based network competitors, how to give those few network providers
the incentive to invest and innovate while also constraining their ability to
impede downstream competition from independent service providers that must use
their networks; and
-
given that spectrum is an essential communications input, how to implement a framework
that fosters efficient spectrum use and management. .
Date of Report: September 30, 2013
Number of Pages: 52
Order Number: R43248
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R43248 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Given the large potential impact broadband access may have on the economic
development of rural America, concern has been raised over a “digital
divide” between rural and urban or suburban areas with respect to
broadband deployment. While there are many examples of rural communities
with state of the art telecommunications facilities, recent surveys and studies
have indicated that, in general, rural areas tend to lag behind urban and
suburban areas in broadband deployment.
Citing the lagging deployment of broadband in many rural areas, Congress and
the Administration acted in 2001 and 2002 to initiate pilot broadband loan
and grant programs within the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Subsequently, Section 6103 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) amended the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936 to authorize a loan and loan guarantee program to
provide funds for the costs of the construction, improvement, and
acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible
rural communities. The RUS/USDA houses two assistance programs exclusively
dedicated to financing broadband deployment: the Rural Broadband
Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the Community Connect Grant
Program.
The 110th Congress considered reauthorization and modification of the loan and
loan guarantee program as part of the 2008 farm bill. The Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 became law on June 18, 2008 (P.L.
110-246). Title VI (Rural Development) contains authorizing language for
the broadband loan program.
The 112th Congress considered reauthorization of the broadband loan program in the
2012 farm bill. While the 2012 farm bill was not enacted by the 112th Congress, Title VII of the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extended farm bill programs by one
year (through September 30, 2013). In the 113th Congress, 2013 farm bill
legislation passed by the House and Senate (H.R. 2642/S. 954) includes the
broadband program reauthorization provisions previously contained in the
2012 farm bill.
Date of Report: September 20, 2013
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: RL33816
Price: $29.95
To Order:
RL33816 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
