National high-speed broadband comes with a hefty price tag, but the FCC estimates that it would have far-reaching social, educational and economic benefits that far outweigh the cost. Who will benefit and how? Those are the questions taxpayers are asking.
What is National High-Speed Broadband?
Part of the implementation problem lies in the definition of the term. Semantics are throwing roadblocks to progress and these roadblocks are coming from the very services who should be enthusiastically backing the push for better service; the companies who have traditionally reaped the rewards, the profits and the tax breaks inherent in the business of internet service. Companies like AT&T and Verizon wireless who can lay legitimate claim to the field of internet and wireless technology are complaining of onerous standards and making noise about not applying for the funds. In short, they are refusing to cooperate unless the government hands out the money without demanding accountability in the form of results. Somehow, this all sounds very familiar.
Australia rolled out a plan in April that laid out the terms in very bold language. They will spend $31 billion to bring 100 Mbps fiber optic cable to virtually every private and commercial structure in the country. That's the kind of clarity of action the U.S. will need to bring to the fore.
What if the big companies won't play ball?
Sadly, they will still profit. The government will do the work and AT&T and others will reap the benefit. Since AT&T laid the original cable and other companies have been renting their fiber optic technology forever, this doesn't really represent a new concept. So the truth is, they have nothing to lose by protesting, and by the same token everything to gain by cooperating. Opening up new areas represents hundreds of thousands of new potential customers, mostly people who haven't had access to high speed internet in the past due to location. Rural areas with low population are the last places profit-driven companies are going to spend money to run expensive fiber optics, so without impetus from the federal government, farmers, ranchers and other big-landowners can expect to get broadband…never.
What's in it for me?
National high-speed broadband does not mean free internet for everybody. You'll still have to pay an ISP to access the internet as you always have, but it will insure faster speeds, even for those customers who are still using antiquated first-generation DSL, or worse, rural areas without cable who are forced to choose between the glacial speed of dialup and the wounded turtle speed of satellite. In comparison to DSL speed available (and affordable) to most non-commercial customers, 100 Mbps represents blazing speed…to misquote Mark Twain, for many it will mean the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
Will it cost more?
Part of the plan is to make broadband not only accessible but affordable. Which may be the key to why big communications companies are protesting. In the supply and demand marketplace paradigm, limiting product availability is the key to raising prices. The harder something is to get, the more people are willing to pay to get it.
Be heard
Weigh in on the discussion at the FCC's Broadband.gov website. Contribute your ideas and suggestions directly to the discussion using the power of the net and find out what others have to say on the subject. After all, what better way to highlight the need for unilateral education and communication than by throwing the discussion open to all?