US calls for government to step in over broadband .. this sounds familiar

Lemming

Found this today in the technology section of Ireland.com

Meanwhile, back on everyone's favourite topic of broadband infrastructure, it is interesting to see calls this week in the US for more government involvement in and regulation of that nation's broadband networks.

The suggestion that perhaps it is time to adopt some degree of nationalisation follows the collapse of broadband provider Excite@home, which has 4.1 million customers facing cut-off.

Most of those are in large urban regions known for cutting-edge access, including Silicon Valley.

Mr David Coursey, the main columnist for tech news site ZDNet, argues: "If the Internet really matters - if it's that essential to whatever remains of the 'new economy' - then it needs to be regulated to prevent precisely what happened: a messy legal situation in which customer needs were forgotten, as giant corporations feud over their self-interests, not ours."

Gee, that sounds kind of familiar.

More seriously, I do not see how we, in a State with a smaller population than the Silicon Valley region, can possibly imagine that a free market will ever bring competitive broadband to the State.

We are at the point where high-speed internet connections should be considered as much a part of the public infrastructure as roads or electricity and, therefore, subsidised as a national service.

That doesn't mean that Bertie.com should become your ISP.

It means that the State could create a highly competitive market for services over broadband - rather than simply for getting fibre in the ground - by building a public access network. One hopes the powers that be over here are taking note of the Excite@home meltdown and considering creative alternatives.

Full article can be found here

dahamsta

Meanwhile, back on everyone's favourite topic of broadband infrastructure, it is interesting to see calls this week in the US for more government involvement in and regulation of that nation's broadband networks.

The suggestion that perhaps it is time to adopt some degree of nationalisation follows the collapse of broadband provider Excite@home, which has 4.1 million customers facing cut-off.

Objection, inaccurate and exaggerated testimony. Anyone who follow tech news to any degree knows full well that 4.1 million @Home customers are not facing "cut-off". The majority of these users have already been transferred to alternative cable networks, and the remainder will be transferred shortly, or remain on the @Home netwok for three months, at which time they will be transferred; unless @Home rises from the ashes, which is course what will happen. This has been widely reported in if anything /too much/ detail on all of the tech news websites, most particularly CNET's News.com. Any "tech journalist" who doesn't follow these websites as a matter of course doesn't deserve to call themselves a tech journalist.

Most of those are in large urban regions known for cutting-edge access, including Silicon Valley.

Objection, irrelevant. Blatant name-dropping with no relevance whatsoever to the topic in hand.

Mr David Coursey, the main columnist for tech news site ZDNet, argues: "If the Internet really matters - if it's that essential to whatever remains of the 'new economy' - then it needs to be regulated to prevent precisely what happened: a messy legal situation in which customer needs were forgotten, as giant corporations feud over their self-interests, not ours."

Gee, that sounds kind of familiar.

More seriously, I do not see how we, in a State with a smaller population than the Silicon Valley region

I restate my previous objection with regard to the Silicon Valley comment, and request that the writer be held in contempt.

can possibly imagine that a free market will ever bring competitive broadband to the State.

We are at the point where high-speed internet connections should be considered as much a part of the public infrastructure as roads or electricity and, therefore, subsidised as a national service.

That doesn't mean that Bertie.com should become your ISP.

It means that the State could create a highly competitive market for services over broadband - rather than simply for getting fibre in the ground - by building a public access network. One hopes the powers that be over here are taking note of the Excite@home meltdown and considering creative alternatives.

I would ask the "technology journalist" to justify the spending of billions of tax pounds on a network that /already exists/.

Ok, I'm having a bit of fun, and the journalists heart is in the right place, but let's be honest - this kind of stuff is absolute bo11ocks. Building an alternative public network is an absolutely ludicrous idea - akin to Eircom's "parallel network - and will probably end up with the government trying to sell the bloody thing off again in ten years time. We have a network - two in fact, PSTN and cable (+ MMDS) - and building another one isn't going to cure the ills, it's just going to create new ones. Building another network is the cowards way out. Legislation is the only answer. Everything else is just pants.

adam