An article on the front page of the February 3 New York Times, “Internet Money in Fiscal Plan: Wise or Waste?” sparked immediate debate across the Internet and on television, and inspired a wide variety of responses on the NYT website by flashing the time-tested rabble-rousing phrase “bridge to nowhere.”
This time it’s a cyberbridge meant to connect rural and poor America to the 21st century.
NYT reporter David Herszenhorn said the idea of extending the information superhighway to every corner of the land seems at first like a no-brainer. Creating a state-of-the-art cyber infrastructure could “spread the wealth” of information and connectivity throughout the land and fulfill Obama’s campaign promise to put us up to speed with other highly technical nations.
The provocative language stampeded the debate toward the miry bog of who’s worthy and who’s unworthy based on choice or accident of address, but the real issue is whether the project belongs in the quick fix bucket that the stimulus package is supposed to address, or whether a technical project of this scope requires more careful planning than this timetable allows.
Herszenhorn quotes Craig Settles, a tech industry analyst and consultant who has studied broadband applications in rural and urban areas, as saying that study and planning are required to build systems that will meet the needs of rural areas. Settles warns that hasty spending on ill-conceived programs could result in massive waste.
To make matters worse, the NYT also carried an item on January 30 that four little words, or any residential subscriber, inserted in the subsidy bill intended to make taking service to rural or low income areas more profitable could actually divert funds to regions already served by a well-heeled industry giant. This is the same giant that has consistently refused to extend services beyond lucrative metro areas.
It’s tough to be careful when you’re in a panic. Let’s hope we don’t stampede the gravy train and wind up in even worse shape.
posted by Rebecca Kimmons
Rural broadband & stimulous
First let's be clear, the stimulus isn't a gravy train, it's emergency surgery to stop the bleeding. Unfortunately, there are many well intentioned doctors wanting to do a few nips and tucks to improve the patient's appearance at the same time. The bill was full of waste the day it was written.
Infrastructure development *should* include broadband service. Thinking, visionary entrepreneurs could have been using the time between the November election and today as an opportunity to start-up competing services to the very giants you mention. This is where excellent social networks come into play.
Indeed, the best way to handle it is through proper planning. Ideally, communities, counties, and regions would have been considering this type of expansion for some time but may not have had the resources to fund such a project. The same is the case for the other "shovel ready" projects.
Even if the bill is passed today by the Senate, it will take several days to work out differences with the House before going to the President. After that, funds will be targeted to specific agencies and it may take 90 days for rules to be written before the first grant applications can be accepted.
Broadband access provides more than simply a way for the teens and college students to post regretful photos on Myspace. It is as much a business fundamental as telephone service.
Jobs created for the expansion of broadband will be viable for a long time. New jobs will be created as entrepreneurs hang their shingles. The cost of doing business from the deep recesses of West Virginia's rural communities will decline, and the people living in Almost Heaven will be working through the clouds.
Rights, Entitlements, and the Internet
When I first started writing a response to this blog, I was coming from the perspective of a West Virginian who wants to see our state connected, or wired as they say, and moving forward in the new economy. I was wondering how people could be so against the idea of connecting rural and underserved people to the Internet. Then I realized I had a defensive tone--assuming that the folks against this funding in the stimulus package were automatically against funding next generation infrastructure for West Virginia in particular. I had this mental picture of the suits on Wall Street and Capitol Hill saying, "Don't waste your time on those people! They wouldn't know what to do with real big broadband if you hit them over the head with it!" I know I'm not alone in reacting to many things with that knee-jerk defensiveness, but honestly, it's something I (we) have to try to put behind us. West Virginia is not alone in this quest for infrastructure. Many areas in our nation are considered too rural by big companies to connect, and they too feel they don't get any kind consideration for technical investment by the telecom giants.
So, all this raises questions in my mind...What is big telecom's definition of rural? If a person decides to live 100 miles away from an urban area, should we all have to pay to get big broadband out to them? Is it our "right" to have Internet brought to our doorstep? Will the Internet increase economic options in areas with really low educational attainment? Will this proposed funding have loopholes in it so that the same big companies get more money for doing what they should be doing anyway with their profits? And will the money just go to the metro markets that have always been so lucrative? And just what is considered "profitable" when it comes to working in rural areas? How much money does a company have to make off the client for the deal to be considered worth it?
I depend on a quality high-speed connection to make a living since many of my clients are in California and I choose to live in West Virginia. If I didn't have access to broadband, I couldn't live where I live, plain and simple. Would it make sense for me to move to a place that doesn't have the Internet, and then ask the government to do something about it? Am I entitled to have the Internet come to my house?
One thing I love about this Create WV initiative is that it's all about us solving our own problems. Membership is open and encouraging of us identifying the issues for ourselves, and creating solutions that work in considerate, clean and sustainable ways. So when it comes to addressing our own broadband infrastructure issues, we have some terrific assets in terms of local service providers and our own creativity, vision, and drive to put a solution in place. Should we wait to see what’s going into the stimulus package or should we move forward with building out our own strategic vision of a connected state?
There is a West Virginia-based telecom company that says it's dedicated to making West Virginia the fastest, and most connected state in the nation in a couple of years. Shocking, I know--to think that our state could rank #1 in real broadband connectivity, topping California, New York and other metropolitan areas. It could happen if we all determine that it's an important goal. We must take stock of and leverage our assets in the state, including the state-based tech companies who can and want to move us forward, and the intellectual capital, creativity and ingenuity needed to solve our tech problems without waiting for a handout.
Post new comment