The U.S. Does Have a Broadband Strategy And it's to convince the public we don't need one... "As far as I can tell, we're the only country on the face of God's green earth that doesn't have a broadband strategy," laments FCC commissioner Michael Copps, at a West Virginian summit held to discuss poor state broadband penetration (see local WTRF news report). That's not entirely true - critics argue the current deregulatory-centric FCC does have a strategy, and it involves releasing optimistic data to prop up the argument that a broadband marketplace left alone results in the best possible outcome for consumers.
|
 |  | | | Re: FCC = White House/Telco Stooge Extraordinaire The Koreans and Japanese have a strategy; the USA just has a near bunch of idiots trying to figure out how long customers will tolerate their incompetence.
Only FIOS is a strategy in the USA. Project Lightspeed (is that Han Solo laughing???) is a joke. Cable COs, when they do it, shooting the Coax 3.0 technology will be their strategy. | |
|
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: Broadband Strategy = Decades-Old Video Franchise Process Well, the "decades-old video franchise process", so derided by the telcos these days, has resulted in the following effects:
--the U.S. has a more advanced Cable TV build-out then just about any other country. No where else will you find cable networks leading teleco networks.
--cable is ubiquitious, and even widely available in poor and minority neighborhoods. This is primarily due to build-out requirements embodied in local franchise argeements.
The argument that no regulation whatsoever will lead to the best outcome for consumers seems based on ideological beliefs, rather than experience or economics. It conveniently ignores the effects of market failure in certain instances.
The BB "policy" adopted by the current Powers That BE seems like it will result in a portion of the population having the choice of multiple, high-performance, low-cost suppliers, while much of the remaining population will have no options, or one very expensive one. This is what I've called the Starbucks Deployment Model: with no national policy on where to site Starbucks stores, a portion of the population has access to Designer Coffee at every street corner, while a significant portion of the population has none. This is fine for something as trivial as an overpriced beverage, but if you believe broadband is more important than that, it is disheartening to see what other countries have been able to do with more aggressive policies. | |
| | |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Re: Broadband Strategy = Decades-Old Video Franchise Process said by PDXPLT:This is what I've called the Starbucks Deployment Model: with no national policy on where to site Starbucks stores, a portion of the population has access to Designer Coffee at every street corner, while a significant portion of the population has none. And where is the outrage regarding this Caffeine Divide??
This is fine for something as trivial as an overpriced beverage, but if you believe broadband is more important than that, it is disheartening to see what other countries have been able to do with more aggressive policies. Well, at BBR readers are encouraged to get 1) Get Coffee 2) Read Morning Broadband Bytes 3) Et Cetera...
It is obvious where THEY stand on the issue.
--
A is A | |
| | | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Broadband Strategy = Decades-Old Video Franchise Process said by John Galt:said by PDXPLT:This is what I've called the Starbucks Deployment Model: with no national policy on where to site Starbucks stores, a portion of the population has access to Designer Coffee at every street corner, while a significant portion of the population has none. And where is the outrage regarding this Caffeine Divide?? To be honest there is not a Starbucks within 50 miles of me, literally. Not that I really care anyways. | |
|
| |  Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | "The argument that no regulation whatsoever will lead to the best outcome for consumers seems based on ideological beliefs, rather than experience or economics. It conveniently ignores the effects of market failure in certain instances."
In theory it is but in reality it could both either way and that's where regulation comes in. I know I said in previous posts that less government regulation is a good thing. I still believe that because some regulations are simply too ridiculous and then they are other's that make sense. Consumers want to extract companies of there profits and as someone who is studying business I see that as a huge problem it's basically beating up the entrepreneur of any financing and could make the business fail if too much regulation is put on top which eventually causes a business failure and then the consumer is left without a choice, because they extracted the company from any success and profits are used to expand or make a good/service better. Again in theory but that's what makes a business strive when businesses begin to think on only the cash they simply secure themselves in the market place and act as some giant leach. While shoving new competitors out of the way.
But humans are greedy and eventually you will feel the pressure of those of your peer's asking for more and more profits. Because money = power in the business world. Companies build large skyscrapers for workers + other things but they also built it as a sense of economic power and when large businesses strive in America that makes the US look good. But such balances are rarely seen and you can never expect them to last forever.
(Sorry I just like economics and still reading up on it  ) | |
|
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
2 edits | FCC is a corrupt, political tool, useless PoS circus... ...and its chiefs should be held accountable older crooks like Powell included. | |
| | | | | | Re: FCC is a corrupt, political tool, useless PoS circus... said by kamm:...and its chiefs should be held accountable older crooks like Powell included. yup....its against the law for public officials and agencies to accept bribes...but nothing is illegal in washington dc | |
|
| | The Best Brodband Policy------- BUT OUT! The idea falling behind in broadband is BS because it does not account for total US internet use including dial-up. Yes, good parts of internet users are happy with dial up.
Also any form of centralize government planned broadband policy will eventually stunt broadband growth by forcing a one size fits all solution which will drive out innovation. Is one going to tell me that a bureaucrat in Washington DC can tell me what is best for me in Oregon? At lest a dynamic unplanned broadband policy allows for many different solutions for me to consumer to chose from be it no broadband, DSL cable or eventually fiber. | |
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: The Best Brodband Policy------- BUTT OUT! I found this part of the story interesting and a good reason to have the Feds butt out, as you say, dictating a broadband policy:
Expansion of broadband could lead to economic development, Rockefeller said.
"This has everything to do with creating more good jobs in West Virginia," he said. "Businesses are going to require that an area have broadband access."
Broadband, which allows more information to be transferred at higher speeds, is available to 85 percent of homes in the U.S., according to the Consumer Advocate Division of the state Public Service Commission. That falls to 75 percent in West Virginia.
Although the final 25 percent will be difficult, it is not impossible to expand broadband service there, Rockefeller said. So, Rockefeller wants federal dollars spent in WV so that jobs can be transferred from some other state. Basically he is arguing for spending money so that WV will be more attractive to companies. Where are these companies coming from? Overseas? - Very unlikely. Much more likely, it is so that companies will come to WV from other states. Now that is a very good broadband policy for the elected Senator from WV. It could help get him reelected. But as a national policy, it is just spending money to move companies and jobs from where broadband is economical to deploy to an area where, even Rockefeller, admits it would be difficult to do so. And that is a very bad NATIONAL policy.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | dsless
join:2001-05-16
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: The Best Brodband Policy------- BUTT OUT! Sir you very little about WV and jobs. | |
| | | | Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: The Best Brodband Policy------- BUTT OUT! say what now? | |
|
| | Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | You act like that strategy is unique to broadband. States and counties try to attract companies all the time with things such as tax incentives with the hope that it will bring jobs to the area. | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: The Best Brodband Policy------- BUTT OUT! said by Zoder:You act like that strategy is unique to broadband. States and counties try to attract companies all the time with things such as tax incentives with the hope that it will bring jobs to the area. Sure it is standard policy. But it is poor NATIONAL policy because there is a net loss for the country moving jobs from one area to another.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
| | broadband plan for a third world nation? A fast becoming third world nation doesn't need a broadband plan. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
Broadband Strategy = Decades-Old Video Franchise Process
