As negotiations in Congress on the stimulus bill are nearing the final stage, some attention is being given to the parts of the competing bills aimed at increasing access to broadband. The final numbers on the broadband provisions will probably come in around $6-$7 billion, which in the context of a massive $800 billion+ package doesn't seem like much. But is it really worth it?
Most of the money is slated to come in the form of tax breaks for companies that expand the reach of their broadband and improve their networks to deliver better speeds to the end user. Laudable goals, but should taxpayers really foot the bill to subsidize work that companies would likely perform anyway? There are provisions in both the House and Senate proposals that would open the door for new companies to become involved in delivering broadband and encourage more openness and innovation - which would be a great thing for those of us who would like to see such things.
But this just points out a larger problem. Where is there a national communications policy? If these proposals go through we may get more and faster broadband and many under-served communities may have access they lacked before, but how are they going to connect? Who's going to buy them the computers or mobile devices they need to truly take advantage? How will they afford the cost of service?
Without an overall plan to improve our communications infrastructure and address the barriers to access that exist, there's little hope that this "broadband stimulus" will have much effect. What we need is far more sweeping change that recognizes openness and access as rights instead of priveleges.
--
By Jared Seltzer, Founding Partner of Rad Campaign
Related Stories: | Topics:Innovation, Technology, Ethonomics, internet marketing, web design, web 2.0, web Development, Jared Seltzer, Domestic Policy, Economic Policy, Political Policy, Politics |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 1 Total
February 9, 2009 at 2:05pm by Anne Dougherty
You make some very good points about the futility of providing the infrastructure (ie: the potential to have broadband access) without having the means to participate in the infrastructure. The other piece that really needs to be considered, though, is the restrictions that the companies who will be getting the subsidies are legally able to put on how a customer uses that access.
Download limits, the ability to cut off my account because you don't like what I'm downloading (e.g.: filesharing), and the arbitrary way in which customers are billed for the provider's sunk costs all conspire to limit access even for the wealthiest of the "average consumer" group.
Wouldn't it make more sense to provide broadband access subsidies to local governments so that they could provide under served and under resourced populations with the full complement of what they need rather than putting more money in private corporations' coffers?