Universal service desperately needs to be fixed, and better broadband to the home might be part of that fix. But to justify better broadband services, we need a stronger argument than subsidizing services to people who don’t want to pay for them for the benefit of high-tech firms seeking to sell stuff.
It’s axiomatic these days that the U.S. desperately needs a national broadband policy. You’ve probably heard the “thirteenth and slipping” statistic: According to recent studies, the U.S. is lagging compared with other nations – particularly in the Far East – in terms of per-capita broadband access. And apparently the reason is the lack of a national broadband policy.
Says FCC Commissioner Michael Copps: “Why in the hell is the United States No. 13 and heading south in broadband deployment? Why are folks in Korea and Japan getting 10 times the capacity at a half or a third or a quarter of the price? We may be the only industrial country on the face of God’s green Earth that doesn’t have a national plan for broadband deployment.”
There are a few arguments behind the call for a broadband policy.
A report late last year by Consumer Federation research director Mark Cooper says the issue is basic fairness and the need to address the “digital divide” between rich and poor. Specifically, Cooper says, in 1934 the U.S. made the decision to support universal telephone service to all households. Yet without universal broadband access, universal service is a joke.
TechNet, the online network of executives at high-tech firms, including Cisco CEO John Chambers, makes a slightly different case: Lack of ubiquitous broadband access is slowing the economy. “Universal access to high-speed Internet connections could inject an estimated $300 billion into the U.S. economy each year,” this group says. (And, of course, plowing those billions into tech gear wouldn’t exactly hurt Cisco’s stock price, although TechNet doesn’t bring that up.)
Hmm. I’ve got to admit that I’m struggling with these arguments. Not enough people want to spend the $40 to $50 per month that cable modem, DSL and satellite service cost? This is a problem because – why, exactly?
People aren’t idiots. Joe and Jane American probably have a better handle on how they’d like to spend their cash than you, me or the feds. After all, something like 97% of all households – including the very poorest – have at least one TV, and a whopping 80% have more than one. Yet we don’t have a “national television policy,” much less a “television divide.”
As for TechNet’s argument that we’re holding back the economy: With all due respect to the nice folks in San Jose, what’s good for Cisco isn’t necessarily what’s good for America.
Sure, lots of people want broadband access – more people than want to pay for it, in fact. But that in and of itself isn’t a reason to subsidize it.
Don’t get me wrong, as I’ve written many times, our current universal services policy is demented. Universal service desperately needs to be fixed, and better broadband to the home might be part of that fix.
But to justify better broadband services, we need a stronger argument than subsidizing services to people who don’t want to pay for them for the benefit of high-tech firms seeking to sell stuff.
