Manage updates with the Download AppOctober 21, 2005 4:00 AM PDT
Perspective: Should you have a right to broadband?
See all Perspectives
- Related Stories
-
Readers weigh in on Internet ownership
October 17, 2005 -
Power companies enter broadband market
October 16, 2005 -
Congress releases draft broadband bill
September 15, 2005
You get the point. But it's more than just the Internet. The big change on the horizon is the move to enshrine access to a broadband connection as a basic right of citizenship. The slogan is being picked up here and abroad by a collection of interest groups and policymakers who view broadband as just too important to leave anymore to the vagaries of the private sector.
"We won't stop until every San Franciscan has broadband access," says Chris Vein, the senior technology advisor to San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom. It's not only rhetoric. His boss is one of the nation's most visible proponents of so-called muni Wi-Fi. Because he runs San Francisco, Newsom probably gets more than his fair share of ink. Some think that he also harbors ambitions to one day run for U.S. president--and nothing would look better on his resume than a line about how the city extended affordable broadband access to all its residents.
But Newsom is only picking up on a theme increasingly sounded by politicians elsewhere. The city of Philadelphia has also announced a high-profile plan to provide Internet access to its citizens. From its point of view, broadband is a necessity, not a luxury. With the United States' ranking for broadband penetration plummeting from third place to 16th in just four years, this is more than an academic concern. The fear is this will translate into massive job losses to other nations.
So far, the telephone companies are watching how all this plays out, quietly rooting for the municipalities to screw things up. After Philadelphia chose EarthLink to build that city's Wi-Fi network, a Comcast spokesman sniffed that City Hall was in over its head. Government's role should be that of disinterested arbiter and not that of Wi-Fi midwife, he said.
But they may be too late to stem this tide. Google has proposed to blanket San Francisco with free wireless high-speed Internet access, perhaps a harbinger of the company's plans to build a nationwide network. Even before Google threw its hat into the ring, change was already in the air, after Hurricane Katrina happened.
As if we needed reminding, the resulting chaos underscored the glaring inadequacies that hampered communications. That added pressure to do something about the nation's Internet infrastructure--now. At a recent industry conference I attended, bringing together representatives from private industry and cities around the nation, that message came through loud and clear. There was no missing the fact that this was a matter of when, not if.
Ultimately, the question boils down to whether you believe that broadband is so important that it should get treated like a public utility, in the much the same way as water or power. There's no consensus about that, and it's doubtful that the issue will be put on the national agenda before the next presidential election.
Can the localities take the lead? In this country, there's nothing to rival the Associazione Nazionale Piccoli Comuni d'Italia, an Italian association of small towns that has adopted a plan to promote the adoption of Wi-Fi and wireless technology. That's helped even isolated burgs--like the village of Chamois, deep in the Italian Alps--offer wireless access to its residents.
"One thing I've learned is that no one model works everywhere," Paul Butcher of Intel says. "One community might treat it as a basic right. Another might say market dynamics should determine what they will deploy. There's no one piece of legislation that can anticipate the numerous needs out there."
Translation: Prepare yourself for a lot of sturm und drang before this issue gets sorted out. But sorted out it will be. The political momentum is only going to gain strength in the months ahead.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
114 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
It's only a half decade overdue that government spent our tax dollars on something a bit more
progressive that actually benefits all Americans.
I'd refer to this drive as: "Let's stop playing defensive and let's start playing offensive. It's time our country leave the less developed technology nations and join the developed technology nations." Of course, as the C|NET writer infers, it'll take lots to get there because there are very rich and powerful service monopolies in broadband who flatly have no interest whatever in getting paid by government tax dollars. But it's inevitable that those firms will lose - it's just a matter of how long the American people and the politicians we elect to represent us - agree to continue to be bullied by these monopoly companies.
It'd be nice if we in the USA could join the modern world. Clearly, broadband in the 21st
century is just as critical to American peoples' thriving than phone service was in the 20th century.
I think we can all agree that we need to move as quickly as possible to a society where broadband is both ubiquitous and affordable. There likely are areas of the U.S. (mostly rural) where government action could help speed deployment (although based on the Wi-Fi coverage in S.F. I'm not sure that's one of those places). The key will be to not adopt a pure public utility model, where there is only one provider that is either the government itself or a regulated monopoly. We need lots of competitors in each market to keep prices down and quality of service up. That means cities shouldn't be seeking to replace existing competitors, but increase the number of competitors.
So are cell phones a "right".? Should my tax dollars go to buying you an ipod? Or paying your electric bill?
I think you've been living in your parents basement a bit too long. In the real world, people use their own money to buy the things that are relevant to them. Thats what the big kids do. They get jobs... ROFL
It's only a half decade overdue that government spent our tax dollars on something a bit more
progressive that actually benefits all Americans.
I'd refer to this drive as: "Let's stop playing defensive and let's start playing offensive. It's time our country leave the less developed technology nations and join the developed technology nations." Of course, as the C|NET writer infers, it'll take lots to get there because there are very rich and powerful service monopolies in broadband who flatly have no interest whatever in getting paid by government tax dollars. But it's inevitable that those firms will lose - it's just a matter of how long the American people and the politicians we elect to represent us - agree to continue to be bullied by these monopoly companies.
It'd be nice if we in the USA could join the modern world. Clearly, broadband in the 21st
century is just as critical to American peoples' thriving than phone service was in the 20th century.
I think we can all agree that we need to move as quickly as possible to a society where broadband is both ubiquitous and affordable. There likely are areas of the U.S. (mostly rural) where government action could help speed deployment (although based on the Wi-Fi coverage in S.F. I'm not sure that's one of those places). The key will be to not adopt a pure public utility model, where there is only one provider that is either the government itself or a regulated monopoly. We need lots of competitors in each market to keep prices down and quality of service up. That means cities shouldn't be seeking to replace existing competitors, but increase the number of competitors.
So are cell phones a "right".? Should my tax dollars go to buying you an ipod? Or paying your electric bill?
I think you've been living in your parents basement a bit too long. In the real world, people use their own money to buy the things that are relevant to them. Thats what the big kids do. They get jobs... ROFL
has "screwed everything up," simply vote it out of office. That is
how democracy works. The fact that it is still in power implies
that the majority of the citizenry in your locale disagree with
your assessment. I know it gives conservatives multiple orgasms
to spout their dogma about government waste and private
sector efficiency, but it simply has no connection to the facts.
Almost every study ever done (and many a conservative pundit
has commissioned one, only to suppress the findings post facto)
has FAILED to support this contention. In fact, most
examinations of this issue have shown that in general, where
government has ceded control of a service to the private sector,
access to that service is curtailed, costs rise, and service
decreases.
I know it sounds good to parrot such pablum, but simply saying
something over and over, unlike in OZ, simply does not make it
so.
has "screwed everything up," simply vote it out of office. That is
how democracy works. The fact that it is still in power implies
that the majority of the citizenry in your locale disagree with
your assessment. I know it gives conservatives multiple orgasms
to spout their dogma about government waste and private
sector efficiency, but it simply has no connection to the facts.
Almost every study ever done (and many a conservative pundit
has commissioned one, only to suppress the findings post facto)
has FAILED to support this contention. In fact, most
examinations of this issue have shown that in general, where
government has ceded control of a service to the private sector,
access to that service is curtailed, costs rise, and service
decreases.
I know it sounds good to parrot such pablum, but simply saying
something over and over, unlike in OZ, simply does not make it
so.
a really nice to have, but the government should stay out of it.
Why should the government have anything more to do with a
universal broadband than electricity. Power isn't a right it's a
privilege. There might come a time when they need to regulate it
in order to keep monopolies from hiking prices up when it
becomes a dependency, but their is no need for tax money to
pay for broadband.
A right is being able to peacefully speak your thoughts, not to
be able to check your e-mail from the bathroom stall of a gas
station. It would be great to have internet wherever we are, it I
would be great to have it be free, but the government shouldn't
be providing it. It would just be one more thing for them to
inefficiently exploit.
On another note the statement that an iPod is a paperweight if
you can't download video off the internet seems a little
immature. I understand the point trying to be made but that
seems more like a personal grudge toward a product. That
expensive paperweight will still play home video's you record. It
will still play your illegal movies your convert to h.264, and most
of all it will still play music! It's not like your computer will stop
working if you don't have the internet, and in some cases for
Microsoft users the computer will work better if it isn't hooked
to the internet (no more updates that cause your computer to
crash and no more viruses. It's like abstinence for your
computer.).
The government DOES have A LOT to do with universal electrical service. And phone service too. And mail service while we are at it.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=2949" target="_newWindow">http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=2949</a>
Read the part about the REP.
a really nice to have, but the government should stay out of it.
Why should the government have anything more to do with a
universal broadband than electricity. Power isn't a right it's a
privilege. There might come a time when they need to regulate it
in order to keep monopolies from hiking prices up when it
becomes a dependency, but their is no need for tax money to
pay for broadband.
A right is being able to peacefully speak your thoughts, not to
be able to check your e-mail from the bathroom stall of a gas
station. It would be great to have internet wherever we are, it I
would be great to have it be free, but the government shouldn't
be providing it. It would just be one more thing for them to
inefficiently exploit.
On another note the statement that an iPod is a paperweight if
you can't download video off the internet seems a little
immature. I understand the point trying to be made but that
seems more like a personal grudge toward a product. That
expensive paperweight will still play home video's you record. It
will still play your illegal movies your convert to h.264, and most
of all it will still play music! It's not like your computer will stop
working if you don't have the internet, and in some cases for
Microsoft users the computer will work better if it isn't hooked
to the internet (no more updates that cause your computer to
crash and no more viruses. It's like abstinence for your
computer.).
The government DOES have A LOT to do with universal electrical service. And phone service too. And mail service while we are at it.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=2949" target="_newWindow">http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=2949</a>
Read the part about the REP.
I might ask who in SF does not already have ACCESS to broadband service? I suspect everyone. What Gavin and others of his ilk want is governement CONTROLLED broadband service. Just another step down the path toward the nanny state and death of free enterprise system. Nanny states, when put into place have not worked for any society at any time during the history of man. It will be no different in the US
I might ask who in SF does not already have ACCESS to broadband service? I suspect everyone. What Gavin and others of his ilk want is governement CONTROLLED broadband service. Just another step down the path toward the nanny state and death of free enterprise system. Nanny states, when put into place have not worked for any society at any time during the history of man. It will be no different in the US
constructive thing (let alone thoughtful or relevant) to contribute,
as usual.
constructive thing (let alone thoughtful or relevant) to contribute,
as usual.
president--and nothing would look better on his resume than a
line about how the city extended affordable broadband access to all
its residents."
Don't you think that is a bit grandiose? I could certainly think of
many things that would look better on said résumé. In fact, I doubt
this would merit much attention at all.
president--and nothing would look better on his resume than a
line about how the city extended affordable broadband access to all
its residents."
Don't you think that is a bit grandiose? I could certainly think of
many things that would look better on said résumé. In fact, I doubt
this would merit much attention at all.
Free Web access for all conveys Web Freedom to all.
The statement that Ultimately the question boils down to whether you believe broadband is so important that it should get treated like a public utility, in the much the same way as water or power misses the mark. The Public Utility Model is the wrong model to apply to Public Wi-Fi.
A more analogous model for Public Wi-Fi is the model of the public infrastructure network of village, town, city, county, state and federal streets, roads and highways maintained by the government so citizens can freely travel from Point A to Point B in their daily pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Wi-Fi Access is about local governments promoting and supporting the general e-welfare by implementing a public infrastructure of FREE Wi-Fi Access.
Ours is the Land of the Freeway and should also be the Land of Free Wi-Fi Access to the Information Highway. It is unthinkable that U.S. citizens should have to pay a Public Road Network Access Fee Toll as they exit their driveways to access the street in front of their homes. Likewise, access to the Internet Information Highway should be Toll-Free.
The Associazione Nazionale Piccoli Comuni d'Italia has demonstrated that even geographically separated small towns and isolated villages, without the deep tax pockets of large municipalities like San Francisco and Philadelphia, can think-out-of-the-box and e-network together to offer Wi-Fi access to residents of member communities in the Associazione. JP B-)
vehicle license taxes, income taxes, and other taxes that pay for
the roads he thinks are 'free; And apparently, he has never heard of
the various toll roads used all over the country. No wonder he
comes up with all these brilliant ideas.
Free Web access for all conveys Web Freedom to all.
The statement that Ultimately the question boils down to whether you believe broadband is so important that it should get treated like a public utility, in the much the same way as water or power misses the mark. The Public Utility Model is the wrong model to apply to Public Wi-Fi.
A more analogous model for Public Wi-Fi is the model of the public infrastructure network of village, town, city, county, state and federal streets, roads and highways maintained by the government so citizens can freely travel from Point A to Point B in their daily pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Wi-Fi Access is about local governments promoting and supporting the general e-welfare by implementing a public infrastructure of FREE Wi-Fi Access.
Ours is the Land of the Freeway and should also be the Land of Free Wi-Fi Access to the Information Highway. It is unthinkable that U.S. citizens should have to pay a Public Road Network Access Fee Toll as they exit their driveways to access the street in front of their homes. Likewise, access to the Internet Information Highway should be Toll-Free.
The Associazione Nazionale Piccoli Comuni d'Italia has demonstrated that even geographically separated small towns and isolated villages, without the deep tax pockets of large municipalities like San Francisco and Philadelphia, can think-out-of-the-box and e-network together to offer Wi-Fi access to residents of member communities in the Associazione. JP B-)
vehicle license taxes, income taxes, and other taxes that pay for
the roads he thinks are 'free; And apparently, he has never heard of
the various toll roads used all over the country. No wonder he
comes up with all these brilliant ideas.
right of citizenship"' is near the top of the incredible heap. Yes,
broadband access is a powerful tool, and yes, broadband access
can make a person's life better. But it certainly isn't any sort of
'right', except to those dedicated to a total welfare state. Even
bringing up the idea as though it warrants any serious
consideration is a lame brained idea.
Maybe one should consider the analogies proposed... water and
power. First, we don't need any public utility for broadband,
since we already have suppliers and networks in place. The
broadband access is already expanding as fast as economically
feasible, because the broadband suppliers like revenue streams.
And remember, city gas, water, and power all require the user
to pay for the hook-up and then pay for the monthly usage. No
difference with broad band. And the city doesn't run water or
gas lines all over the county to every possible customer. And
even power utilities have a limit unless the potential user is
willing to pay for the power line to his remote site.
Now some cities are trying Wi-Fi access to their area. It's their
choice to do so. Maybe it works. And maybe the probable
connection loads will kill the service - or at least drag the
connection speed down to almost zero. I do like hotels with a
wireless zone, even tho you can't trust its security. But for main
internet access, no Wi-Fi for me, even if it does work to some
degree.
You can't beat 6 mbps on DSL or faster on FTTH.
As regards broadband users who arent also capable of commensurate broadband thinking, they also have a name. To use your words, theyre called lame brained. JP B-)
right of citizenship"' is near the top of the incredible heap. Yes,
broadband access is a powerful tool, and yes, broadband access
can make a person's life better. But it certainly isn't any sort of
'right', except to those dedicated to a total welfare state. Even
bringing up the idea as though it warrants any serious
consideration is a lame brained idea.
Maybe one should consider the analogies proposed... water and
power. First, we don't need any public utility for broadband,
since we already have suppliers and networks in place. The
broadband access is already expanding as fast as economically
feasible, because the broadband suppliers like revenue streams.
And remember, city gas, water, and power all require the user
to pay for the hook-up and then pay for the monthly usage. No
difference with broad band. And the city doesn't run water or
gas lines all over the county to every possible customer. And
even power utilities have a limit unless the potential user is
willing to pay for the power line to his remote site.
Now some cities are trying Wi-Fi access to their area. It's their
choice to do so. Maybe it works. And maybe the probable
connection loads will kill the service - or at least drag the
connection speed down to almost zero. I do like hotels with a
wireless zone, even tho you can't trust its security. But for main
internet access, no Wi-Fi for me, even if it does work to some
degree.
You can't beat 6 mbps on DSL or faster on FTTH.
As regards broadband users who arent also capable of commensurate broadband thinking, they also have a name. To use your words, theyre called lame brained. JP B-)
already they could probably blanket the world in
a
couple of years. Plus they get the revenue from
the advertising so you only pay them when you
click their ads not for the initial setup or
usage. Hardware is getting very cheap to make as
well so that should be to far behind either.
Government is just a stumbling block to me. Who
cares what Newsom says. Google would do it anyway
if it weren't the government trying to force
people to pay into their system. They just don't
have the legalities to do it quicker so they have
to get permission from the government I think.
I would disagree if it cost us more tax money
though but I don't think it's necessary.
already they could probably blanket the world in
a
couple of years. Plus they get the revenue from
the advertising so you only pay them when you
click their ads not for the initial setup or
usage. Hardware is getting very cheap to make as
well so that should be to far behind either.
Government is just a stumbling block to me. Who
cares what Newsom says. Google would do it anyway
if it weren't the government trying to force
people to pay into their system. They just don't
have the legalities to do it quicker so they have
to get permission from the government I think.
I would disagree if it cost us more tax money
though but I don't think it's necessary.
"rights of way" available for pennies on the dollar. I said that for less than two Billion an investor could own a minimum of 48 states "last mile" access, with some fibre optic regional and national interconnect thrown in.
In my mind the growth of the Internet, and the need for Broadband would lead to an even better than normally expected venture capital ROI, and in a shorter time frame.
It has happened, and continues to happen, although the discounts are gone; now the discounts are a "premium."
The cable companies are only going to get their "just desserts" in the sense that their political contributions and abiltiy to restrict access to their infrastructure, well beyond the original "payout" considered when many cable monopolies were granted, has infuriated many who aren't influenced by being part of the regulatory or political process; ordinary people who see that Korea has 50% more Broadband penetration, and it costs the consumer less. Same with many of the countries now ahead of the US on the rankings list of Broadband penetration. No surprise that the US Braodband pricing is at a premium compared to others; competition is what creates pricing economy, and we lack competition in the Boradband marketplace.
When will we see the light and force "open access" for competitors, leading to better service offerings at lower prices?
I hope the politicians and regulators get wise before they wake up after the elections looking for a job.
Carpe Diem!
Barry Dennis
Columbia, maryland
"rights of way" available for pennies on the dollar. I said that for less than two Billion an investor could own a minimum of 48 states "last mile" access, with some fibre optic regional and national interconnect thrown in.
In my mind the growth of the Internet, and the need for Broadband would lead to an even better than normally expected venture capital ROI, and in a shorter time frame.
It has happened, and continues to happen, although the discounts are gone; now the discounts are a "premium."
The cable companies are only going to get their "just desserts" in the sense that their political contributions and abiltiy to restrict access to their infrastructure, well beyond the original "payout" considered when many cable monopolies were granted, has infuriated many who aren't influenced by being part of the regulatory or political process; ordinary people who see that Korea has 50% more Broadband penetration, and it costs the consumer less. Same with many of the countries now ahead of the US on the rankings list of Broadband penetration. No surprise that the US Braodband pricing is at a premium compared to others; competition is what creates pricing economy, and we lack competition in the Boradband marketplace.
When will we see the light and force "open access" for competitors, leading to better service offerings at lower prices?
I hope the politicians and regulators get wise before they wake up after the elections looking for a job.
Carpe Diem!
Barry Dennis
Columbia, maryland
I was never given, free of charge, the right to receive a newspaper, listen to radio broadcasts, or watch the news on broadcast or cable television.
All of these are privileges. I paid to own a TV. I subscribe to the newspaper. I bought my radio.
Yes, there are free newspapers, and free television broadcasts. Private enterprises are certainly free to provide their content free of charge, and subsidize it via advertising or whatever other means.
But I would never propose that government be required to provide every citizen with his/her own TV, radio or free subscription to a newspaper. That's not the job of government.
In this scenario, we the taxpayers would be footing the bill for everyone. Those who have the means to afford broadband in the first place would be paying their share and more, to cover those who can't afford it.
If a group of citizens decides they want to privately form a non-profit organization that will provide this service to needy citizens, I think it's a great idea.
But making it a RIGHT? Forcing the government to pay for everyone to have broadband, thereby forcing most of us to pay (through taxes) for our own connection, plus extra for someone else's? (And even more extra to cover the fact that the government now becomes an additional-- and likely very expensive-- middleman)?
This doesn't sound like the way we normally do things in this country. It's a form of communism, which as we've seen, ultimately fails.
So I'm going to have to say no, we shouldn't make broadband Internet access a right.
And to those who do want to see this happen, you all should unite and form a non-profit group to provide broadband to the poor privately. That way you can give your own money, or hold fundraisers instead of forcing every citizen to contribute.
I am saying that the government should enter any market that
isn't currently served by existing services.
The cable/dsl companies have had plenty of time to reach all
areas. The fact that they haven't is an indication that there is not
enough competition for them. A little from the government
might be enough to get them off their butts. In the mean time
people in rural areas can be served and new businesses created,
if the government acts.
I was never given, free of charge, the right to receive a newspaper, listen to radio broadcasts, or watch the news on broadcast or cable television.
All of these are privileges. I paid to own a TV. I subscribe to the newspaper. I bought my radio.
Yes, there are free newspapers, and free television broadcasts. Private enterprises are certainly free to provide their content free of charge, and subsidize it via advertising or whatever other means.
But I would never propose that government be required to provide every citizen with his/her own TV, radio or free subscription to a newspaper. That's not the job of government.
In this scenario, we the taxpayers would be footing the bill for everyone. Those who have the means to afford broadband in the first place would be paying their share and more, to cover those who can't afford it.
If a group of citizens decides they want to privately form a non-profit organization that will provide this service to needy citizens, I think it's a great idea.
But making it a RIGHT? Forcing the government to pay for everyone to have broadband, thereby forcing most of us to pay (through taxes) for our own connection, plus extra for someone else's? (And even more extra to cover the fact that the government now becomes an additional-- and likely very expensive-- middleman)?
This doesn't sound like the way we normally do things in this country. It's a form of communism, which as we've seen, ultimately fails.
So I'm going to have to say no, we shouldn't make broadband Internet access a right.
And to those who do want to see this happen, you all should unite and form a non-profit group to provide broadband to the poor privately. That way you can give your own money, or hold fundraisers instead of forcing every citizen to contribute.
I am saying that the government should enter any market that
isn't currently served by existing services.
The cable/dsl companies have had plenty of time to reach all
areas. The fact that they haven't is an indication that there is not
enough competition for them. A little from the government
might be enough to get them off their butts. In the mean time
people in rural areas can be served and new businesses created,
if the government acts.
I also must add a comment about comparing US internet or broadband access to that in Japan or Korea. Here it is: You MUST keep in mind that the vast majority of people in those countries live VERY close together. It is much more cost-effective to connect people who live in apartment complexes. (We don't see that so clearly in the US because, except in the central parts of a few large cities, apartment dwellers are often too poor to afford internet access.) Also, Japan and Korea are small enough that they can blanket the whole country with wireless, subsidizing the few inefficient rural areas with the many efficient urban areas. Here are the numbers, with population in millions and area in 1000 square kilometers:
Country Pop. Area Area/Pop.
Japan 127 378 3.0
S.Korea 48 98 2.0
U.S. 296 9631 33.
A similar point could be made with area/GDP. So, clearly, at least in the US, you can expect to have the right to freedom of religion everywhere, but don't expect the "right" of internet access everywhere, at least not anytime soon. Comparisons to other countries must be made with care to avoid comparing apples to oranges, and the same can be said for city-to-city comparisons.
generally considered a right except in extreme cases (e.g.,
homes on mountains)"
>> Sorry, David, but by no stretch of the definition or of the
imagination could ever get access to a phone as any sort of
'right'. We don't need more 'ammunition' for the loose cannon
social reformers who try to claim that everyone is entitled to a
TV.
BUt you did identify a key point - population density does make
a tremendous difference in costs of internet access. Japan,
however, already has extensive gigabit ethernet service and not
many Japanese would want the much slower wireless
performance in any permanent facility. Mobile operations,
however, could well benefit from a wireless blanket, even if it is
slow.