Google wants to see what happens if we have Gigabit to the home. They could ask University students. Gigabit to the dorm room isn’t unusual. Instead they’ll wire a community or two and try to figure it out themselves. (What they’ll find is that when you have gigabit to your residence, you plug in a wireless access point, step it down to 50Mbps and share it with your friends).
Broadband deployment is rising, but only 2/3rds of households have it.
Some people can’t have it. I’ve taught network management courses at a nearby community college the last couple years, and each semester I have at least one student who can’t get terrestrial service at ‘better than dial-up’ speeds at any price. The students live within an easy commute of a metro area with 2.5 million people. Something’s wrong there.
I have a relative that lives 2.5 miles from the city limits of a community with a significant higher than average income, brand new police cars and fire trucks and a community theater, whose only non-dialup connectivity is 3G from Verizon. There is no DSL and the cable company wants a couple grand to extend their infrastructure.
I’ll also argue that the Internet is essential form of communications and will replace all other forms of electronic communications and most mail/paper based communications, and therefore must be ubiquitous. Network access today is comparable to rail access in the 19th century, to electricity in the early 20th century and interstate highways in the mid 20th century. If you are bypassed, your community will die. If you do not have access, you cannot compete.
Assume that a society is willing to spend resources on universal network connectivity. Where should the resources be focused?
- Medium speed (4mbps) to all of the population (think electricity).
- High speed (100mbps) to 85% of the population?
- Gigabit to .1% of the population?
I think that:
- Network access should be ubiquitous.
- Moderate speeds and ubiquitous coverage is more important than high speeds with 85% coverage.
- Low access costs are essential - under $40/month, for example.
- Broadband should be national policy, supported by something similar to the US’s 1930’s Rural Electrification Act.
- There will have to be REA like government ‘participation’.
- There have to be reasonable quotas. Comcast’s 250GB/month quota is quite reasonable. Others are not.
In other words, the focus should be on coverage and cost, not bandwidth.
High Definition streaming television is a luxury. Basic 4Mbps internet access is as much a necessity today as electricity was in the 1940’s.
Let’s stay focused on necessities.