asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| To continue on the track powerhog started...
The report complains that we confuse deployment data and adoption data and then proceeds to do exactly the same thing, throwing out bits and pieces of data from different studies, some of which involve adoption, some deployment. There is NEVER a clear definition of broadband given, though it appears that satellite is included, which is always a giveaway as to intent since its inclusion always allows one to claim almost 100% US deployment.
They do have the decency to mention, in one sentence quote:
Collection of useful data on deployment has been made difficult by...the need to keep proprietary corporate information and strategies confidential.
It was kind of them to mention it in passing since it is the heart of the problem as to why we "confuse" adoption with deployment. In short the companies provide no cooperation on deployment data and the government shows no interest in systematically trying to determine actual deployment so we are left having to do what this report, as well as everyone else, does, namely guess.
Nevertheless their insistence that we don't have good data and need more data hasn't kept them from making a slew of claims that everything is fine and:
quote:
Clearly, however, this work should be based not on continuing efforts to pursue such unhelpful policies as open access, common carriage laws for broadband networks, municipal networking or network neutrality
legislation. It should rather be based on the work over the past decade that has already proven successful
in healing the digital divides.
It's amazing how a lack of information condemns their enemies while miraculously providing clear eyed certainty as to the righteousness of their own agenda.
They don't begin to prove that "the deployment gap is closing rapidly".
The real agenda is to focus on adoption. This provides a number of advantages.
1. We can focus on the old argument that the real problem is the poor who, as always, drag everyone else down. The poor F#$K up everything.
2. We can focus not on communications companies spending to increase deployment but on government spending more to educate the poor. In other words more needs to come out of our pockets, not out of their pockets. (BTW I'm not arguing against spending on the poor, I'm just pointing up their misdirection)
Actually, what we need is to:
1. Actually determine what the hell is going on with broadband deployment.
2. realize that deployment, not adoption should be the key concern from a public policy standpoint.
Certainly companies have to worry about adoption rates. The government though needs to worry about whether people can buy it if they want to(availability), not whether those who can get it freely choose to buy or not to buy(adoption).
quote:
Federal programs should focus on supporting state and local efforts. Broadband deployment
is a local investment issue, and broadband adoption is largely a local education issue. The best
and most effective federal programs are therefore more likely to be those that support efforts that
can be tailored to the unique needs of each community rather than a single, one-size-fits-all
national program. Appropriate programs would thereby include federal grants and loans for
Since last mile access is controlled by companies with a presence over many states(in fact companies with global reach in some cases) and since the behavior of these companies is heavily tied to federal lobbying efforts in washington why should the response be local? Perhaps what they mean is that we should stay at home and mind our own business while they are playing big boy games where the real power is in washington? |
