Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Seoul food for thought


Summarized in the accompanying press release, there were a number of policy recommendations that are to be discussed at the meetings. I think it is worth highlighting a couple of them:
• Governments need to promote competition and give consumers more choices.I am still waiting for the first municipality, county or region to declare itself to be a telecommunications free zone.
Come one, come all - we welcome telecom expansion. You want to build fibre? Here is our road building plan; there is conduit available for you. Here are our municipal towers and some places that we have found for your wireless base stations. We want people to see 5 bars throughout our community. We want to help service providers offer the fastest connections in Canada to our business parks.
Am I dreaming?
Here is another of the recommendations:
• Governments providing money to fund broadband rollouts should avoid creating new monopolies.I am concerned that our current approach to broadband expansion - giving cash to one service provider - has the effect of picking winners and establishing subsidies to one supplier to the detriment of others. This does not seem to me to be sustainable or consistent with a greater reliance on market forces.
At last week's WiMAX forum, I wondered aloud if the root of such programs is a patronizing viewpoint that "rural and remote" equates to impoverished. If it costs more to serve a region, why are we embarrassed about allowing service providers to charge more? If we believe that the resultant price is too high for some residents or certain businesses, then it seems to me that an answer is to provide direct subsidies, perhaps through the tax credit system.
Once we approach broadband expansion in that manner, we have the benefit of helping other Canadians who are not yet connected. For example, there are many households in urban areas that can't afford to equip their homes with a computer and connectivity. Shouldn't our connectivity strategy be as concerned about that kind of digital divide?
We might find that a direct subsidy, needs-based, costs less and benefits a broader group of Canadians caught on the wrong side of the digital divide. Which political party will include universal broadband access as a plank on their next election platform?
Technorati Tags:
OECD, broadband
Comments:
<< Home
Good questions.
An internal study by the TPRP in the summer of 2005, based on 2004 data, suggested that incomes in areas with and without broadband were roughly equal. While there are some poor rural areas, there is also some pretty affluent cottage country.
It is not clear to me personally why there should be any subsidy to high-cost areas, for either POTS or broadband. I think the main reason is historical -- there has long been cross-subsidy of rural areas, through the old "Rate Group" concept. This probably made sense in the early days of telephony -- rural areas did indeed have lower incomes, and demand for POTS was income-elastic. But those days are long gone.
The only remaining reason that I can see is for Canada to look good on "league tables", such as the ones the OECD publishes, with very high availability.
If we must have subsidies to broadband, I would model them on the current subsidies to POTS, i.e. monthly payments instead of one-time lump sum payments, and portable, i.e. transferring to whoever is the service provider at any given time.
George
Post a Comment
An internal study by the TPRP in the summer of 2005, based on 2004 data, suggested that incomes in areas with and without broadband were roughly equal. While there are some poor rural areas, there is also some pretty affluent cottage country.
It is not clear to me personally why there should be any subsidy to high-cost areas, for either POTS or broadband. I think the main reason is historical -- there has long been cross-subsidy of rural areas, through the old "Rate Group" concept. This probably made sense in the early days of telephony -- rural areas did indeed have lower incomes, and demand for POTS was income-elastic. But those days are long gone.
The only remaining reason that I can see is for Canada to look good on "league tables", such as the ones the OECD publishes, with very high availability.
If we must have subsidies to broadband, I would model them on the current subsidies to POTS, i.e. monthly payments instead of one-time lump sum payments, and portable, i.e. transferring to whoever is the service provider at any given time.
George
<< Home