broadband as a utility

The Folly of 100%

by Evan Banks on July 28, 2009

in Regulation, Tech & Telecom

The same groups that have been insisting for years that there is something fundamentally wrong with the United States’ international broadband ranking are also the most strident advocates for the necessity of broadband’s total market saturation, even to the point of calling on benevolent old Uncle Sam to subsidize broadband deployment nationwide.

Consumer advocacy groups and even some telecom companies are lining up at the FCC’s door with petitions in hand and supplicant requests on their lips, claiming that access to broadband is a basic public necessity and should be meticulously regulated as such, right here and right now.

These groups would liken anything less than a National Rollout Plan to living in some myopic Digital Stone Age in which subhumans scratch tribal patterns on silicon with primitive tools and the harsh tonal anecdotes of 56K modems whisper sweet nothings to bended ears throughout the land; a place where bandwidth is hoarded by rich and powerful chieftains who deign the Luddite, unwashed masses unworthy of worshipping at the sacred altar of port 80.

Actual statistics, and our own experiences, tell a different story.

Keep in mind that increased market penetration won’t necessarily make broadband more affordable. In fact, companies looking to recoup diminishing marginal returns that arise from providing access to areas that would otherwise be off the grid could justify raising rates across the board. In other words, if the feds help or force ISPs to lay fiber to Farmer Wallis’ homestead in rural America but Wallis declines service because he has no need for high-def streaming video, hardcore online gaming, or P2P networks and doesn’t want to pay for a fat pipe, we all could end up paying the difference in our monthly rates.

We should consider the future nature of broadband as well. Emerging technologies such as LTE and satellite service will undoubtedly make mind-numbingly fast and reliable wireless broadband a reality in the next decade, and then we’ll look rather silly with all our subsidized fiber and cable, won’t we?

FACT Check the Internet’s Future

by Nick Brown on January 30, 2009 · 6 comments

in Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere, Tech & Telecom

The Future of American Communications (FACT) working group funded by the Media Democracy Fund released its official report on the 26th of January. The report, which carries the working group’s recommendations to President Obama, offers up some various proposals that purport to hold promise for the future of the Internet.

As the title, “…and communications for all,” suggests though,  there is an underlying current of argument that Internet access is a right, and therefore should be treated as a utility (and here, and here).  Internet is not a right, it is a privilege and should therefore be treated as such.  In the same vein, access to information is not a right; it is a privilege.  The Internet is simply a medium to connect to content and information in general.  If this is a right, then should every American also be entitled to a computer?  Should everyone be given Blackberries on taxpayers’ dime?  These would both follow if we assume that Internet connectivity is a “right.”

FACT takes the concept of a “right” to Internet access further, also recommending that government provide training so that people know how to use a computer and access the Internet.  At some point, all this gets out of hand.  Just as driving isn’t a right and we don’t rely on government to subsidize our cars and train us to drive, Internet is not necessity and should not be given to us by government.

Based on the recommendation of FACT to extend broadband networks to every rural area of the United States and train members of those communities to use computers and the Internet, I would estimate that costs of the project will be roughly in the neighborhood of 1 Godzillion dollars.  But at the current rate politicians are throwing government dollars at “infrastructure” projects–see the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus plan–it’s not hard to imagine a future massive broadband initiative sailing through Congress.

The biggest problem with FACT’s recommendations may be they would require all networks to offer open access (wireless networks included) and adhere to the principles of net neutrality. This means that network operators–who will carry the larger burden of the costs of constructing and maintaining these networks–would be forced to run their networks in line with government regulations,  instead of in a way that the companies believe best suits consumers.  Additionally, if taxpayer-funded networks were to be built in every rural area of the country, at some point government-subsidized networks would outnumber private networks, easing the passage of legislation to enforce neutrality on those networks as well.

These are free market decisions.  The bottom line is that if it was in the interest of ISPs to build networks in rural areas, they would have already done so. Expansion of networks should occur as the market demands them.  The Internet is not a utility and is not a right.  And it is not the duty of the taxpayer to teach individuals how to use it.