In My Experience... | A great idea in the hands of the wrong people. (1024)

You've got blog. « prev
The ADA and you. » next

A great idea in the hands of the wrong people.
[ Posted by Dan on July 11, 2003 | 7 Comments ]

Here's the good idea...

A serious national broadband policy -- designed to bring 10 to 100 megabits of information per second to every home -- would be as crucial an economic-development and infrastructure tool as the roads of the previous century, Reed Hundt said at the Supernova technology conference in suburban Washington on Tuesday. Hundt served as FCC chairman during the first Clinton administration and is currently a senior adviser to consulting firm McKinsey & Co

Here's where it goes horribly wrong...

Hundt is arguing that broadband should be subsidized by federal taxpayers to the tune of $20 a month per household for as long as it takes to build the system.

I mean, puhleeze. I can't imagine that the Republicans would want to keep this money in the coffers it's supposed to be in (and instead move it into war machine funding or tax breaks for my bosses) and I know the Democrats would be salivating over the opportunity to spend this money on healthcare for my grandparents (who vote).

If anyone believes for one second that every American in the country should be paying a tax that only goes to service those who have computers, then you are an idiot. We already have plenty of those types of taxes, and many of them are for more socially responsible or benevolent.

Now, don't get me wrong, if there were 10 megabits flowing to any household that wanted it, the national infrastructure would be stronger, smarter and more capable. I've argued before that there are potential business plans out there that can only thrive on widespread broadband penetration. Economic development would accelerate with 10 megabits going to every home.

I don't trust a bureaucracy to do this right, it has to come from the business community, and I think wireless access is the answer.

Absolutely. We need an enterprising young company to make this happen. The market is there, ready and willing.

-Posted by Quinn MacDonald on July 11, 2003 12:08 PM

One thing that must be considered is that adding tremendous amounts of speed to the "last mile" without proportional upgrades to the backbones and the pipes that major sites are on, is a simple recipe for disaster. A few script kiddies with 10 mBit connections could wreak some serious havoc with something as basic as a ping flood.

-Posted by Eric on July 11, 2003 02:00 PM

Good point, Eric.

Honestly though, I'm see this in the category of "wouldn't it be nice" rather than "vital to the nation"

Electricity provided cheap, safe lighting to the masses (eventually), and extended the work day allowing increased productivity for businesses, which improved the economy.

Telephone provided a faster way to communicate and keep in touch. That probably helped businesses expand beyond local markets, and helped people move to other parts of the country (to follow work, for example) and still keep in touch with family and friends.

The interstate system was an important addition to the country, but hardly a new concept. All great civilizations knew that well-built roads connecting key locations directly were vital to their continuance.

Computers provided faster, more accurate ways to process information, and the internet and other, older networking techniques (dialing in and so on) allowed those computers to communicate, making a wide array of tasks simpler and immensely faster for businesses.

But universal broadband... what, really, does it add? For businesses, not much -- they already have broadband. Consumers don't need broadband to shop online, to research online, to do anything online except download media and software quickly. Sure, broadband makes it a little faster (yes, it could be hundreds of times faster, but when you're going from 5 seconds down to less than one, that's still not much difference on a per-page basis), but it doesn't really change things.

What new services for joe user will be enabled by universal broadband? Basically just video, which joe'd probably rather watch on his 40 inch TV, not his 17 inch monitor, audio, and maybe some advanced gaming. Sure, there's the whole internet enabled house/appliance thing, but that's really something no one seems to care about except the people trying to sell the idea and a few technophiles.

None of this is really something the government has any business pushing through with taxpayer dollars. Hospitals and schools and other public places, sure. To the home... hey, it'd be great to have... but it's not like electricity. Internet access is already available. It's just not fast. It's not too far short of saying... sure, I have electricity coming to my home, but I want enough to light up Wrigley Field on demand, because that'd be cool to have.

And then of course, as you said, Dan, the money would never be used as it was earmarked to be used. There would be a rider somewhere that moved it elsewhere.

Besides, the federal government is hardly the most efficient way to get things done. When broadband is at the point where it's reaching all the most populous areas, they can pass requirements that it has to reach the less populous ones and treat it like a privatized but regulated utility if they want, but they're not the ones who should be running or building it.

-Posted by JC on July 11, 2003 02:37 PM

-Posted by milb on July 11, 2003 06:23 PM

While broadband may not be necessary for everyone today, I'm sure that there will be a day when it is necessary. Wouldn't it be better to have that infrastructure in place sooner rather than later?

-Posted by milbertus on July 11, 2003 06:24 PM

agreed... I sure don't want to pay to subsidize a national broadband network... these aren't the days of the old monopoly system... let capitalism figure it out.

-Posted by john on July 12, 2003 01:12 AM

Where is this funding coming from? Without getting into a political debate, I'd like to point out that Bush's tax cut plan was meant to starve Fed. gov't out of its bloat by taking away the funding for a lot of programs (thereby shifting the burden onto the states and local municipalities). If the No Child Left Behind initiative can't get funding ('cause school districts are being forced to reduce the length of their school years due to budget shortfalls), where would the money for the money for this initiative come from? Who has to lose out for this to happen?

-Posted by Anthony on July 14, 2003 12:01 PM

Comment posting has been turned off because I don't have enough time and will to deal with the constant comment spamming. I'm very sorry and will fix this sometime soon (soon = before 2004 ends).