US still lagging on broadband but FCC promises change is coming The United States is still lagging the world in the rollout of broadband, but things are looking up as federal telecom regulator the FCC formally gave itself the power to act Thursday. As signposted at the beginning of the year, the FCC's annual broadband report has concluded that fast internet access is not being deployed to …
Postal delivery, roads, electricity, telephones, television, cell phones ... in not one of these technologies did private providers step in to provide universal, nation-wide coverage. In each instance, some form of government intervention, inducement, or support was necessary. Now the issue is broadband coverage.
Yes, the United States has huge rural areas. Yes, the incentive for private providers is to cherry-pick the rich harvest of population-dense urban areas. And the same old, same old argument always rages: rural people deserve less because they are not a viable market. I was once told by an academic figure that rural people should not expect health services, since the population density did not justify the investment.
Take your choice, which is it? Money ... or people? The right or wrong of it depends purely on your political preferences (or where you happen to live!)
Many rural people are also very small-government- and independent-minded. For them, the lack of reliable coverage doesn't matter much when they prefer to do things the old-fashioned way (this is especially true in probably the most rural state of all—Alaska, where self-reliance is pretty much a prerequisite to living in the wilderness). They want it BOTH: Money (meaning their money still in their pockets) and people's freedom of self-determination.
The issue is that a commercial provider can't deliver a service at a price that rural folk can, or are willing, to pay. Without some form of universal service obligation no rational business will enter into loss-making business or deploy infrastructure that will sit idle.
Introducing a USO is a political call. It requires urban folk to pay more for their services to subsidise the rural folk. Sometimes people are happy to do that, sometimes they're not. Infrastructure build is a decade long decision so once you decide to do it you are committed.
The alternative is government subsidy, which can and does work around the world.
All this boils down to two questions;
-Are city folk willing to subsidise rural folk in the provision of services.
-Should that subsidy come from urban users of the service in question or from all taxpayers?
@AC - "All this boils down to two questions;
-Are city folk willing to subsidise rural folk in the provision of services.
-Should that subsidy come from urban users of the service in question or from all taxpayers?"
I can't speak for others, but that looks like three questions to me.
The correct answer is, of course, all taxpayers.
I pay for roads I will never drive, bridges I will never cross, schools that I and my children have graduated from long ago, an army I have never served in, a navy I no longer serve in, spacecraft I will never fly, and many, many, more examples.
I am happy to do so.
It is for the common good.
A concept seemingly forgotten in these days of "I've got mine!"
Subsidize? It's a *HELL* of a lot cheaper to run a mile of fiber in the middle of nowhere than it is to do it in a city. Not to mention if the government mandated the power companies give free access to their poles for the fiber runs, the costs would be a rounding error to the ISPs yearly buildout budgets.
Let's stop pretending this is some massive undertaking - hell just bury the cost of fiber in road repaving projects... it's cheaper than that by a long shot as well.
EXCEPT that big word, "Nowhere". It may be cheap, but there are also barely any people, meaning it's harder to spread the costs. And as for mandating running the fiber on the power poles, those poles are usually owned by the electric companies, and that'll raise Socialism concerns (and remember, rural communities are strongly of a self-reliant spirit).
Put it another way. If it really WAS that damn cheap, wouldn't you think SOMEONE would've tried it already?
"Postal delivery, roads, electricity, telephones, television, cell phones ... in not one of these technologies did private providers step in to provide universal, nation-wide coverage. In each instance, some form of government intervention, inducement, or support was necessary. Now the issue is broadband coverage."
Thank you for pointing this out.
That old 'but you're isolated in a rural area" excuse doesn't hold water.
I live in Thailand which is much MUCH more rural and the entire country is blanketed with coverage.
Americans have lazy phone companies who are getting rich off of ancient technology. There's no reason for America to upgrade to normal standards and speeds that the rest of the Western world enjoy because they are paying through the nose for crap.
I don't really understand why this is a political issue. Surely Republicans want decent internet just as much as Democrats do? And while you can argue all you like about what is the best way to ensure everyone gets it, there are no politics involved in the simple fact of how many people currently do.
Here in Eastern North Carolina.......
Several small communities don't even have access to dial-up anymore because the ISP's quit supporting it. There's no 'broadband' available and spotty coverage for 4g. My phone bounces between 3g and 1x here at the house.
Do people in rural areas 'deserve' to have high speed access? Maybe/maybe not but on the other hand since we provide most of the farming/food/pork for the state, do cityfolk deserve to eat?
@AC - It has been many years since I last travelled through Eastern North Carolina. I have two lasting memories of the region.
The folks I met, black and white, were warm and welcoming, even to a "Yankee".
The hotel I stayed at was located in a "dry" county. I ordered a glass of wine with my dinner, and was told that I couldn't purchase liquor by the drink.
I could, however, buy the whole bottle. Which I did.
With regard to your farming/food/pork question, I assume those city folk pay for their food, and thus deserve to eat it.
I've posted my thoughts on rural broadband earlier in the thread.
Anyone visiting the US would be very surprised at how ancient the phone infrastructure is compared to other Western countries.
The situation is exacerbated by having a couple of companies who control everything. The Americans seem happy to put up with crippled phones that the rest of the world has long since abandoned or would refuse to buy, too.
I used to think that "no bars" was just a plot device for scary movies - but if you go be prepared to have rubbish coverage and extremely poor voice quality as well as miserably slow streaming speeds.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
