[TriLUG] TW and Embarq work to keep Wilson style internet from spreading

[Jeremy Portzer]

Michael Kimsal wrote:

> Is internet service something we should regard as something on par with
> basic telephone/telecom and electricity and water?  I tend to think so.
> This isn't just an issue of people surfing youtube at home.  Small
> businesses will locate where there's strong internet connectivity.  Smaller
> towns lose out in this respect.  Students being able to take advantage of
> distance learning from home (sick, disabled, accelerated, whatever) is an
> issue as well - some students don't have access to good internet service and
> are not able to access learning resources that students in other areas can.

I work for a company that provides software for online education so this 
is an area I'm familiar with.  Some of our clients - schools and 
universities - are now "requiring" broadband Internet connections of 
their students.  This is usually defined as something like 1.5 Mbit 
down, 256k up, required due to the use of rich media. I'm curious to 
know more about what areas of NC may not have access to that level of 
broadband?  How many areas are truly devoid of DSL or cable to that 
level?  (Satellite isn't really usable for distance learning if two-way 
voice communications are in use, due to latency.)

Today's quality distance education is a real equalizer.  Many people who 
can't attend schools full-time can really improve their situation by 
obtaining degrees - or simply taking courses - online.  This is 
especially true in a down economy when people are trying to improve 
their skills for a better job, but may have shift work, kids to take 
care of because a partner works, or any number of other problems keeping 
them from traditional education.

I fully agree that Internet infrastructure is just that - infrastructure 
- and governments being involved in its delivery makes sense, as with 
roads, electricity, water, etc. Telecomunications are also natural 
monopolies - it often doesn't make business sense for more than one 
organization to operate in a given market due to last-mile costs.  If 
the government can be non-corrupt and efficient (possible at a local 
level, if improbable?), I think this is a good option for a monopoly, 
because it means there's no profit going to outside shareholders. 
(Where I live now there are lots of utility companies that operate as if 
they were corporate - to separate themselves from political influence as 
much as possible - but are government owned/backed.  This sounds similar 
to the Wilson setup and has been generally successful here.)

On the other hand, Time Warner has strong commercial interests to 
protect.  Despite many people's criticism of their service levels, TWC 
cable Internet is pretty widely available, generally affordable, and it 
has taken serious amounts of investment to get to this level.  They 
certainly offer better service than other companies like Comcast.  And 
is TWC really THAT profitable as people make them out to be here?  Put 
yourselves in the shoes of a TWC investor.  It's one thing to lose out 
to a competitor who just does a better job than you.  It's another thing 
to lose out to a government that LEGISLATES their way into your market. 
  Telecommunications companies always have this risk, and hence they 
always have lots of government lobbying like this.

I don't think this has an easy answer.  Consider both sides carefully.

Cheers,
Jeremy