There seems to be universal agreement that a robust broadband infrastructure will help to better educate our children, make for a more informed citizenry and ensure competitiveness in the worldwide marketplace. I submit that broadband Internet and a way of using the broadband (some device) are necessary to ensure equality of opportunity for all of our citizens.
So, as the debate about universal telecommunications service gets into gear with this new Congress, let us hope for a bipartisan solution that encompasses the big picture and looks beyond telecom to create a universal broadband solution. I have not finished formulating my thoughts on the topic of universal broadband, but some questions that need exploring include:
I am interested in your thoughts – please comment below
Hi, Ken,
Policy-makers should think long and hard about the unintended consequences of NOT having universal broadband. Consolidation of the media, coupled with cost-cutting measures and the high costs of publishing, point to the possibility that newspapers will be largely gone – and replaced by publishing on the Internet, which of course is already common. This is a double-edged situation: Publishers increasingly charge for online access (see: New York Times, Wall St Journal, Scientific American, etc) and ISPs charge for access.
Sure, commercial broadband operators must charge admission. Nobody faults them for that. But what happens when increasingly large segments of the population can’t afford to access the information they need in order to function in our democracy?
If America is about equality (“all men created equal”), one solution would for the govt to step in and help provide it for those people without the means to pay. People will cry “SOCIALISM!” but the long term social costs of not investing in this may far outweigh the costs.
Policy-makers need to have an honest discussion about this, and balance commercial interests with common interest.
This is not only a US issue. In Brazil, there’s a deliberate effort underway to bring broadband into the big city slums (favelas), and there is sure to be a healthy IPTV market there. E-learning will be delivered over interactive/ip television because a large segment of the population cannot afford home computers. At least 5 major operators are making IPTV plans there. The government is creating incentives for them.
OK, end of soapbox… – Steve
Steve,
Thanks for the feedback and the food for thought!
Access to the pipe is one thing and is very necessary. The other thing that is needed is access to devices that make the pipe worthwhile. Whether this is a set-top or the fabeled $100 computer, a device is necessary. And there is precedent for a device that is supported by some sort of universal service fund – the telephone.
As to the socialism argument, I think this is a bit different, as it is about ensuring equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, which is classic socialism.
One key will be to shift dollars from existing programs which are outdated or need updating; a huge challenge given all of the entrenched interests. The other challenge is creating a structure that encourages innovation, while ensuring availability and usage of broadband. More later.
I think there are several aspects of this that will have unintended consequences, and several potential drivers of universal broadband. For example, if the municipal Wi-Fi and especially municipal FTTP networks are successful (and by that I mean if they become money-makers for the municipalities) we will see an explosion of government interest in wholesale networks. This may drive many public servants to strive to extend the benefits beyond the municipalities.
I would prefer to have the government stay out of the network-building business, but if I was a service provider I would be working very hard to develop a very good relationship with every government entity. Does anyone think that lawsuits are the right strategy?