Changing Hearts and Minds on Universal Broadband

Blackwater, Missouri Photo credit: KansasExplorer 3128 on Flickr

The New York Times recently ran an article (”High Speed for the Sparsely Wired,” July 9, 2010) reminding us that the September 30th deadline for awarding broadband stimulus grants is approaching. The Times article by Susannah G. Kim highlights the pending impact of federal stimulus money to extend high speed Internet access to rural areas.

Now that grant-winning projects are underway, residents in rural communities from North Carolina to Kansas to remote parts of Alaska are expressing optimism that broadband access will give them the tools they and their children need to compete and prosper in the future.  I hope they succeed. To read several of the public comments in response to Kim’s article, there are people who don’t seem to care if they do. 

One commenter from Troy, New York (recommended by 41 readers) wrote:

Boo hoo hoo. You live in a remote area, and can’t have high speed internet. I’m heartbroken. Have the government spend a few billion…..and send the bill to my grandchildren.

And from Cleveland, Ohio (recommended by 80 readers):

…These folks don’t need no stinkin’ internet to access their Higher Authority. We gave them dial up telephone service years ago, let them live with that until they sign onto the concept of paying for what they get. Ingrates.

And this one from Jersey City, New Jersey (12 recommendations):

Wait. High-speed internet is a widely-available service to anyone living in a city, the suburbs, or the exburbs. How did it become the federal government’s responsibility to provide this service to people who have made the CHOICE to live where the service isn’t available?

There’s no doubt that delivering meaningful affordable broadband access to every community in America presents a great challenge, especially in these tough economic times. But information is not a luxury and never has been, even if some forms of content seem frivolous and diverting. Information is a necessity, as vital to the healthy functioning of communities as clean air, safe streets, good schools and public health. Information is important to help citizens coordinate, solve problems, ensure public accountability and stay connected.

Reasonable minds will differ on how best to pay for the enormous investment that such an undertaking will require. Considering the magnitude of the need, it’s obvious that, like the interstate highway system, rural electrification, and universal childhood immunizations, it won’t happen without a combination of private and public investment (as the Knight Commission has observed). Nor should we discount government’s interest in promoting the diffusion of information technologies, given that information is often a public good and such investments do have significant beneficial educational and economic ripple effects.  

The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation together are exploring public policies that can realize the Knight Commission’s recommendations to promote universal broadband access and adoption. We have commissioned a white paper by former National Broadband Plan Executive Director Blair Levin, who is looking at how existing funds already allocated for various telecommunications, information and community uses can be redirected to meet these needs (this is just one of several policy options Levin’s paper will address). In fact, we’ve commissioned eight white papers, to be published later this year, aimed at offering policy options at the local, state and national levels for implementing the Knight Commission’s 15 recommendations. 

The information issue is everyone’s issue. If some of the public comments to the Times article are any indication, changing individual attitudes about the importance of information and information tools in supporting individual and collective community life may be as challenging in the long run as achieving universal broadband. But I hope not.