Stimulus

So here's some grumbling from Joseph Upton:

The government just seems to be paralyzed and they are paralyzing the service providers, who need to drive on with business one way or another...Nothing has been decided of any consequence, just that more talk needs to happen and the public needs to comment on how to divvy up the money.

Quite true, quite true, indeed. Upton says give it up to the bigs:

So, kudos to the big players for keeping America moving. The RLECs need to take note and follow suit, and let the free money chips fall where they fall, so that the networks can begin to move again

So the present problem is indecision. Government is in the way. Move over and let the incumbents take care of the problem. Hmmm. Is that line of thinking particularly new?

And let's consider, shall we, what the FCC, RUS, and NTIA have to make decisions about. Well, for starters, there's, uh, EVERYTHING!!! And these decisions have incredibly important implications. So, hey, if y'all want to make sure we're all on the same page and get it right, take a couple weeks.

As an example, a common question is how, precisely, will we define "underserved"? To date, we've been working with FCC data that provided precious little direction from the government. The FCC gathered availability data of broadband using the standard of 200 kilobytes per second. That means that if you have a connection at that speed (okay, or greater), then you have broadband. And if one person in a zip code can connect to broadband then, by the FCC definition, that particular chunk of area however big was said to have broadband access.

Now the FCC has made the point repeatedly that to set concrete bandwidth benchmarks to a moving target is constantly reify and then hypostatize numbers that are essentially arbitrary (in so many words...).

So, sure, what's in a number? But how about a goal that at least inspires a little imagination?

But perhaps, if we made a policy of collecting better availability data (which in fact the ARRA does), perhaps we could develop more nuanced metrics of underserved that varies by local condition and circumstance. In the near term, for example, we will not blanket the US with fiber. That means that denser areas will for the foreseeable future will have higher bandwidths than rural areas. So underserved in Brooklyn may not mean exactly the same thing as it does in Nome.

Of course, defining these terms is highly political. There is a lot at stake in whether we redefine "broadband" so that we have a tangible policy goal for all this cash. And this instance is merely one incredibly thorny issue that is being, by Upton's reckoning, talked about ad nauseum.

I say let's move. But let's move prudently.