Decius wrote:
] ] Last year, another Brookings economist, Charles Ferguson,
] ] argued that perhaps as much as $1 trillion might be lost
] ] over the next decade due to present constraints on
] ] broadband development. These losses, moreover, are only
] ] the economic costs of the United States' indirection.
] ] They do not take into account the work that could have
] ] been done through telecommuting, the medical care or
] ] interactive long-distance education that might have been
] ] provided in remote areas, and unexploited entertainment
] ] possibilities.
]
] This article oversimplifies this issue by focusing too much on
] the executive. There are cultural, infrastructural, and
] economic differences between the United States and places like
] Japan and South Korea which have a far greater impact on
] broadband development in those regions then federal policy.
] This is not "Bush's fault."

agreed that it is not his fault, but this administration is far too focused on big business leadership and clearly not interested in 'public good' or public initiatives which would 'interfere' with big business growth. Ironically, we both know that this would translate into tremendous growth for big business if ubiquitous infrastructure were available. Just as there was trillions more value unlocked in shipping and trucking than there ever was in building roads.

] However, the Clinton administration clearly provided
] leadership in this area, and that leadership was clearly
] useful, and the Republicans are clearly less interested in
] telecommunications policy.

see above. I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. The Internet itself was still very nascent during the Clinton administration. Broadband access was still a novelty in 1999. No doubt when the Republicans took the White House in 2000, 'technology' was a dirty word. They spent a lot of time distancing themselves from the dot.com fallout.

] The question that I have is, where are the applications? What
] do my friends in South Korea do with their high speed internet
] access? They download movies off of p2p networks. This is not
] the kind of application that is likely to spur trillions of
] dollars in GDP. It IS possible to overbuild infrastructure.
]
] They've got it. What are they doing with it? Broadband is not
] a core capability. It is a means to an end. Once you can
] clearly demonstrate the ends that Japanese can reach, that we
] cannot, you'll have a compelling arguement for serious
] government leadership. This arguement skips over this matter
] as if it was a forgone conclusion. It is not. Someone on this
] board knows what these applications are. Maybe I ought to be
] tracking down these brookings reports.

It's not the applications right now, and that will make more sense in the next response snippet. But the PacRim countries with ubiquitous access have proven very useful in seeing how this infrastructure changes society and lifestyle more than anything. It's not all p2p downloads and such. No more than you'd say that ubiquitous electricity would only yield lighting. They have what is the foundation for immense development and that takes time to settle into society and get people acclimated. Yes, it IS possible to overbuild infrastructure, but what you're really saying is that going too fast makes you go slower. You can only swallow what you can chew and anymore than that makes you gag.

What's really interesting about those parts of the world (and Canada is another interesting example) is that they've adapted to a world where broadband access is not even thought of. It's a given. A basic capability. They're not thinking about it. They're just using it.

] It is also wrong to say that US has always led this race. The
] US was about 10 years behind the French in development of
] basic network information services like email and behind
] nearly everyone in the development of good mobile phone
] service. The US has a slow tech adoption rate and is very
] cautious about moving forward. Getting the internet to happen
] in the US was like mice trying to get an elephant rolling down
] a hill.

Not really. Yes, the French were way ahead in the 80s with Minitel. But the US market is where all the innovation happened to make Minitel. It was not innovation in France that spurred the development. This is why I'm not afraid of the Chinese or the Indians or Africa in terms of what the US economy can offer the world. We have been, are, and will likely continue to be, the best damn innovators in the world. Even in manufacturing, the US leads by leaps and bounds in engineering and process development. Other nations are very very good and taking that innovation and scaling it. But they are not very good at creating it.

I say that to illustrate a point. *IF* the US had broadband everywhere, then the applications would spring forth like a torrent (no pun intended). It's not just about p2p, but the steps towards all content, all available, anywhere, all the time. You can't go from sticks and rocks to friggin lasers over night. It takes time to not only develop but for society to acclimate and reconfigure in order to leverage the innovation. So while I think you have a good point in that S Korea and Japan aren't exactly leading the way towards an internet based future, that's not because they can't get there. In our case (the US), we're thought leaders, but we can't get there out of the research labs because we don't have the plant.

To *truly* be competitive and harness all of our research capacity, we've *GOT* to have this infrastructure in place and available to everyone. Waiting for our telecom industry to take us there will injure us in ways that we cannot comprehend because they have improper motivation. Just like waiting for our healthcare industry to take us to a place that makes sense for today's reality is also folly. A revolution needs to occur.

] In 1990 it was obvious to me, even as a kid, that I wanted a
] digital network connection in my house that plugged into my
] computer. It was obvious to me what I'd do with it. It is not
] obvious to me what I'd do with 40 megs a second in my house
] ('cept possibly cancel my colo contract). I promise its going
] to be obvious to me long before its obvious to the FCC.

Correct. It was obvious to you that you wanted that capability. 15 years ago even. You could not have dreamed what the applications were back then. Maybe you would've seen email, since that was an existing app that you likely used on BBS's. But you wouldn't have seen streaming content, or MMP gaming, or Google. And if you did, then give me some lottery numbers to play tonight!

But the fundamental issue is that you saw that it needed to be there. It was obvious. Why that is important is because what comes next is what is truly important. We don't question the reason for roads or electricity. They're obvious. What happened that was important came after, and there are literally millions of potentials for broadband. Until we, as a nation, make the decision that this is fundamental to our society, then we, as a nation, won't truly recognize the benefits of all else we have to offer. And the rest of the world will not advance as fast, despite having the infrastructure in place. But that will likely not last for long.

RE: Down to the Wire