President Bush Releases US Broadband Policy

Ars Technica is reporting that while most people wouldn't know we have a national broadband policy in place, the president claims that not only do we have a plan, it's working spectacularly well. "That's the main conclusion of the just-released 'Network Nation: Broadband in America 2007' [PDF] report from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). What's shocking about the report isn't what it covers [...], but what it leaves out: it doesn't contain a single extended discussion of the fact that the US has been slipping in a worldwide broadband rankings throughout the decade."

Comments

My $670 Comcast Broadband Bill

[lancejjj]

According to the report, affordable broadband is critical to the productivity of the economy.

Well guess what? I spend over $55 per month for my Internet service. And that includes $0.76 in taxes. Do I pay it? You bet. Hell, I'm an IT guy, so connectivity is important to me. But regular "non-IT" people? Is broadband worth $670 per year to them?

$670 is more than my telephone bill. It is even more than my monthly electric bill. That's right, I spend substantially more on Internet connectivity than on Telephone OR Electricity. Let me tell you, I'd give up broadband way before I gave up electricity or telephone.

So, all-mighty-report-writers, here's a clue: many American families aren't going to be able to pay that kind of price.

Re:My $670 Comcast Broadband Bill

[LaughingCoder]

here's a clue: many American families aren't going to be able to pay that kind of price.

I beg to differ. Many of those same families routinely pay $100+ cable/dish bills. And they will pay $60/month for broadband when a) they decide they need it or b) it becomes a better entertainment value to them than cable/dish TV.

And FWIW, I pay more (twice as much) each month for electric and for cell phone than I do for broadband. And don't get me started about heating costs, transportation costs, and food costs, all of which dwarf my broadband bill. In fact, having broadband allowed us to cut our cable bill (we do a lot less TV watching so we don't need lots of channels), and it allowed us to cut our landline bill (using VOIP) as well, so in the end it almost pays for itself.

Compared to Sweden..

[denoir]

The US broadband situation is interesting a a contrast to the one we have here in Sweden. In all cities you can basically as a private person get a fiber connection up to 100 Mbit. Up north where very few people live, you can still get decent 10-20 Mbit ADSL connections. Here in Stockholm most ISPs are talking about upgrading to 1 Gbit/s late this year or early next year. I've had broadband since 1997 (10 Mbit back then). And it's cheap. I'm currently paying roughly $10/month for a 100 Mbit connection (although it's a special deal through the homeowner association my condo belongs to - the street price is somewhat higher)

So why to we have faster and cheaper connections?

* Smaller population (9 million). Although we are do not have a high population density (20/km compared to 31/km for the US), the problem does not scale in a linear fashion.

* Über-centralization. In the US you have states, counties etc, all that have some form of local identity, laws and business. Sweden only has the national level. There are no local ISPs.

* We've paid for it. While it might seem that we are paying less for faster connections, in fact we are not. We are and have been paying it through taxes. Sweden is a very socialist country. Although our ISPs are privately owned they are given enormous subsidies to make sure that every man, woman and reindeer gets a broadband connection no matter where they live. In essence, we in Stockholm are through taxes financing the building of broadbroadband connections up north where it is not economically feasible.

So all in all it's a combination of population, geography and politics.

Eisenhower & Interstate Highway System

[Enrique1218]

Republicans have terrible long term memory. Bush did not heed his father's caution about invading Iraq. Likewise, in forging this do-nothing policy, he forgot about another Republican- Dwight D. Eisenhower. One of Eisenhower's greatest achievements was a Interstate Highway System. The highway system was completely funded by the US government and had tremendous impact the economy that lasts till this day. Goods and workers trek across that system everyday creating the life we have the today. The things we take for granted today would not exist without those roads. A national broadband network can have similar impact for the 21st century. Instead of cybertrekking across small roads like we do todays, we can move across superhighways.

The US economy and society would benefit from this system great. Huge broadband pipes makes sending any form of data across that network practical. Advertising, entertainment, and commerce would get more opportunities. For those who don't like DRM, broadband could cut out those media companies behind the RIAA and MPAA that sit between the consumer and the artist. Scientist and student can have access to huge libraries all from their computers. Our economy grows on ides and such network would allow those ideas move efficiently.

With a recession oncoming, private businesses aren't likely to build such a system anytime soon. Banks are still licking their wounds from the housing fiasco. I can imagine that they will be too shell shock to give loans for a broadband network. The US government is the biggest spender in the world and it doesn't matter if it wastes money on a technology that would be obsolete. I believe that governmental investment is the only way to get a broadband system off the ground.