What will it take to increase broadband adoption in the United States?

It looks like the economic recovery bill will include billions of dollars for broadband and wireless grants, and that prospect is raising even more questions than usual about what the best approach is to increasing connectivity -- particularly among those in unserved and underserved communities.

There are several key pieces to the broadband puzzle. Deployment and access are obviously essential, but you can't achieve the universal broadband nirvana that many of us would like to see without increasing demand and adoption.

John Horrigan of the Pew Internet and American Life Project published a report yesterday that cites price and availability as two main reasons why about 1/3 of the adult population in the U.S. is currently without broadband service.

Horrigan's analysis is based on survey data from two Pew studies, one from December 2007 that asked non-Internet users why they aren't online and another from May 2008 that asked dial-up users why they don't use broadband at home. He found that 35% of the dial-up users said that price was the reason they hadn't switched, while 19% said "nothing would make them switch" to broadband and another 16% admitted that they didn't know why they hadn't upgraded to broadband.

Read More

Comments Trackbacks Permalink
Tags: Barack Obama, broadband, economy, Internet, John Horrigan, Pew Internet, stimulus

Written by Brian Schulman

In a report to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce titled "Network Effects: An Introduction to Broadband Technology and Regulation," Charles Davidson and Michael Santorelli of the Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute at New York Law School offer a primer on broadband infrastructure technologies, and take a policy stance in regards to future regulation of network infrastructure.

The report begins by establishing widespread broadband proliferation as both a powerful, life-changing tool for the individual and a vital component of economic development. In a basic history of network evolution, Davidson and Santorelli attribute the explosion of infrastructure development in the U.S. to the essentially hands-off regulatory approach to wireless networks and the Internet.

They argue that it's necessary to continue this "pro-investment" approach to ensure commercial participation in growing and improving broadband infrastructure technologies, thereby advancing consumer welfare. That is, only through a minimally invasive regulatory approach will market forces have the ability to continue to improve and protect the Internet and the public interest it serves.

Specifically, Davidson and Santorelli argue that attempts to regulate the capability of commercial interests to manage traffic, especially in light of the rise of high-bandwidth peer-to-peer file sharing, will result in a less stable, higher latency network and exert a chilling effect on the development of bandwidth-intensive applications while endangering potentially life-saving technologies such as VoIP and real-time health monitoring services that rely on rapid, reliable transmission. The basic perception of the Internet as a blind infrastructure in which all information receives equal priority, they argue, is no longer feasible.

Davidson and Santorelli summarize some of the elements of regulatory strategy that would maintain a pro-investment environment. These include:

• Careful targeting of funds in a broadband industry stimulus package should the next administration provide one, such that a wide spectrum of deployment methods are incentivized.
• Increasing federal support of public-private partnerships in establishing highly targeted, local deployment strategies for broadband in unserved areas.
• Retooling the Universal Service Fund (USF) that served in the deployment of the telecom network such that the USF will begin to focus on broadband infrastructure development.
• Avoidance of policy that will threaten the organic nature of a freely competitive market, such as a reduction of providers or network media (DSL, cable, fiber, etc) in a given locality.
  
  To read the report in its entirety, download the PDF here. Published December 2008. 

Comments Trackbacks Permalink
Tags: broadband, Chamber of Commerce, net neutrality, Universal Service Fund

It's that time of year again. The World Economic Forum (WEF), the international nonprofit known for its Davos meeting, has published its annual global competitiveness study, and the top four countries in overall competitiveness are identical to last year's top four: the United States leads, followed by Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden.

In regards to the United States' No. 1 spot, the report concluded:

Notwithstanding the present financial crisis, the United States continues to be the most competitive economy in the world, a position it has held for several years...despite rising concerns about the soundness of the banking sector and macroeconomic weaknesses, the country's many other strengths continue to make it a very productive environment.

The WEF defines competitiveness as "the set of institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country." The 2008-2009 report expanded to include 134 countries, which were compared using the Forum's Global Competitiveness Index (GCI).

The GCI is based on 12 factors believed to give a comprehensive view of the competitiveness landscape in each country. Here's a look at how the United States ranked in each area, along with the No. 1 country in those cases where it wasn't the U.S.:

• Institutions: U.S. ranks 29th; top spot goes to Singapore
• Infrastructure: U.S. ranks 7th; top spot goes to Germany
• Macroeconomic Stability: U.S. sinks to 66th; top spot goes to Kuwait
• Health and Primary Education: U.S. ranks 34th; top spot goes to Finland
• Higher Education and Training: U.S. ranks 5th; top spot goes to Finland
• Goods Market Efficiency: U.S. ranks 8th; top spot goes to Singapore
• Labor Market Efficiency: U.S. rank 1st
• Financial Market Sophistication: U.S. ranks 9th; top spot goes to Hong Kong
• Technological Readiness: U.S. ranks 11th; top spot goes to The Netherlands
• Market Size: U.S. ranks 1st
• Business Sophistication: U.S. ranks 4th; top spot goes to Germany
• Innovation: U.S. ranks 1st

Below's a look at the 2008-2009 rankings of the top 10 countries in the Technological Readiness and Innovation categories, and how they compare to last year. 

Technological Readiness: 

2008-2009                                                 2007-2008

1. Netherlands                                        1.  Sweden                        
2. Sweden                                               2.  Iceland
3. Denmark                                             3.  Switzerland
4. Norway                                                4.  Netherlands
5. Switzerland                                         5.  Denmark
6. Iceland                                                 6.  Hong Kong
7. Singapore                                           7.  Korea
8. United Kingdom                                 8.  Norway
9. Canada                                               9.  United States
10. Hong Kong                                        10. Luxembourg

Innovation:     

2008-2009                                               2007-2008

1. United States                                    1.  United States
2. Finland                                               2.  Switzerland
3. Switzerland                                        3.  Finland
4. Japan                                                 4.  Japan
5. Sweden                                              5.  Israel
6. Israel                                                   6.  Sweden
7. Taiwan                                                7.  Germany
8. Germany                                             8.  Korea
9. Korea                                                  9.  Taiwan
10. Denmark                                           10.  Denmark

For more details, including methodology and video commentary on the results, visit the World Economic Forum's site. Published October 8, 2008.

Comments Trackbacks Permalink
Tags: competitiveness, global rankings, innovation, World Economic Forum