Setting Goals for Internent Access in America
Any plan for the future of Internet access in America must have clear justifiable goals. For example, do we want to play catch up to Japan which already offers its citizens more than 100 Gbps for $20/month or with S. Korea which has nearly ubiquitous access.
I believe the discussion is not whether to build out Internet access to everyone in the U.S. This is a given. Everyone in the U.S. must have affordable or even free Internet access. The real discussion is how fast it should be and how much should it cost.
Most discussions seem to be suggesting that fiber optic cable to the house is holy grail and that sub 100 Gbps would be adequate. I believe that discussion lacks vision. We should leapfrog the Japanese and the S. Koreans by planning access speeds of 200 Gbps and preferably 1000 Gbps. We also need a national policy that requires all households and businesses have very or extremely high speed Internet access. The thought of capping Internet access is so absurd that it doesn't require comment. Charging individuals and businesses for Internet access should be abolished. We don't charge for access to public libraries. We should not charge for Internet access for the same reasons.
What if we had we currently had 1000 Gbps Internet access to our homes. What new businesses would thrive by selling content through such a system. Imagine sporting events and movies made available in definitions doubling that of Blue-Ray. This would encourage the electronics industry to produce higher resolution TVs and recording devices. It would encourage technical changes in the production of content. What if the lectures provided online by colleges and universities were provided in ultra high resolution instead of fuzzy little YouTube-like images. Every new technological innovation that produces higher speed communication creates new industries and new wealth.
The goals are simple:
1. The next phase of Internet access should offer more bandwidth than we can currently imagine anyone or any business ever needing. Whatever we predict and settle on will be merely adequate 5 years out.
2. Instead of dreaming of fiber optic to the house, we need to dream of multistranded multiphased fiber optic to the house. We do not want to dig up and replace the fiber optic cable every couple of years. Whatever cable is used, is must be standardized nationally.
3. Charging for Internet access is like charging for broadcast radio or television. Charging is a flawed concept. The money should be made through the production and advertising of content.
4. The cost of bringing ultra high speed Internet access to everyone should be paid for by everyone through a tax. The cost per person would be extremely small using this model. This tax would not be unlike a school tax or gasoline tax.
We need to get out of the rut of thinking that we will be able to negotiate with Internet access monopolies to meet the Internet access needs of the country. We need completely new ideas and business models.
Comments
I agree with you!
Todd DiRoberto
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/americansatellite/todddiroberto/emw24...
With the satellite internet that I currently have, at the moment I would take anything. But, thinking clearly, I think it makes perfect sense that we lay down fiber optic cable while we still have the opportunity to lay down this fresh new infrastructure. Being infatuated with computers since I was a small child, I've seen all sorts of technology come and go. One thing I have noticed constantly reoccurring is that what we think is more than adequate right now becomes obsolete fast. IPv4, FAT, 32-bit processing, and a bunch of other technologies were initially designed with more scalability than the developers could even remotely imagine needing. Yet here we are, only years later, finding that we've dug ourselves into a hole, because we need to shift to a new technology without causing too much disruption in what's already there.
I feel that the same thing will happen here if we settle for anything other than fiber-optic. Sure, it costs more now, and prices may drop years from now, but the fact remains that digging up old lines and replacing them is a lot more trouble (and therefore, a lot more money) than just going fiber-optic the first time. Even if we somehow had the money, the incentive on the part of the companies just wouldn't be there, and so the obsolete lines would remain un-upgraded. This is, in fact, happening right now, with companies unwilling to make the investment to even give us broadband, to the point where government had to step in. The fact that I live one mile from a broadband line and still don't have broadband nor phone lines that can do more than 26.4 kbps on dialup shows this problem quite clearly, I believe.
If we were to simply give everyone cable or DSL, when that becomes inadequate, nobody will want to upgrade it again. And just like now, the only way anything will get done is when the government steps in. We all would be much better off in the long term if we did it right the first time.
I agree with you!
Todd DiRoberto
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/americansatellite/todddiroberto/emw24...
With the satellite internet that I currently have, at the moment I would take anything. But, thinking clearly, I think it makes perfect sense that we lay down fiber optic cable while we still have the opportunity to lay down this fresh new infrastructure. Being infatuated with computers since I was a small child, I've seen all sorts of technology come and go. One thing I have noticed constantly reoccurring is that what we think is more than adequate right now becomes obsolete fast. IPv4, FAT, 32-bit processing, and a bunch of other technologies were initially designed with more scalability than the developers could even remotely imagine needing. Yet here we are, only years later, finding that we've dug ourselves into a hole, because we need to shift to a new technology without causing too much disruption in what's already there.
I feel that the same thing will happen here if we settle for anything other than fiber-optic. Sure, it costs more now, and prices may drop years from now, but the fact remains that digging up old lines and replacing them is a lot more trouble (and therefore, a lot more money) than just going fiber-optic the first time. Even if we somehow had the money, the incentive on the part of the companies just wouldn't be there, and so the obsolete lines would remain un-upgraded. This is, in fact, happening right now, with companies unwilling to make the investment to even give us broadband, to the point where government had to step in. The fact that I live one mile from a broadband line and still don't have broadband nor phone lines that can do more than 26.4 kbps on dialup shows this problem quite clearly, I believe.
If we were to simply give everyone cable or DSL, when that becomes inadequate, nobody will want to upgrade it again. And just like now, the only way anything will get done is when the government steps in. We all would be much better off in the long term if we did it right the first time.
Post new comment