Perspective: A FEMA-ized broadband?

Should high-speed Internet access continue to develop in the marketplace, or should government bureaucrats take over?

In this national debate, Americans need to consider how political management of key services often results in disaster, as in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

While devastated Americans waited for days on end for their government emergency agencies to show up, Wal-Mart arrived far sooner to deliver $3 million in supplies. Home Depot and FedEx also expertly prepared in advance, ready to help with supplies on hand. In contrast, the Federal Emergency Management Agency acted as if it wasn't really expecting a hurricane, and proved excruciatingly slow to arrive with even basic supplies such as water.

Jobs that simply require fast communications can go anywhere.

This type of government failure scenario plays out time and again, making one wonder why anyone would consider handing over the Internet to this same process. Yet, as News.com's Charles Cooper points out, there is a movement afoot aimed at treating broadband like a utility and perhaps even a "basic right."

If such a move were successful, it would push the United States further behind other countries in broadband deployment, causing untold economic and social harm.

The United States now ranks a measly 16th in the world for broadband deployment, giving our competitors a big boost. Jobs that simply require fast communications can go anywhere, and if America doesn't keep up connection speeds, workers in places like India, China and South America will leave us in the dust. This is one of the reasons telecom reform at all levels of government is extremely important, and why most informed people realize that more regulation isn't the solution.

Indeed, America's current broadband crisis is due in large part to poor government management of telecom policy following the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Governments should avoid trying to create a monopoly by favoring one provider over others.

By taking away incentives for the private sector to invest and innovate, national policy drove a large chunk of America's communication infrastructure into the ground. That mistake will be repeated if governments wrest control of the nation's networks away from the marketplace. City representatives all over the country are clamoring for control, and some, such as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, have suggested that Wi-Fi is a "fundamental right" in need of government protection.

In his recent State of the City address, Mayor Newsom said, "We must view access to information as a fundamental government service akin to libraries or public schools." That's a frightening statement for those who care about free speech and privacy. If the government controls access to information, there's no telling how it will manipulate it for political or other purposes. Worse, government-run broadband would hinder deployment and innovation in the long run--something that most advocates of such schemes fail to see.

In addition to their na?ve belief that government is quick enough to deliver on its high-tech promises, some advocates remain shockingly unaware that handing over the communications superhighway to government today will tomorrow make the system look like the rough and ill-paved roads that government currently manages.

Of course, that doesn't mean the government should do nothing. There's an important role for government to play in the deployment of broadband services. For example, getting rights-of-way privileges should be made easy for all companies that want to provide access in a community.

Governments should avoid trying to create a monopoly by favoring one provider over others, as San Francisco's Mayor Newsom appears to be doing. Cable-franchising rules that have been holding back investment and deployment also need to be revamped so that competitors to the big cable companies can offer services and compete for customer loyalties.

Broadband is much too important to the future success of all Americans to be FEMA-ized by power-hungry bureaucrats. It's time for Americans to tell their leaders that they don't want their communications systems corrupted by the political process.

Biography
Sonia Arrison is director of technology studies at the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute.

More Perspectives

Help me out here

Let me see if I have this right. FEMA - not the cynical cronyism that disemboweled it - is a bad idea. Wal-Mart - whose underpaid workers often have to resort to Medicaid for healthcare - should be our disaster-relief role model. And we should cede the development high-speed Internet access entirely to the private sector or risk being left in the dust by that bastion of private-sector entrepreneurialism, China.

Torture is much in the news these days. I guess we can now add logic to the roster of victims.

[kmslogic]

Continuing On: Let's privatize roads.

The government in the past had the gall to implement a huge national infrastructure of roadways and we all know how that turned out...

SAFETY NIGHTMARE

In 2004, 42,636 people died in traffic fatalities on US roadways. Compare that number to the number who have died from connecting to privately run internet providers and it becomes quite clear that publicly provided internet could produce carnage as yet unimagined.

BIG BROTHER

Although no clear proof exists that the government is controlling free speech on our roadways I personally have noticed a dramatic increase in flags and flag bumper stickers since 9/11. I refuse to believe this is mere coincidence.

INEFFICIENCY

When the interstate system was created even the governement realized that it was financially infeasable because it provided interstate services to regions that could not financially support it, which is why we don't drive on a huge network of toll roads today. I can guarantee this lack of financial prudence wouldn't be replicated in the free market implementation of internet access and if those fees keeps some poorer Americans from accessing this now critical communications infrastructure so be it, they should all just get a job!

Right?

[markdoiron]

FEMA Managed Broadband?

no one, not even the author of this article, is suggesting that fema manage broadband, so the comparisons in this article are just plain silly. there are government agencies that perform a marvelous job in tough situations (the military, social security y2k response, etc). and there are private companies that perform poorly or in their own selfish interest even in boom-times (mci, halliburton, anyone?). but comparisons of gov't vs corporate performance with why (or why not) broadband should be a government service would seem to be irrelevant.

as for "jobs that simply require fast connections", would anyone care to tell me where those are? that is, the job holder doesn't need to read/write english, he doesn't need some sort of technical/college education, he just needs that fast connection? movement of jobs has lots more to do with other systemic problems in this country than with the deployment of broadband. but, at the end of the day it has mostly to do with corporate profits, which are better when low wage, overseas workers can be hired--workers who contribute little to this country's economy. i suggest that the author study a little history--start with Henry Ford.

mark d.

Dead wrong - and misleading

This article clearly shows the problem of ideology trumping common sense, which is hampering US competitiveness in broadband access. All the leaders, Korea, Japan, China etc. have one thing in common: heavy government involvement and leadership.
In the US the government prefers to take orders from private industry instead of the other way around.
Telecoms and Cable providers are only interested in preventing change so they can continue to make money.
The government should take a lead - and one of the things they could do would be to provide an IP dialtone to everyone over the TV frequency band which should be returned to digital use as soon as possible.
The result is simple - the government provides the basic infrastructure (like the roads), and private business flourishes.

The guy talking about the highway system must be joking, the highway system is essential for our (private) economy and the government does an outstanding job of providing it.

PS FEMA was starved of resources by the republicans, that's why they let us down when we needed them - and we do need a FEMA.

[jdscott]

Alive right - and leading

Actually, you are letting your statist ideology trump reason. Otherwise, you certainly would not be using China as a positive example of Govermnet telling private industry what to do. Goverment influence can in the short run increase broadband penetration, but very inefficeintly, and government will loose interest. The governmnet does not do an outstanding job with the highway system. Ever tried driving in LA? PS. If FEMA was starved of resources by republicans, and goverment is composed of republicans who are in charge, then government = republicans. So you want the republicans in charge of the internet?

Pick up a copy of Milton Friedmans "Freedom to Choose"

[booboo1243]

Cmon Sonia, cut out the drama!

For crying out loud, I am sick and tired of all the "FEMA-this" and "FEMA-that" bashing going on in this country right now. How many of you "FEMA Bashers" got off your ass and went to help out (ever, any disaster in the past 20 years)? Pick one, I'll wait.

The basic fact is
1.) FEMA is a response organization, not a comercial warehouse operation like Wal-Mart or Home Depot or whatever.

Add to that:
2.) the same people complaining now about the lack of speed in the response are probably the same folks who complained back in 1995 when FEMA bought the only vehicles available on the island of Puerto Rico (they happened to be high-end Ford Explorers and Broncos) when they were sorely needed and literally the only things available.

3.) Please, FEMA in the Wi-Fi business? Most likely it will be the FCC. Good luck dealing with those fun-loving jokers when they can't even control Howard Stern.

4.) Sonia, please publish again when you can avoid the button-pushing and bandwagoneering. I'd love to hear what you have to say without the political buzzwords.

[yalla]

Educated Idiot's

Wow, is this the best we can get from a so-called educated women working in San Francisco these days?

If so, I choose to press "Delete, and Ignore"...

The Simpsons provide some laughter and Reality, guess I need to go get a REAL DOSE of REALITY, Go BART!!!

[ThatAdamGuy]

Sorry, Sonia, your ideology has blinded you here

I want to believe in you and your organization, but you're making it difficult.

You've not suggested ANY credible examples in which the government regulation or even partial management of broadband rollouts is a negative force.

Asia has far greater broadband penetration than we do, and unless I'm mistaken, it's not all from private sector investments.

And speaking of the private sector... Sonia... can you really assure us, with a straight face, that those bastions of efficiency and customer service -- SBC, AT&T, and so on [ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!] -- would willingly wire up podunk, Iowa?

What, it's not cost-effective for them to do so? But they don't want (or will even sue against) a local government setting up broadband there? Surprise surprise!

I completely agree with Mr. Newsom and others: Internet access is, or should be, a right nowadays. Ensuring that *all* our citizens have such access is the first step in improving our national economy, improving education, and facilitating the creation of jobs in oft-forgotten areas.