The statistics introduced in Reardon’s article were quite alarming. She states that 90 percent of households making 100k or more have access to broadband systems this compared to only 35 percent of families making 20k or less. This stark difference is one aspect of why a system needs to be put into place. To me, having broadband access is far more important than the continued funding of phone access. With advances in technology, such as VoIP, with broadband access, remote users can use this connection to also make phone calls. This would obviously take education in the use of these systems, but that seems to already be a component that they are examining. Also, with the increased usage of cellular devices, having these phone systems is becoming less of an issue.
Government intervention seems to be the most feasible, if not only, solution to this problem. Private firms have difficulties in providing low cost broadband options to remote areas, a population of normally lower income levels. Reardon describes this as the “middle-mile” cost, or more simply stated, the cost of running the proper systems to these areas. Subsidies must be put into place to make companies able to provide these systems at affordable prices. The author states, “this means is that lower-income people, who have less disposable income, are often the ones forced to pay higher prices, while people who have more money pay lower prices for service.” Much like services in the past, subsidies can aid in providing equal opportunities. As technology advances, with the advent of such things as WiMAX or LTE, services such as broadband can be provided to large areas with little advance in needed infrastructure.
Reardon, M. (2009). FCC discuses barriers to national broadband plans. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10400725-94.html
No comments:
Post a Comment