Broadband Nation

Apologies - I'm so used to writing only about telecommunications companies that I sometimes am not clear.  I should have said that private service providers - particularly the big ones like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and lesser big ones like Qwest - are opposed to universal broadband if it means government providing services (whether by a muni or public power utility).

I think the majority of all private businesses would be in strong support of universal broadband.  Further, i think that if we do not come up with a solution to our broadband problems, it will be the actions of a few private companies that greatly damage the U.S. private setor overall. 

Just as with electricity and phones, the private sector is in no position to provide services to everyone in this country and certainly not at the level we need them.  That some in the private sector block any public attempt to get broadband to everyone is reprehensible.

Thanks, NewRules. I'm confused a bit by one part of your comment -- that private businesses are resistant to universal broadband. I'm not sure that's the case for small businesses, who can't get by without it, particularly in rural areas where they've been requesting it for years. As for big businesses, I can't see why they would resist either.

Are you referring to ISPs as private companies that may resist due to a sense that there isn't a sufficient customer base in some areas to make high-speed Internet profitable?

I enjoyed your piece and wholeheartedly agree that policymakers must realize that our IT and broadband problems go beyond access.  However, I think you use a bit of a straw man in noting that not everyone agrees to extending broadband to all rural areas.  Without getting too nitpicky (I think), I would not imagine a scenario where we could get that level of agreement on any issue.  Electrifying the whole country and extending the phone network everywhere was controversial in its time but the network effect has proved to be well worth the effort.

I suspect that bringing broadband everywhere will have the same effects. Further, there is an equity and fairness argument that can be made that goes beyond mere productivity gains.

I think that much of the resistance to universal connectivity comes from private businesses who realize they have no business case for it but also do not want the government to get involved for fear of increasing competition.

Hmmm, we put high tech, broadband in underpriviledged areas and then expect those users to become major players in helping our economy?  What about programs to teach how to use web 2.0 tools, online classes, or even hardware equipment?  We do provide free public access in libraries...and they are widely used...only thing is they are cutting back there hours because of the economy. How about helping them stay open longer?

Lacking time, I take the risk of being contradicted by the facts in the WEF report (which has tables on consumer and business usage by country, but I didn't immediately see time spent, or frequency measures).

It seems to me that the network effect is being overlooked here: the more people have something like a telephone, fax machine or broad-band access, the more valuable it becomes to each user. Since the U.S. economy is two-thirds consumer-driven, it seems wrong to underestimate the value of connecting people first, then seeing what they do with it. The list of applications you mention:

"Healthcare, transportation, biometrics, e-government, mobile commerce, intelligent electrical grids, and security and privatization of data..."

...include many that depend on consumers being online for their value. And the biggest and apparently now-forgotten impact of broadband in this country was that time spent online increased dramatically. It turned out not to be the speed initially, but the sheer convenience of always-on that drove adoption. Now that more and more of our lives are lived online, speed (and congestion) are regaining importance. With the rise of online video, a 10x or 100x increase in end-user ease-of-use/availability/responsiveness of the Net will drive a new quantum leap in the nature of usage, not just the quantity.

Most people I know in rural VT don't need an incentive for Broadband, they need a provider to provide it.  The commercial model isn't working for rural VT, the demand is there but the density of households isn't, hence commercial providers won't invest.  Some, like Verizon couldn't sell us off fast enough.

The Triple Play would make the service viable, I can make more money selling you all 3 services than just 1.

The internet and mass availablity of broadband will actually kill the Triple Play as television (cable as well as broadcast) will become less relevant by video on demand.

Dave

Thanks for the in-depth analysis and international perspective. Very interesting read. I think I agree with Nolle, and that instead of trying to extend reach to every rural area (which just seems silly with anything other than wireless or satellite) the telecom industry should focus on converting those who have access to broadband and aren't using it.

Thanks Chris.  You hit on a key issue -- namely, that it's tough to measure the broadband status of various countries without considering a range of factors, including the size of the country. Hence, the World Economic Forum uses a range of criteria to gauge an overall "networked readiness" ranking country by country.

The WEF acknowledges what you've noted as well -- that the Nordic countries have a combination of factors that push them into high ranking in terms of networked readiness. But I'd suggest taking a look at the WEF information more closely with regard to China and Canada: China has lots of Internet users, but not many users of broadband relative to many other countries. Canada ranked 10th on the WEF's overall networked readiness index.

What I'm trying to point out, and what you hit on the head here, is that some countries excel in one or two areas of Internet use. Only a few excel in a range of areas. All countries have more work to do. The U.S. fares very well in its readiness to advance in broadband. It's up to us to address the weak spots to maintain our good position.

Hey Mary very interesting comprehensive look at the state of Broadband from an International perspective.

What I can summize from the Nordic broadband domination on a percentage basis is two fold. First, logistically, area of coverage for Denmark or Sweden compares to less than South Carolina in square miles.

Second, most of these Baltic states have both large technology companies and a progressive government willing to support broadband.

China's growth similiarly, have  tremendous urban centers ( 11 cities with over 5 million people).  U.S. has only 1 and relitively no government assistance.

The one strange outlier was Canada.  Can you explain why they are so successful?  Is their government heavily envolved?

One last thought, do you think as this concept of the "triple play" continuing to rollout across America, will this entice the non-broadband users to convert?

Your thoughts