When Will We Have a Comprehensive National Sneaker Strategy?
from the parallel-processing dept
My fellow Arsian Nate Anderson blasts the Bush administration for its laissez faire attitude toward the development of broadband infrastructure. He laments the fact that the administration lacks a "vision" or "national target" for broadband deployment. DSL Reports chimes in, noting that Japan claims to have deployed 100 Mbps fiber to eighty five percent of its homes. But Matt Sherman points out that while "we," meaning the government, may not have a single, unified broadband strategy, "we" the broader marketplace have several broadband strategies being developed in parallel. As he says, Verizon's strategy is fiber-to-the-home, AT&T's strategy is fiber-to-the-node, Sprint's strategy is WiMax, etc. Which of these will prove the most effective? I have no idea. But it's also not clear to me how greater federal government involvement in these deployments would speed them up. Matt also notes the peculiarity of using advertised broadband speeds as a measure of broadband quality. He's got a graph showing that, by at least some measures, North America leads the world in the deployed speed of actual measured broadband connections. Comparing advertised speeds can be problematic, especially since some countries have low usage caps that make the high advertised speeds and low advertised prices extremely misleading. There are certainly plenty of problems with the broadband marketplace, not least the limited amount of competition in many markets. But calling for a "comprehensive national broadband strategy" doesn't make a lot of sense. We need to find ways to increase competition and remove obstacles to the deployment of more capacity, but we don't need a national strategy for the broadband industry any more than we need a national strategy for the production of tennis shoes.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband policy, competition, us
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
whynot standardize fiber?
Can't we just all lay fiber and call it good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
As it is right now, I don't think most homes need 100mps transfer rates. I do fine with 54mps, and I doubt I ever even use that much at a time. If a home or more likely office building needs a faster connection, they are plenty of options available. And yes they have to pay for it, but if they need it that bad then chances are they have the money to afford it.
In the end, the phone companies will compete with each other, and possibly even collaborate at some point, who knows. But free competition is good for everyone. They will continue to develop and install better technologies and serve them to consumers, and its definitely way better than having it be government regulated. I shudder at the thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like a utility?
Like a publicly owned utility? Slightly better than all the rest. Can anyone more in the know tell me why this is a bad idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like a utility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uuhhhh....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also
Kind of like saying the network infrastructure itself could be owned by the city or a single company, but you'd have the choice of several companies to get service on it... (best option)
And honestly dittobox you really don't sound like you have any idea how this industry works now, having a single dominant infrastructure that is wholly owned by a single company is pretty much status quo almost everywhere right now (the copper-wire phone lines are finally competitive, but who cares?), this certainly wouldn't be any worse! And beyond that it provides the possibility of much better possible outcomes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fix 'em Up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It may be time to leapfrog all of this
I'm not entirely sure about that, but I've been thinking for the past few years that one way out of the broadband problem (loosely defined as "availability/cost/quality/reliability") is to stop trying to solve it...and route around it.
Those who know their 'net history (or who lived it) know that it's been tried before, with varying degrees of success. Usenet, for example, was a way to route around the problem set associated with acquiring ARPAnet connectivity. (That wasn't it's only purpose, to be sure, just one of them.)
I'm becoming convinced that it's possible to abandon the telecom-centric model entirely. I think a sufficient number of the problems associated with doing so have already been solved, while those that remain -- although difficult -- are tractable. Anybody want to start another 'net?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The dumb pipe is the utility.
The fiber it's self, if selected properly, can likely be used for decades to come, with incremental upgrade and replacement of connecting equipment.
The above posters are correct, buy your bandwidth from the community peering point out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Little Timmy forgets...
That the government is all ready involved by granting/selling/whoring out public right of way and/or airwaves.
To not regulate such an environment is tremendously stupid and/or malicious.
"The market will fix it" thinking isn't working out to well is it? Telecommunication Act, USF, Tax breaks, etc gave/gives these companies huge amount of money and exclusive access to more. To DEMAND that the infrastructure be NOT ONLY maintained to accommodate subscribers but expanded and upgraded is not unreasonable in the least. "Markets" that exist by RELYING on public right of way should expect a bit more regulation the "markets" that don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Headline!!
And, of course...
Think of the children!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]