Tech Dirt has an interesting piece describing the problems with the Government and funding of broadband. They commence:
As we've noted, the recent infrastructure bill will deliver a record $65 billion to be spent on improving lagging U.S. broadband access. Roughly $42 billion will be used specifically to expand broadband coverage, mostly via state grants doled out by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). By any measure this is a good thing, and the investment should result in significant improvements in patchy, expensive U.S. broadband access.
Now I recall quite well the last broadband expenditure under Obama. The "shovel ready" projects which often were nothing more than road signs. Billions spent and it is often impossible to find out what was accomplished. Specifically in my opinion and in my experience I have seen hundreds of millions just spent and the results are insignificant if anything at all.
The above article starts with several key points:
1. Where is broadband needed? Frankly we do not know. There is a lot of anecdotal information, some poor kid sitting in the rain or snow, outside a library trying to do their homework. Is broadband needed there or is it just access. Somehow the kid has a laptop, somehow the kid knows how to use it, and fundamentally the kid is motivated. Also for some reason the kid can't seem to get to the library when it is open.
2. How will the States allocate the billions? States and Government in general do not have the faintest clue as to what needs to be done. These are either political hacks or career government employees. Deployment of broadband demands experience in technology, installation and operations, none of which is a talent in any of the state folks. So how is it distributed? Politics and friends of the court. What does that mean, 2009 all over again.
3. Is broadband access the solution? Hardly. We have argued for decades since I taught the first Multimedia Communications course at MIT in the late 1980s that multimedia communications is a complex process. Just having access is at most the first step. A laptop, software, etc all are demanded.
4. What are the barriers to entry besides incompetent government? The Tech Dirt article notes:
But these state mapping efforts are hugely inconsistent. Maine, for example, has done a good job developing crowdsourced mapping data through the state's Connect Maine initiative. But for every state like Maine there are four states that have absolutely no idea what broadband reality looks like, in large part because their state legislatures and regulators are in the back pocket of regional monopolies like AT&T and Comcast. Both companies have a long track record of fighting broadband mapping improvements (something the Post oddly doesn't mention). In part because a more accurate look at U.S. broadband competition and coverage gaps would only drive policy efforts to actually do something about it. But also because these companies have spent the better part of a generation hoovering up billions in broadband subsidies for networks they then notoriously only half deliver.
I could not agree more. The monopolists want their monopoly. In my opinion and in my experience they often achieve this by aligning with the towns who somehow believe this will get them more. I have done battle with many of these monopolists and the cost is insurmountable. Yet the towns who provide their franchises appear to do nothing to ameliorate the problem. These ISPs cannot operate without a franchise yet somehow that lever is applied only against the new entrants.
5. Just what do we mean by broadband? That is a good question. Must we have fiber to the home, a costly deal. Must we have high speed 5G wireless with billions of tiny cells all connected by fiber? Doubtful. It depends on what you want to use it for. That is the fundamental problem.
Now consider what will happen in this broadband give away. The money will be allocated by NTIA. NTIA is a bunch of Government bureaucrats who have no business experience. The money then will go to states, most likely on a politically driven basis. Namely most likely in my opinion to buy votes not to meet some unmet capability. Then the states, even less competent that the Feds will dole out the money in some truly political manner.
Finally there will never be any auditing to ensure that to funds were properly spent. I had seen this the last round of these give aways. Hundreds of millions just "spent" with no transparency and with no truly productive effect.
Posts
