Recently, the Federal Communications Commission let it be known that they want to increase the availability of high-speed internet access throughout the United States. In addition they have made plans to increase the speed of this internet access by over 1000% on average. They argue that the United States lags far behind other developed countries in its availability of broadband access and that improving on it would not only help ensure America’s competitive technological edge, but also in the meantime provide a much-needed source of economic stimulus in the short run.
While the utopian vision of a country intimately connected through miles of high speed internet access cable may seem appealing to the common internet users like you and I, it is proving much less so to the companies that already control internet and pricing speeds. These companies are currently enjoying the benefits associated with owning and operating the virtual entirety of the broadband spectrum in the United States. The F.C.C. has proposed an auction as a means of compensating these companies for their sacrifice in the name of national internet efficiency, but the details of this suggestion have many details to be worked out before a viable solution and agreement is reached by all parties in this matter.
A more pressing issue in my mind however is if the government should be interfering in this manner at all. The development of a single internet provider, while improving service at first, may in the end deter innovation and development in the very field it has meant to stimulate. Secondly, can a government currently touting 1-2 trillion dollar budget deficits and the potential loss of its triple A credit rating, really meaningfully talk of economic stimulus through government spending anymore.
The internet will improve, as most technological elements of society do, on its own terms, without the intervention of government regulation and stimulus. Furthermore it may manage to do is in a more cost effective and innovative way than is being suggested here. In a period of such economic risk, we simply can’t afford this luxury.
