| | |
|
ConradJohnsonSecondPaper 6 - 11 Apr 2013 - Main.ConradJohnson
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | ConnectNYC: Mayor Bloomberg's Attempt at Solving the Digital Divide [Second Draft] | >
> | ConnectNYC: Mayor Bloomberg's Attempt at Solving the Digital Divide | | | | |
<
< | -- By ConradJohnson - 31 March 2013 | >
> | -- By ConradJohnson - 8 April 2013 - Final Revisions | | | | | | It would be unfair to state that nothing positive could stem from an initiative like ConnectNYC. The mere fact that this initiative was created demonstrates a crucial awareness by Mayor Bloomberg of the importance of accessible internet for the City’s population. In the digital economy, it is of great importance that our politicians recognize that removing impediments to internet access will allow the skilled minds in poorer neighborhoods to participate in higher-value activities without relocating, thus directly producing better lives in their community. ConnectNYC could achieve this goal by removing the cost of fiber build-out for smaller businesses. The cost of a wiring build-out is often identified as one of the biggest hurdles to getting businesses connected to broadband internet, with the average cost being approximately $50,000 per business. Thus, ConnectNYC could harness market dynamics and alleviate this financial and technological burden for numerous businesses in underprivileged neighborhoods. | |
<
< | Failure's to Adress the Digital Divide | >
> | Failures to Address the Digital Divide | | | Although eliminating this cost could be very beneficial for a few small businesses, one of the requirements for achieving the true benefits of a digital economy by reducing the “digital divide” is to provide unimpeded access to the network, regardless of ability to pay. Yet, for ConnectNYC, free isn’t free, and the ability to pay may still be a factor. Once selections have been made, businesses chosen to participate will be required to sign a one-year service contract with a participating Internet Service Provider (Time Warner Cable and Cablevision) at negotiated market rates prior to being eligible to receive the fiber build-out. This service contract would thus maintain impediments towards access to information and communication technologies that would continue to be felt by those in low-income communities. | | | The inefficiencies of ConnectNYC reflect more systemic issues facing the U.S. as a whole. As in NYC, most high-speed wired internet access to homes and businesses is provided by a small number of for-profit cable companies that have very little local competition and almost no checks on their pricing. Though there are several large cable companies nationwide, each dominates its own fragmented kingdom of local markets (e.g. Comcast in Philadelphia, Time Warner in Cleveland). This lack of competition from other cable companies or alternate delivery technologies allows each of the major cable distributors to raise prices in its region for high-speed Internet services while failing to improve their systems. Further, it provides little incentives to expand into rural or underprivileged areas where potential customers are relatively few and far between. | |
<
< | Compounding the problem is the deregulation of high-speed internet access that has both failed to increase competition and has removed hope of government oversight to protect the public. Thus, Americans face higher prices for less access to slower broadband internet than citizens in many countries around world. By contrast, governments that have intervened in high-speed Internet markets have seen higher numbers of people adopting technology and at lower subscription charges. For example, consumers in Seoul, Paris, and Amsterdam pay only $35-$45 for speeds that are much faster than those for which Americans pay $100-$150 per month. 2012 data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that people in the U.S. pay at least $1.10 per Mbps, where people in South Korea pay $.21 per Mbps. | >
> | Compounding the problem is the deregulation of high-speed internet access that has both failed to increase competition and has removed hope of government oversight to protect the public. Thus, Americans face higher prices for less access to slower broadband internet than citizens in many countries around world. By contrast, governments that have intervened in high-speed Internet markets have seen higher numbers of people adopting technology and at lower subscription charges. For example, consumers in Seoul, Paris, and Amsterdam pay only $35-$45 for speeds that are much faster than those for which Americans pay $100-$150 per month. 2012 data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that people in the U.S. pay at least $1.10 per Mbps, where people in South Korea pay $.21 per Mbps. | | | Conclusion |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |