How Can the Stimulus Plan Help the Internet?

Wired is running an article raising the question of how a US economic stimulus plan could best help broadband adoption and the internet in general. We discussed President-elect Obama's statements about his plan, which would include investments in such areas, but Wired asks how we can avoid the equivalent of the New Deal's "ditches to nowhere" without more data about where the money would actually make a difference. Quoting: "... the problem is that no one knows the best way to make the internet more resilient, accessible and secure, since there's no just no public data. The ISP and backbone internet providers don't tell anyone anything. For instance, the government doesn't know how many people actually have broadband or what they pay for it. ... In September, the FCC found that its data collection on internet broadband was incomplete and thus ruled that AT&T, Qwest and Verizon could stop filing some reports — because the requirements did not extend to cable companies, too."

Comments

Re:Premise guarantees failure

[giorgiofr]

E.g: get rid of the regulations and red tape preventing communities from building mesh networks and most cities will be covered faster than you can say "gov't managed central planning always fails".

Re:Premise guarantees failure

[Rinisari]

Exactly. The consumer will direct the market based on the availability of competing, cheaper services.

The $200 billion that the telecoms got in the 1990s to wire America was squandered, and very little was actually done with it (arguably kept prices for existing services at the same level instead of having them go up, but not more than that).

This is where municipal government--boroughs, villages, city sections--could play a hand in essentially buying groups--"aggregate individual choices"-- for broadband service, but still allow residents to choose their own provider.

Don't let the ILECs ruin it

[isdnip]

The problem with current telecom policy is that it presupposes that the old incumbent telephone companies (ILECs) "own" the wires that they installed with monopoly-ratepayer money, but due to the presence of nominal competition (cable), they no longer need to be regulated as utilities. So giving them more money simply raises their profits. It raises the price they pay to buy each other up. Right now the going rate is around $3000/subscriber to buy up a rural telephone company that gets >50% of its revenue from government subsidies. They're simply bidding on the present value of these entitlements. It goes straight to the investment bankers (Goldman Sachs has been making a lot off of the subsidized-ILEC business.)

The FreePress plan is awful too. It simply ignores the ILEC networks and supposes that a few billion dollars could create a "third path", another closed, propertarian network. Of course they also want Internet content to be regulated, so their plan loses on both angles. They just hate the cable industry and collaborate with the Bells against it, consumers being a low priority.

So what might work? I suggest that the feds use the money to finance the spin-out of the ILECs' outside plant -- the loops and short-haul links between their central office buildings -- into neutral "LoopCos". They would provide wholesale access to any LEC, ISP or cableco, including their former owners, on vendor-neutral terms. LoopCos would be strictly regulated utilities (like telcos 25 years ago), forbidden from competing with their customers. Then the stimulus money could be used to finance (low interest loan, subsidies in high-cost areas) an upgrade of their legacy networks to provide (dark) fiber to the home.

The old legacy LEC (ATT, VZ, Q) shareholders would win, because a lot of their debt would move to the LoopCos, where it would be diluted by stimulus money. The Internet and its users would win because we'd have real open-entry competition, not a duopoly.

Lay fibre

[AmiMoJo]

The government should get fibre to every home. Doesn't matter if they do it or they help/force the incumbent telco or a cable provider to do it, it is just what the economy needs.

It would stimulate the construction industry. Lots of digging and laying cables, building up local offices.

It would help IT with new equipment being required and migration of customers from older systems.

It would help broadband companies who now have a new, faster platform to sell.

It would bring new business opportunities like HD video on demand, DVD/BluRay download stores, even more random TV channels etc.

In the long run, it will bring the country into the 21st century.

Your deffinitions presume your conclusion

[MarkusQ]

Any effort by the State to manipulate or direct economic planning will lead to increasing economic irrationality and inefficiency.

This is undoubtedly true, as long as you define "rational and efficient" in terms of the non-colluding well informed self interested rational agents that make up this hypothetical market. It's the same as saying:

Any effort by the User to manipulate or direct the flow of electrons in the CPU will lead to increasing the operating system's irrationality and inefficiency.

So, obviously, true.

But if the assumptions behind this implicit definition break down--if the market participants are themselves irrational, inefficient, short sighted, gullible, or just too damn busy to read every piece of fine print they are faced with--then your conclusion falls apart. The market will become unstable and result in a few players subjugating all the rest, and the system as a whole will cease to do anything beyond satisfying the whims of its masters.

Unless you are foolish enough to fancy yourself as one of the eventual masters, you should not be rooting for this outcome.

--MarkusQ

P.S. One way to resolve the problem is to impose some sort of progressive dampening on the system which recirculates wealth. But doing it by fiat (e.g. welfare) generally damages the value of the currency (loosely, why work if you can get money for free?) so demanding something in exchange (job creation programs) is much better. Even better is when these programs can produce something of lasting value, and better still if it's something of widely acknowledged long term value that "the market" would never have produced since it wasn't in anybody's short term interest.

Fixing our infrastructure, obtaining energy independence, building a permanent moon base, bringing global CO2 levels back to normal, any of these things would be ideal--no private entity could accomplish them, but collectively we could, and be much better for it.

Sometimes it is investment in novel bussiness

[fermion]

I look around the united states and see that the places that are doing OK use the money of the 90's to diversify, while the places that are not doing so well are still making cars. It makes me think that what the money is spent on specifically is not so important so long as it is not spent on refurbishing buggy whip factories.

We wasted huge sums of cash in the 90's, but we came out the other end with many profitable long term ventures that set up growth or the US economy. Of course some people, comfortable with their 10 million dollar a year jobs did not embrace such a path to growth, and spent most of the past decade fighting or perverting the change that would cost them their jobs and often fraudulent pay checks, so the path to the next big thing is not clear. It never is, especially when we just do the same old thing . What is clear is that we are wasting out money helping old line and fraudulent businesses. For instance, for the amount of money we are giving to the automakers, who knows how much will just go to bonuses, and accounting costs for the planned elimination of half the line workers jobs, we could have a lottery to give away coupons for 80% discounts on American cars for at least 200,0000 people, thus clearing the backlog. You see, innovative ideas for innovate futures, but of course such an idea has not bonuses for the bosses.

The United states has technology for renewable energy, but very little money. Someone is going to make a lot of money on this, and the oil comapanies will lose a lot of money, unless they stop selling buggy whips. Even now I wonder if there is well in the US that can be profitably drilled for $40 a barrel. Someone is going to make a huge amount of money delivering content using TCP/IP, but the broadcasters and cable will lose money, unless they get off their butts and do it. The nice thing about this is that the middle man can be cut out, and the US can distribute to the world, if we have the bandwidth to not only deliver such content to the US population, but also to the world, which we don't.

I don't know what else the US can do, but it has to be more than selling poorly engineered cars and fraudulent financial services. Of course a work ethics that promotes such innovation will have to encouraged, which means that some of he easy jobs, the ones like the we heard about prior to the collapse of the USSR where people got paid to sit around, play chess, and drink vodka all day, will have to go.