Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
Summary: 52% of American's do not see nationwide, high-speed broadband as a priority according to a survey. Had they asked the younger demographics, perhaps the results would have been different.
As colleague Sam Diaz reports this morning, a survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project finds that over half of US citizens believe that nationwide high-speed broadband is not a priority, and in some cases "efforts to expand broadband should be abandoned". Only 40% said the issue was a top priority.
The thing that grabbed my attention was the demographic details. Different generations will believe different things - and had more focus been divided between older and younger generations, I strongly suspect the figures would be different.
The problem with survey research like this is the sampling data that is used. Respondents were over the age of 18 which makes survey permissions far easier to deal with, yet had they branched out to an even younger demographic by seeking parental permission, the results would have been totally different.
But flip this round again to a different way of thinking. This survey wasn't an election, nor was it a battle for a winning argument. Just because 'only' 40% say that broadband should be rolled out nationwide and at high-speeds to compete with other countries, along with to boost industry and development - it doesn't mean that the 52% against necessarily win. 40% may not be the majority, but it's certainly a significant minority, and I can almost guarantee that the vast majority of this 40% will be in urban environments.
The US is lagging behind in broadband speeds. I know - I've been there. And the United Kingdom isn't that much better, even though at home as I write this I enjoy the delights of 17mbps broadband. But I live in a city and about 200m away from the telephone exchange, while the rest of my family cope with 1.5mbps speeds where they live in north Nottinghamshire in a village in the middle of Sherwood Forest. Literally.
The US government says 100 million Americans do not have broadband. The report author argued that non-users may be reluctant about "a government promoting a technology that they don't use" nor "see the clear benefit to them".
As broadband becomes a 'legal right' in some countries, along with electricity, water and gas supplies, one wouldn't dream of having a limited water supply which only kicks out a pint of water a day. Why should it be the same for broadband?
Just as gas heats our homes in the dead of winter, electricity powers our devices for entertainment, water is our physical human lifeblood; broadband is the lifeblood of industry, communication and business.
Broadband will be a massive investment for the future. To put it crudely, if the older generations who said no to the broadband plans now are listened to, by the time they're dead and the younger generations take the places in industry, they will have to survive on the poor decisions that the older generation made.
While I'm all for democracy, I sincerely hope that the US government acknowledges, but ignores this survey. A nationwide high-speed roll-out of broadband will be nothing but a good thing and will pay for itself in a few years.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
I would say the big problem with US broadband is the price not the coverage.
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
This will not always be a profitable enterprise, and so, yes, there will be some for whom expansion will not be a viable investment for the service suppliers; at least not until some other advancement comes along to change that balance.
Alternatively, cooperatives may be formed by those willing to invest, pooling their resources to somehow effect an expansion of service. These may be charity organizations, or possibly CO-OP organizations formed by those most affected.
We need something that motivates us as people to work to improve our own situations... possibly even to the point of inventing some new advancement which then benefits ourselves, and which can be "sold" to others.
Governments tend to stifle this sort of advancement in the long run. They tend to concentrate investment into things which are politically expedient for the bureaucrats, but not necessarily those things which are the most beneficial for all.
It's unproven that we even *can* adequately expand broadband to 100% of the people, and there is definitely no way to measure what the *right* amount of investment is before the cost outweighs the returns. And of course, there will always be those who have a lower bandwidth than others, so it becomes a continual spiral of government extortion to bring the lower ends up even more.
The idea that we can attain complete equality is a myth. What we should be striving for is removing the government roadblocks that prevent anyone who is motivated enough from working to achieve their potential. And without inequalities there would never be that motivation.
Just ask the parents if they should spoil their kids
It's such kinda thinking that keeps asking for the spending that cannot be funded that bankrupts the entire western civilization.
You want broadband? How about paying it off from your own wallet.
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
It shouldn't be a surprise that those who don't have to pay taxes (i.e., those under 18) would be more willing to make others pay for expanded broadband access. Wait until they've worked for a decade, and have had to deal with having 40%+ of their hard work embezzled by the governement for "helping" others.
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
I think the biggest problem with the government paying to expand broadband is that they do not monitor the funds that they already pay out. They pay Verizon and Comcast millions of dollars to expand, so what do those companies do? They expand a little then use the rest of the money to put little ISPs out of business, and it is usually the the little ISPs that reach the rural areas in the first place.
We pay tons of taxes so Comcast and Verizon and a couple others have an easy bottom line, squashing any competition, and I should know I help my brother with his small ISP which offers wireless broadband, and anywhere they can get a foot hold Comcast runs in and offers free internet for 6 mounths to get people switch (of course they will jack the rates later), and this all funded by the government "helping rural people get broadband"
Rural areas are the only places small ISPs have left, and the Government is paying to kill us.
Bad comparison
The UK is tiny.
America is magnitudes larger.
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
[i]You're talking about a time when there was essentially no business model which would allow delivery of news and information to post offices in an affordable way.[/i]
What you're saying is, now that times have changed we don't need the Framers' wisdom. We can say, well that may have made sense at the founding but it doesn't make sense now. How far down that road are you prepared to go? I can think of lots of liberals who would love to make that same argument.
[i]Fortunately for us, business models have already allowed for electronic communications "post offices" and "post roads" to be built efficiently, and thus the government has no need to step in.[/i]
The Constitution also empowers Congress to raise armies. It could be argued that at the time there was no business model to provide military services but certainly they exits today. See Blackwater. By your logic the government no longer has a need to step into the military business if armies can be provided commercially.
In my opinion the Framers didn't include those things in the enumerated powers for lack of a business model to provide them. The Framers empowered the Congress to do the things they thought were necessary to form and preserve a free civil society. I'm sticking with them.
:)
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
Actually, it is my argument that is relying on the wisdom of the framers, and it is your side of the argument which is attempting to misconstrue their words to achieve your ends.
First of all, the framers insisted that any power granted to the government, *by the people*, must be written into the constitution. If it's not written there, then they do not have that power. My argument is that the constitution says nothing about any other infrastructure, and it is unconstitutional for the government to assume that power without a constitutional amendment. If it is something that cannot be provided any other way than granting the power to government, then it warrants a constitutional amendment. Lacking this amendment, it is unconstitutional (by definition). Any argument which tries to circumvent that approach is the argument which is ignoring "the Framer's wisdom."
Now, of course, we're talking about the federal government, and individual states were given much more freedom with which to experiment with different methods. However, even there, states are supposed to be controlled by their own constitutions.
But in any case, the point of my statement to which you responded was that they had a need *at that time* to provide a communication infrastructure because it didn't exist at that time, and there was not enough critical mass of business investment to provide for it. But please note how they implemented it - it was definitely not done in a way that would support your position with respect to extending broadband access through government power.
And the framers only gave the congress the power to do that which is constitutionally supported. The mere fact that some congresses (and presidents) since then have abused their powers does not prove your opinion that they actually do have that power constitutionally.
Your knowledge of the constitution is severely lacking in both the meaning of the content, as well as the historical significance; which unfortunately skews how you think it applies to more recent issues.
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
First of all, it is a euphemism to think of it as "government spending." The government has no good or service for sale, but instead siphons off of the hard work of the people.
Secondly, if it is more productive for these people to have broadband access, then let those who benefit the most invest in their own future. And there are time-honored organizations which exist to fill the gaps; things like charities and cooperatives.
Then there's the understanding that in order to support the "government spending," one would have to believe that the "government" is some altruistic, all-knowing power which has our best interests at heart.... something which history has proven is horribly misguided. Concentrating too much power encourages corruption and abuse.
And finally, if someone believes in the inherent benefits of natural selection, they should be less likely to advocate for government intervention; because such intervention tends to stifle advancement in the long run.
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
I agree that the government has done a less than exemplary job in many areas in which they've tried to manage this type of thing. However, the communications carriers have proven themselves to be little more than crooks. They'd like nothing better than to take money directly from your pockets to theirs, and skip all this foolishness about providing communications. They're a caricature of the free enterprise system.
We have a longstanding tradition of charging telephone customers in high density areas to subsidize rural communications. You probably see that on your monthly bill, as I do. IMO what needs to happen is a better allocation of those funds toward making broadband more universally available - we don't really have the Mayberry phone co any more where the operator puts you through to Aunt Bea, so let's rethink that program into a way to make broadband available to everyone - if we have to subsidize cable instead of telcos, that's fine, but let's stop wasting that money on get rich quick schemes for monopoly carriers, and use it to benefit consumers instead of robber barrons.
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
As I've written elsewhere, I have no problem with a business charging whatever price their market will bear, including whatever they can get to help them invest more in the business - which in the long run will include expansion into other areas.
That is what businesses do: they invest their profits into more business which improves services expansion and/or quality, maintains employees to perform the work, hires more as they expand, etc.
Businesses don't stick their profits in a mattress (i.e., take them out of the financial system). Instead, they invest in one of many different ways that in the long run provides benefit to us lowly workers.
RE: Nationwide broadband 'not a priority'? Just ask the kids
But if you think it's a strange debate in the US - try the current Australian election debate over national broadband!!!
As much as I dislike the idea of the government owning internet access I like the scheme currently being rolled out - offering fiber to the home with 25mbps to 100Mbps plans, and just announced 1Gbps top speed.
Meanwhile the opposition is now offering a cheaper broadband rollout with every existing technology offering a minimum peak speed of 12Mbps. This is when most Australians are covered by ADSL2 already.
They are hoping that wireless technology will form part of this,as although fiber is better, wireless is cheaper and is getting better. The rest is made up of the existing technologies in place including HFC.
So we have the choice of being improved by a major spend on a network offering to guarantee that it can peak at a slower speed than we already have.
So basically a $AU6 billion spend to take us back to half way between ADSL and ADSL2.
This is because they believe that by using existing systems the private providers can still make money out of the existing infrastructure. So they are hedging their bets and trying to keep both sides of the above debate happy.
The government system already being rolled out is a joint venture with private companies retailing the connections and private enterprise can still make money, but the opposition does not like the existing monopoly provider being threatened.