On the benefits and drawbacks of extending broadband into rural America

Brouillette: Internet access -- Let the market work

The Obama administration is planning to spend $7 billion to $8 billion in stimulus money to bring high-speed (broadband) Internet to rural America. The proposal is applauded by its proponents as being akin to FDR's New Deal program that extended electricity to the same demographic. They argue that it would boost education, human capital and e-commerce.

As we delve beneath the soaring rhetoric, however, we see a plan that doesn't make sense for the taxpayers.  

First, broadband isn't even necessary to access the Internet; it's a luxury. According to the Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project, two-thirds of Americans without broadband service (including those with dial-up service) say they wouldn't acquire it under any circumstances.

Second, a myriad of federal and state programs exist to expand broadband service to rural and low-income communities. Additionally, private entities, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, help to advance broadband service. The percentage of Americans who access broadband has climbed to 49 percent, and it steadily continues to climb -- without taxpayer subsidies.

Third, wireless technology already is making it increasingly easier for people in rural communities to access not just the Internet, but also broadband service.

Finally, broadband has numerous competing distributors that employ manifold technologies, which continually is lowering cost while improving quality. Heavy government subsidization of the expansion of broadband would reduce competition among companies and technologies, thus stunting further innovation and hindering cost reductions.

Obama's plan amounts to little more than "feel good-ism" and corporate welfare that would cost taxpayers' money.

If the goal is to get Americans onto the Internet with broadband, the most effective approach is to let the market continue to deliver it. Competition between providers -- without government interference -- will do much more to lower prices and increase the quality of, and access to, service. Rather than corporate welfare, policymakers should focus on removing the regulatory hurdles that discourage providers and technologies from expanding into more rural areas.

Epstein: The revolution will be broadcast over broadband

The Federal Communications Commission is not your grandfather's radio and television sheriff. Nor is its mission limited to policing vulgarity, punishing Howard Stern or rubber-stamping Rupert Murdoch's colonization of the airwaves.

Rather, the FCC is charged with "regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. possessions." It was created under the Communications Act of 1934 and is an independent agency composed of five members appointed by the president for a term of five years.

On April 8, the FCC announced a national broadband plan and is seeking public input to "ensure every American has access to broadband capability." The commission must deliver the master plan to Congress by Feb. 17, 2010. The plan would provide a roadmap under stimulus legislation to explore "strategies for achieving affordability and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure."

This initiative also purports to seek input on "how to use broadband to advance consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation, and economic growth, and other national purposes."

The last prong of this effort is a bit ambitious and ill defined: A chicken in every pot is more likely. But the FCC's acting chairman, Julius Genachowski, is charged with designing a plan that likely would involve altering an existing $7 billion program. Genachowski also will have to work with other agencies that will distribute $8 billion in stimulus money for the construction of broadband networks in rural areas.

Broadband is to the 21st century as electric was to Depression-era America. If you supplanted the term "broadband" with "water" or "electricity," most Americans would agree that it is the legitimate role of the government to bring modern technology to American citizens.

Opponents of broadband expansion argue that it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars to extend a public service to remote and rural communities. This was the same tired argument economic Luddites used in the 1930s when the Rural Electric Co-operatives (REC) were created to bring electric to what were once underdeveloped rural outposts.