Broadband Issues

Two years ago, the U.S. was 10th among nations of the world regarding the number of citizens with access to high-speed Internet.

Today, it’s not even number 10.

Is there a problem, here? It depends on who you ask. Everyone agrees that investment in broadband infrastructure is a good thing in terms of economic activity. They also agree that growth is in danger of exceeding capacity. What people disagree on is how the problem should be addressed.

Critics claim that broadband is being held hostage by a “cozy duopoly” of DSL and cable providers, and that consumers suffer as a result. While it is true that small and rural communities lack choices in this regard, larger metro areas often have a choice of three or more providers, plus wireless – which in some large cities, is being offered “free” to residents as a public service, financed with tax revenue.

Companies are indeed making large investments in high-speed Internet. As prices (in some markets, at least) fall,  consumers increasingly abandon their slow “dial-up” connections for cable and DSL. While the U.S. is behind 11 other nations in terms of high-speed access, it’s worth noting that when dial-up users are factored in, the number of U.S. users as a percentage is substantially higher than in other nations – and at least 60% of those appear to be occasional, casual users who express little interest in broadband.

Considering the growth of web activity, however, most everyone agrees that universal high-speed Internet access would be a good thing. The question is, what should the U.S. government do to encourage this, if anything?

This is a complex and contentious issue. On one side are those who believe that it should be left completely to the unfettered free-market.  This would involve auctioning off spectrum to the highest bidders to “ensure that it goes to its highest-valued use.” Presumably, some of this use would go to universal broadband.  These people believe regulations should be eliminated so providers would not be required to negotiate with local governments to offer video services over broadband lines,.  “Net Neutrality,” the idea that all web content should be treated equally, should not be legislated, they say. Because the Internet represents a dynamic and constantly growing marketplace, they claim that any regulation would be counterproductive.

If private corporations’ first mandate is to serve the public good, this viewpoint is valid. It should be noted, however, that present corporate charter laws no longer require that they serve the public good at all. The sole purpose of a corporation is to make a profit and a return on shareholder investment.

If the large telecom companies can be trusted to serve the best interests of the public without government oversight – even if it means a smaller profit margin -,\ then by all means they should be left alone to do so.

Via CNN

Two years ago, the U.S. was 10th among nations of the world regarding the number of citizens with access to high-speed Internet.

Today, it’s not even number 10.

Is there a problem, here? It depends on who you ask. Everyone agrees that investment in broadband infrastructure is a good thing in terms of economic activity. They also agree that growth is in danger of exceeding capacity. What people disagree on is how the problem should be addressed.

Critics claim that broadband is being held hostage by a “cozy duopoly” of DSL and cable providers, and that consumers suffer as a result. While it is true that small and rural communities lack choices in this regard, larger metro areas often have a choice of three or more providers, plus wireless – which in some large cities, is being offered “free” to residents as a public service, financed with tax revenue.

Companies are indeed making large investments in high-speed Internet. As prices (in some markets, at least) fall,  consumers increasingly abandon their slow “dial-up” connections for cable and DSL. While the U.S. is behind 11 other nations in terms of high-speed access, it’s worth noting that when dial-up users are factored in, the number of U.S. users as a percentage is substantially higher than in other nations – and at least 60% of those appear to be occasional, casual users who express little interest in broadband.

Considering the growth of web activity, however, most everyone agrees that universal high-speed Internet access would be a good thing. The question is, what should the U.S. government do to encourage this, if anything?

This is a complex and contentious issue. On one side are those who believe that it should be left completely to the unfettered free-market.  This would involve auctioning off spectrum to the highest bidders to “ensure that it goes to its highest-valued use.” Presumably, some of this use would go to universal broadband.  These people believe regulations should be eliminated so providers would not be required to negotiate with local governments to offer video services over broadband lines,.  “Net Neutrality,” the idea that all web content should be treated equally, should not be legislated, they say. Because the Internet represents a dynamic and constantly growing marketplace, they claim that any regulation would be counterproductive.

If private corporations’ first mandate is to serve the public good, this viewpoint is valid. It should be noted, however, that present corporate charter laws no longer require that they serve the public good at all. The sole purpose of a corporation is to make a profit and a return on shareholder investment.

If the large telecom companies can be trusted to serve the best interests of the public without government oversight – even if it means a smaller profit margin -,\ then by all means they should be left alone to do so.

Via CNN