Obama Internet plan good for state
digg it!
Facebook
del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit
Plans by President-elect Barack Obama to improve the nation’s Internet infrastructure are good for Nebraska.
As a sparsely populated rural state, Nebraska is not viewed as profitable terrain by private companies. Public investment could help level the playing field.
Other countries have sped ahead of the United States in providing high-speed Internet connections. The United States ranks only 15th among 30 industrialized countries in broadband access.
Access to affordable high-speed Internet service remains spotty in Nebraska. Some parts of the state have only the option of relatively high-cost Internet connection by satellite, which often requires a big up-front investment.
So far, Obama has spoken of his plans only in general terms. “Here in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world,” Omaha said.
In Nebraska, development of affordable Internet access has been slowed by a powerful rural telephone company lobby that persuaded the Legislature to prohibit use of publicly owned infrastructure or involvement of publicly owned Internet providers.
It would be in Nebraska’s best interests if future infrastructure investment here were aimed mainly at improving high-speed wireless access. Some experts predict that in another decade most Internet access will be by mobile devices like iPhones.
Those devices are evolving rapidly and growing exponentially in computing power and memory. Already, the more advanced smart phones are basically small computers that can do many of the same things a laptop or desktop computer did a decade ago.
Over the years, users of wireless phones in Nebraska have paid millions of dollars in taxes to landline phone companies. Only recently has some of that tax money been awarded to improving wireless service in rural Nebraska, where customers are few.
It’s true, as landline companies point out, that even wireless Internet connections depend on a robust landline system including fiber optic networks. Development of bandwidth involves more than just putting up a few more cell towers. It’s important that new landline investment be designed for future wireless networks.
The possibility of new funding for Internet infrastructure already has set off a scramble among telecommunication companies to position themselves for future benefit in what one lobbyist called a “telecom takefest,” according to the Washington Post.
Obviously, safeguards will be needed to ensure that spending decisions are made in the public’s best interests. Done wisely, an investment in Internet infrastructure will pay dividends in improving economic vitality and quality of life in Nebraska.
Post Your Comment
Standards and RulesYour posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
But as you say, there are powerful lobbies against it. Companies with monopolies, or semi-monopolies, have a lot of money to spend on lobbying, too. Already they've fought against using our existing electrical system to good effect. And we saw how health care reform could be shot down by similar interests. Have we become any smarter in the past decade? I guess we'll find out. "
That said, let's also recall that while we may have invented the internet, we've been steadily sliding downhill compared to the rest of the world under the auspices of a "free market" economy. Nations like Japan and Korea routinely supply citizens nationwide with 100 megabit bandwidth. More than 20 industrialized nations now consider our average bandwidth inadequate for delivery of high-speed video and the like. Wouldn't it be nice if we regained the lead on something we ourselves created? "
Some may think that this is just an issue of preference and that dial up is good enough. Well, most sites today simply will not function with dial up because of the increased content. Particularly, imagine a use in rural nebraska trying to receive streamed audio or video from a class, based in another city or state, that they they were taking online. Dial up simply would not be an option.
And for those claiming this is like the Soviet Union, get a grip. Your phone service is absolutely and heavily regulated by the F.C.C. You act as though free enterprise is at work with your landline phone service...well, it is not. The reason the government is needed is because of a market dysfunction. This isn't welfare or centralized goods distribution (like the USSR). This is a small measure which will help all of the U.S. work more efficiently.
This is no different than building high quality roads from rural city to rural city, or the the government requiring the telephone company to build out to more remote locations. Its not a corruption of capitalism to do this because capitalism does NOT exist in this market anyway. In the case of telephone companies and cable companies, to a lesser degree, there exists a state sanction monopoly. In exchange for that state sanctioning the company must provide things in return.
So, before spouting things off like "this worked well for the Soviet Union" or "we already have total coverage," read the article and if you don't know what you're talking about then please either resist that temptation to type away or simply do a little research! "
I live in a town served by a small independent phone company. They offer 6Mg high-speed Internet to all the farms with their phone service and yes, it's affordable. I would guess that many other towns served by locally owned phone companies have fast Internet access also. Bring your business to my small town - we welcome you! "
I do agree with you that it's going to take government investment to reach all parts of our state. These companies exist to make profit, and the rural areas simply aren't profitable without a government subsidy. Maybe wireless is the way to go, but like the article said, to have wireless you need to have a strong landline network. I hope people don't think we can abandon our hardwires and upgrade to wireless, it doesn't work that way.
Bubba, you might want to do a little fact checking. In 2005 LB 645 was the bill that prohibited public power companies from offering telecommunications service. Senator Greg Adams didn't come into the Legislature until 2007, so not really sure how you can blame him for voting for the bill. And I hate to tell you this, but the public power companies have the same problem that the phone companies have; getting broadband to remote areas requires a high investment. Right now BPL is a technology that is no different than DSL. It takes a signal booster every few miles, so it gets expensive to maintain that signal strength whether you run it along a phone line or a power line. In order to be profitable in offering the service, the PPs would have to offer it in the cities, where there already is competition. Not sure how this would help the ruralies out there, except to raise their electric rates. "
I live in a town served by a small independent phone company. They offer 6Mg high-speed Internet to all the farms with their phone service and yes, it's affordable. I would guess that many other towns served by locally owned phone companies have fast Internet access also. Bring your business to my small town - we'll welcome you! "