Internet access

We’re not #1 and it’s okay

by Michelle Minton on February 18, 2010 · 1 comment

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Odds & Ends, Tech & Telecom

Internet access is not a right. It is a privilege; one that we pay for. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, while not explicitly demanding high-speed Internet access for all Americans did tip-toe toward that ledge in recent comments, in which he noted the importance of high-speed broadband Internet in economic development.

Pointing out that the United States ranks far behind several other nations in Internet speeds, Genachowski revealed a major goal outlined in the broadband plan–to provide speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) to 100 million households by 2020. He noted that other countries have already benefited economically from national broadband, citing one example in China.

“Look at Shenzhen, China,” he said in his speech. “In the 1980s, it was a fishing center. Today, it is a city of 12 million that produces about 25 percent of the world’s cell phones.”

Sure, America is in a tight spot right now and economically speaking we might be experience less growth than China, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing and anyway do we really want to emulate China? Do we want the government to filter out websites it doesn’t like and throw bloggers in jail for talking about things it doesn’t want us to discuss? Do we want to erode property rights and contract law?

Genachowski seems to believe that Internet access is a root cause of prosperity, employment, and economic growth. While high-speed Internet access certainly improves the efficiency of job searches, information gathering, and advertising, the reason Internet technology has developed so quickly, become ingrained in our society, and dropped precipitously in price is because of competition and the freedom to experiment. Internet technology has become more available and cheaper precisely because it is not free.  The money consumers pour into the latest technological advances drives competition, innovation, and cost cutting. Simply demanding more access to broadband may result in  more folks having the Internet, but it will likely also bring innovation to a crawl or a grinding halt. As I have noted in previous posts the way to increase access to high-speed Internet it not through regulation and government intervention, but rather by protecting the rights of tech companies and allowing them the freedom to develop and market their products as they choose.

picture via China Blawg

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.