Why do we, US citizens, pay more for broadband than most (if not all) other 1st world countries? Maybe more important to ask:
- What are the impacts to our society?
- What are we doing about it?
A recent article published by the BBC News revealed the cost of broadband is highest in the US of all industrialized nations. They elude to some reasons for the cost differences but leave room to draw other conclusions.
"The price of basic broadband, TV and phone packages - or bundles as they are known - is much higher in American cities than elsewhere, suggests the New America Foundation think tank, which compared hundreds of available packages worldwide."
"This research echoes the findings of another report earlier in the summer by the OECD, which compared countries in terms of their broadband-only prices. Across all 10 download speeds and capacities, it consistently ranked the US near the bottom."
The BBC published their article along with similar articles which are bringing to light the disparity on US broadband cost and access.
The New America Foundation just released their second annual report on broadband pricing studies. The study is highlighted by Gigaom in their recent publish; "More proof that without competition U.S. broadband costs more and delivers less."
"The report, now in its second year, attempts to compare U.S. broadband offerings to the rest of the world. It found that once again, that based on speed U.S. broadband is more expensive than many other cities."
This got me thinking about their studies and rationale. I can't say I find fault in the conclusions.
"Americans pay so much because they don't have a choice," says Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama on science, technology and innovation policy."
No one wants big government. No one. However, a Capitalistic society left to its own devices will cannibalize itself. We need regulation, which requires government oversight.
The problem is we don't treat broadband access like a utility. Ergo, it's not regulated like a utility. It's not price or service regulated. There's no guarantee of service. There's no fair or competitive pricing. It's every cable company for themselves, which leads to price gouging and anti-competitive market conditions. The cable companies win. We lose.
"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight."
We need to start treating broadband access like a utility; regulating and ensuring everyone has fair and high quality access, citizens, business and government. If we don't then there's sure to be implications that drive societal shifts. Of greatest importance, there will be the (further) degradation of and to our youth and education.
"The 2008 banking crisis demonstrated what happens when we allow banks to act out of pure self interest. The communications crisis in America is less visible but also destructive of America's ability to function on the global stage."
It's already hard enough to compete on a global scale for jobs and industry. Why are we crippling our youth and "cutting them off" at the laptop? Aren't we better than that? Our lack of broadband regulation is creating a digital society of "haves" and "have nots."
"For Susan Crawford, author of Captive Audience, higher prices have created a digital divide which excludes poor Americans from quality internet access. And there are economic implications too."
"Like electricity, she says, internet access should be available equally to all at reasonable prices so that every other sector of US industry and society can flourish."
Eventually, everyone loses.
"The 2008 banking crisis demonstrated what happens when we allow banks to act out of pure self interest. The communications crisis in America is less visible but also destructive of America's ability to function on the global stage."
There are plenty of examples of US cities and municipalities that have dabbled in providing broadband as a public service. Most of these cities are showing glowing reviews and display positively how their community is benefiting.
The New America Foundation study points out there are a couple of US communities that are in the top running for "best bang for your buck" in terms of broadband. Those communities have all embraced broadband-as-a-utility mindset or embraced alternative broadband providers to their citizens to increase competition and drive down cost.
Businesses benefit and citizens benefit, which means local government benefits.
Win, win, win.
Some argue that US broadband companies are reinvesting (some of their mega-) profits to further the technologies at a pace that public or regulated utilities cannot. In their argument, the US "wins" because we force private companies to develop better, faster and cheaper methodologies for broadband service. So far I'm not seeing the proof in that pudding. Take a quick look at South Korea and you will see not only faster in-home broadband, but also access to faster wireless data for their masses.
What are they doing that we're not? Why aren't we doing it?
Edit: ...this just in...
More proof that without competition U.S. broadband costs more and delivers less
Wha??
credit: BBC UK News, Gigaom, New America Foundation
No comments:
Post a Comment