Show All
Top 5
In recent weeks, the development of the United States’ broadband infrastructure has taken a few sharp body blows. First was the Google/Verizon net neutrality furore and now research results that show the rollout of universal broadband is not deemed a priority or even necessary by the majority of Americans.
According to the Pew Internet Project’s latest research, at least 52% of Americans believe that President Obama’s $7.2 billion in stimulus funds should be spent on other areas rather than the country’s broadband infrastructure. This comes as somewhat of a shock, especially at a time when most of the world’s developed countries are striving to claim the bejewelled prize of a true networked nation.
According to the US government over 100 million Americans do not currently have access to a broadband connection. This figure is significantly higher to that which was much lauded during the Bush administration. During this time it was claimed that 99% of Americans had access to high-speed Internet. The difference between the two figures is quite significant.
The current state of the United States’ broadband development was revealed earlier in the summer when the Pew Internet Project published a map showing broadband penetration across the country (see map). As to be expected, it is the rural parts of America that are the most underserved and while a number of articles herald the impact of the stimulus money on these areas, it is alarming to note that many of the residents may not actually want improved broadband access.
As such, I cannot help but wonder if the US needs to look to the UK for help or at least a role model. In the UK, we may not have any stimulus money, but we do have a Digital Champion – Martha Lane Fox. In a previous post, I wrote about the UK’s digital agenda and the ambition of the Digital Champion’s Race Online 2012 campaign that’s designed to develop an educated, if not necessarily, networked nation. The key here is to ensure that everyone has an understanding of the Internet, that fears and concerns about it are quashed and that people start to see how it can be used to better their lives.
From what I can see, the US currently does not have this. Yes, Obama’s doing a great job of promoting the need for universal broadband but who at the grassroots levels is really pushing this? Who’s organising classes or more informal clubs to encourage those currently without access to take that crucial first online step?
Ultimately, it takes more than money to develop a networked nation.
Do you agree? Are you aware of any Digital Champions in your region? If so, I’d be interested to hear from you.
Gareth-
One of the major differences is that the U.S. never had a national operator – thus the challenges are quite different. There have been plenty of digital champions over the years and there remain many – maybe too many voices. U.S. broadband penetration is nearly 69% and availability is greater than 90% – but alot of the problem remains affordability. And unfortunately I do not see the stimulus money doing much to alleviate this very important issue.
Thanks, Teresa. You make some good points. I read an interesting piece on Gigaom recently from @gigastacey that echoed many of these issues. The article noted that there are three significant hurdles to universal broadband:
1) Subscription prices need to be lowered
2) Disinterested parties need a reason to subscribe
3) Government/ISPs need to expand broadband availability
In regards to the disinterested parties, do you see engagement on any level in trying to encourage people online? For example, in the UK a number of private firms have started community outreach programs, offering evening computer classes to people without any online access.
Thanks,
Gareth
New comment from @gazettabyte on Twitter:
Good blog. Is a champion needed or just voters? Will no action spur mobile BB? Are the economic benefits of BB even proven?
Thanks, Roy. Great questions. Here are some thoughts:
Is a champion needed or just voters?
I believe that there needs to be champions in every community. Someone who is willing to promote the benefits of Internet access and the positive impact it can have. I’m a little concerned that the stimulus approach will not foster this type of communal engagement.
Will no action spur mobile BB?
In urban areas I’m sure mobile BB will continue to develop at pace. The significant growth in mobile data demands it. But what will happen in the rural areas is concerning. Without user demand, will the stimulus money be used to push mobile BB? I’m not so sure.
Are the economic benefits of BB even proven?
This is a key question and one that I only have anecdotal evidence on. In the UK, it’s certainly been the case that rural BB developments have resulted in economic benefits. However, has this been demonstrated on a wider scale?
I’d be interested to hear further thoughts on these questions.
Thanks,
Gareth
The Broadband Stimulus had two programs – Public Computer Center and Sustainable Broadband Adoption that were aimed specifically at this issue. It remains to be seen how or if they have any impact. It absolutely has to be community oriented and I am not really seeing any evidence that this is happening.
Do you know if any of the $200 million ($50 million for the Public Computer Centers and $150 million for the Sustainable Broadband Adoption Programs) set aside for these programs has been released yet?
It’s worrying that you’re not seeing any results here.
Between the two rounds….
48 PCC Awards for $131M
21 SBA awards for around $135M
I watch what happens in other countries… Its just the same here in the UK.
Government has no idea of how to get people online. Heck most of them aren’t online, they get their emails handed to them on dead trees by their PA or clerks or family.
Until access is ubiquitous and affordable the people won’t engage. Here in the UK we have the early adopters. Many are geeks. Joe public only engages if they live next to an exchange or a mast. There is a third of the country who don’t have access to any decent service of any kind. They will never engage until that service is provided. If the government want to save money by putting stuff online then they will have to invest in the infrastructure. The telcos won’t invest because they are quite happy milking the obsolete copper. As long as they can get ‘broadband’ through the old telephone network they will do. It is only when that copper is replaced with fibre that people will realise what a wonderful thing the internet is, and how much time, money and carbon footprint it can save.
Unfortunately the quangos advising government have a vested interest and the politicians are being misguided. Next Generation access needs fibre. To every home. End of.
rant.
chris
Thanks, Chris. It appears clear that what we need is education and investment. Without the activities of Martha Lane Fox and others I wonder how strong the uptake in new subscribers would be.
I still can’t believe that you haven’t been appointed rural broadband champion yet
Thanks,
Gareth