First and foremost, every goverment infrastructure which is deemed necessary to society is inevitably taxed. This is a whole conversation in-and-of itself, but I think we’re not far away from it. Broadband is simply necessary to do business today, and in many ways, more so then retail space. And 40% of retail is predicted to close this year due to the economy. The auto industry is a classic example; in the past dealers need only compete with the classified ads and maybe a Thrifty Nickel or Green Sheet. Today, with all of their overhead, they struggle to break even versus Ebay, Craigslist, Vehix, and a host of other sourcing sites.

Secondly, broadband providers now are approaching monopolistic status with the market share they currently hold. Ad another 20% of the population depending on a handfull of providers for information and you push the envelope. Then blend the next deployment of infrastructure such as BPL or WiFi, which either require a license to distribute, and you won’t have an army of start-ups lining up to compete at the next level. Only companies which have been in the game for decades and can afford the up front costs to distribute mass-medium over regulated frequencies. Right now it’s a fight for our home and wireless phones, cable, and Internet. Soon we may be faced with 2 or 3 national providers for electricity, video archive access (because every broadcast ever released will be available on-demand), Internet, Vmail, video phone, home security monitoring, feature films (as the theater’s will inevitably close along with the retail), video games, and concerts. No thank you.

Lastly, the philosophical question remains even if we can; should we? With no clear regulation on this medium thus far, should we endlessly expand access of what we knowingly don’t control? Legal cases such as the MySpace suicide and the child pornography charges pending 6 teens in a Midwest high school caught with nude photos on their cell phones are just the beginning. Has our innundation of suggestive headlines in unsolicited emails warned us of nothing? We’re 3-5 years out from that text arriving in the form of a custom tailored video just for you of their product which promises to “Pleaaase Her All Nite Long”. We have an infinite number of cameras watching what we do everyday, and with The Grid technology we invite ourselves into a Nanny State. Today your ticket from running that red light arrives in the mail, next year its delivered to the IP6 address of your SUV with a courtesy photo of you on the phone and drinking your coffee, reminding you this is your third ticket and must be paid in 24 hours or you will not be allowed to fill your gas tank.

http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/06/the_walk_off_ho.html

Because road construction hasn’t led to restrictions on the point of view expressed by drivers.

The folks pushing the public internet are promising content restrictions. Are they lying or wrong? If neither, are content restrictions an acceptable price to pay?

Note that a huge fraction of the “off line” folks don’t want to be on-line. Are we going to force them?

I’d love seeing the NYTimes contorting itself to justify taking government bailouts while defending press freedom.

Magazines, as opposed to newspapers, take a stand and appeal to specific audiences, just like web sites. I don’t think print media will go away immediately. First everyone must to be able to read their preferred type of information in a form that is lightweight and also easy to highlight and mark up. I don’t think it is far off.

” … as I look at it, the noise about a broadband gap is hooey. With new cable modem technology becoming available, 19 out of 20 American homes eventually will be able to have Internet service that is faster than any available now anywhere in the world. And that’s without one new cable being laid.”

You can (and should) read his piece here: http://bit.ly/Q8T8

It’s easy to see why Jeff Jarvis and Mark Josephson think public subsidy for broadband expansion would benefit them. It’s less clear why the rest of us should think so.

Personally I think the total one trillion dollar bailout would be best spent by throwing it out of multiple airplanes.

Broadband doesn’t make anybody rich except those that choose to use it to make profits. The same argument was made over fifty years ago about how President Eisenhower was going to take down the train industry with the invention of the Interstate system – only a select few would get rich and everyone else would end up poor. The funny thing is that it did as advertised – but not because of why people think. The train industry failed simply because it never adapted to the needs of the market – just like today’s auto industry isn’t failing for the same reason.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not for any level of Government bail-out. I would rather simply see tax cuts to promote behavior like investment and growth, but if the Obama Administration is insistent on improving infrastructure like they say they are, I believe they should be focusing on the next century – not the past one. I don’t believe that it is roads and mass transportation needed – because there is no major demand. But there is demand – ludicrous demand for bandwidth – in every sector of the US.

Unfortunately, that is not what’s going to happen. And it’s not going to happen, simply because the Obama’s vision has nothing to do with improving infrastructure (that’s just rhetoric) – it is simply about paying for jobs (at a rate in excess of $250,000 per job).

If we are going to spend $1 Trillion Dollars to boost our economy, then prepare us for what’s ahead, a market that is rapidly becoming global – through the Web. Build infrastructure that matters.

All news will go online – no print editions left.

Then some bright spark will think, ‘Hey, you know what would be really cool? If we could get our online content in print form. People would be able to read in all sorts of places where there is no internet connection – like the bath! It can be cheap as well. Let’s call it…er….the Newspaper!’.

… ones that weave in the technology that starts to prove – hopefully – that we, as journalists, ‘were there…’ ie you’re funding, local ‘beat’ reporters who are trying to stay at the coalface and not supporting those that earn a living off the efforts of others…

http://outwithabang.rickwaghorn.co.uk/?p=229

We look to government to solve problems that are not its problems to solve. One can rationalize all the benefits solving problems will create; it still does not render it the federal government’s role.