Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Crawford likes Aussie Utility Network
Susan Crawford, special assistant to the president for science, technology and innovation policy and a member of the National Economic Council, is reported to be favorabll inclined towards a U.S. network much like Australia's recently announced $33B broadband plan.
Of course, the U.S. is some 15 times bigger than Australia, and that'd make the price tag closer to $500B by straight multiplication. But the U.S. would get a fiber network done right. It'd be as fast as technology would allow; note that affordable symmetrical residential Gbit service is already available in Sweden and Japan. It'd be upgradable approximately forever. It'd be un-bundlable, so anybody could offer services on it and no entity would need to maintain a monopoly. And, says Crawford, ". . . [such] a wholesale network can deliver massive social and economic benefits."
What's not to like? Incumbent mouthpiece Scott Cleland says that it'd unfair if the government competes against his clients. Former FCC Chair Reed Hundt doesn't think it's a "practical solution."
I think Susan Crawford has the right idea. Technology exists now to deliver hundreds of times more than we're getting. The only thing the U.S. lacks is the will to do it. The U.S. used to think big. That's what made it a great country. It could do it again. The only losers would be the very same companies that are keeping us in the past in the name of the late, great free market.
Of course, the U.S. is some 15 times bigger than Australia, and that'd make the price tag closer to $500B by straight multiplication. But the U.S. would get a fiber network done right. It'd be as fast as technology would allow; note that affordable symmetrical residential Gbit service is already available in Sweden and Japan. It'd be upgradable approximately forever. It'd be un-bundlable, so anybody could offer services on it and no entity would need to maintain a monopoly. And, says Crawford, ". . . [such] a wholesale network can deliver massive social and economic benefits."
What's not to like? Incumbent mouthpiece Scott Cleland says that it'd unfair if the government competes against his clients. Former FCC Chair Reed Hundt doesn't think it's a "practical solution."
I think Susan Crawford has the right idea. Technology exists now to deliver hundreds of times more than we're getting. The only thing the U.S. lacks is the will to do it. The U.S. used to think big. That's what made it a great country. It could do it again. The only losers would be the very same companies that are keeping us in the past in the name of the late, great free market.
Technorati Tags: Competition, fiberoptics, Utility, USLosingLead
Comments:
Actually, the US is only 25% bigger than Australia in terms of size. It's just about impossible to extrapolate from the cost for Australia because of the differing levels of urbanisation, distances between communities and population.
That doesn't affect the benefits it would bring obviously - which do look very promising if it's managed well.
That doesn't affect the benefits it would bring obviously - which do look very promising if it's managed well.
I've long been a fan of government owned completely open access fiber backbones and last miles (or better yet homeowner owned last mile) and it's time for that to happen. This can largely be put in place at the same time as the electrical grid is updated. Something I've been proposing her in Canada for the last 10 years.
Post a Comment
