Here's a white paper from the former FCC Chairman, on what he calls The Big Broadband Era.
The questions are not whether Big Broadband will swallow the fish, and perhaps the whole ocean, but how, when and by whom will the swallowing be done? Who will create value and who will capture it? How much capital will regulation and market failures cause to be wasted in the process? Lastly, will we include all Americans in the new medium, so as to create community and greater social value?
But what I really disagree with is Hundt's view of the technology. He writes as if the value of the Internet were in the pipes that carry bits. To me (and many others--I make no claim to orginality here), the beauty of the Internet is that the bits don't care who carries them. That's what "Internet" means, in some sense. And the value is not in the pipes--it's in the communication and content that occurs at the edges.
Most important, the pipes are more virtual than physical. Particularly if the last mile turns out to be wireless, which is what so many of us are now predicting. In that world, almost all of the questions posed in the paragraph I quoted would have no meaning whatsoever.
Reed Hundt is a scary person.
What is scary...is a mindset that limits the possibilities:
The possibility of Congress being convinced that the deployment of a broadband communications infrastructure throughout the United States, with connectivity to its U.S. embassies and consulates in foreign countries, is not only critical to homeland and national security, but will stimulate and usher in a new era of economic opportunity, education and culture, training, distance learning, science and research for the whole world. If Congress were to fund $50 Billion per year, in matching funds ($50 Billion/State), for private investment and deployment of such an infrastructure the possibility of approaching global peace and prosperity for future generations would be enhanced immeasurably in the future. Such an economic incentive package would refocus attention on the value vs the cost of such technology and its potential benefits to society as a whole.
Posted by W. Neil Thompson on January 6, 2004 05:44 PM | Permalink to CommentCORRECTION: ($1 Billion/state; NOT $50 billion/state as previously commented)
“What is scary...is a mindset that limits the possibilities:
The possibility of Congress being convinced that the deployment of a broadband communications infrastructure throughout the United States, with connectivity to its U.S. embassies and consulates in foreign countries, is not only critical to homeland and national security, but will stimulate and usher in a new era of economic opportunity, education and culture, training, distance learning, science and research for the whole world. If Congress were to fund $50 Billion per year, in matching funds ($1 Billion/State), for private investment and deployment of such an infrastructure the possibility of approaching global peace and prosperity for future generations would be enhanced immeasurably in the future. Such an economic incentive package would refocus attention on the value vs the cost of such technology and its potential benefits to society as a whole.”
Posted by W. Neil Thompson on January 6, 2004 06:06 PM | Permalink to CommentI don't think this is that scary! Let me put it this way. Typically, when a customer acquires a higher speed access service that same customer discontinues the lower speed service. Thus a new DSL subscriber discontinues narrowband access -- usually. That is the point of the swallowing image: the big supplants the little. And yes, like it or not, the physical medium is the source of many bottleneck issues whether "the bits know it or not." I think, with respect, this is pretty simple economics.
Posted by reed on February 9, 2004 06:27 PM | Permalink to Comment
“Reed Hundt is a scary person.”
Reed Hundt is indeed very scary. This well meaning man wasted valuable time in the Clinton administration by focussing on installing broad band in the public schools. While this goal is laudable---it is not something a Chairman of the Federal Communications Communications Commission should place high on their agenda. This is something best left to the private sector. Hundt is too enamored with the idea that government is required to save society. We would have all been better off had he simply concentrated on which FCC rules and regulations might best serve our needs.
Posted by David Thomson on January 1, 2004 08:03 AM | Permalink to Comment