Last week, I talked about the looming gap between Internet access capacity and potential user demand. Bridging that gap will require tens of billions of dollars (above and beyond what the providers say they’re planning to spend).
Lots of folks didn’t like that message — and a few liked it too much. But overwhelmingly, the big question I kept hearing was, “What should we do about it?”
Here’s a quick look at some of the options:
* Do nothing. Not every demand needs to be satisfied. (There is certainly a gap between, say, my desire to drive a Maserati and what’s actually in my wallet — and it’s unlikely to be filled any time soon, unless there’s a rich uncle somewhere I don’t know about.) I doubt anyone’s seriously considering this option, at least publicly — nobody wants to go on record as being the stumbling block to Internet growth.
* Service providers ratchet up their broadband access investments. This approach has the advantage of being purely free market. The disadvantage is that carriers are very likely to try extracting regulatory concessions in exchange for these investments (thereby demonstrating adherence to less-than-pure-free-market principles).
Those concessions are likely to come in the area of net neutrality — a prospect that makes proponents so furious that some are attempting to discredit the research rather than dealing directly with the issue. (Sorry, guys, taking potshots at the messenger won’t fix anything).
* The government funds the gap, possibly via an extension of the universal service fund (USF). Two disadvantages: First is the lousy job the Feds have done with the USF so far, as I’ve discussed previously. Throwing billions more at a program that’s wasteful, corrupt and woefully in need of oversight seems a hair shortsighted.
Second is the Feds’ horrible track record in recent years when it comes to managing communications services, including requesting warrantless wiretaps and shutting down Internet services they don’t like. (Yes, the NSF did a fine job managing the Internet backbone in its early days — but times have changed).
* State and local governments pick up the gap, perhaps in the form of municipal Wi-Fi. I’m partial to this approach, but again, there are two downsides. First is that many municipalities are finding municipal Wi-Fi too expensive and are pulling back from their rollouts, as I’ve noted earlier. Second, municipalities are likely to impose their restrictions, in a way that violates the spirit of net neutrality. (For example, they’re likely to take a dim view of citizens setting up online interactive pornographic services over a city-subsidized network.)
Where does that leave things? Whatever answer we come up with should at least address the issues above. An excellent start would be requiring any broadband providers, public or private, to adhere strictly to content and user neutrality and obey wiretapping laws.
Oh and…if you’ve been wondering why Google wants to snap up the 700MHz wireless spectrum to roll out its own broadband Internet access — now you know.
