David H. Deans, founder of the Economic TeleDevelopment Forum is presenting a paper on what we can learn about broadband deployment from the building of the US highway system. (The conference is in Barcelona, the lucky devil.)
In an email, David explains why he thinks local governments should be added to the list of the clueless:
A case in point — I received an email from an leader in a fourth-tier municipality in the U.S., he told me that his staff was concerned about the implications of WiFi hot spots, and wanted me to recommend some non-technical online resources so he could inform himself about this issue.
I gave him some sites to visit, and I asked if his staff was anxious about a lack of hot spots in their local community (the Digital Divide is still a hot topic, especially within inner-city and rural areas). To my surprise, he told me that this was NOT their concern, instead they were concerned about the potential loss of revenue — how would they tax WiFi services?
Here, from the paper, is a table of the cost per kilometer of deplying infrastructure:
Road: $550,000
Water: $195,000
Electricity: $145,000
Gas: $85,000
Fiber Optics: $22,000 - $35,000
Coaxial Cable: $12,000 - $20,000
Copper: $7,000 - $15,000
Wireless: $3,500 - $15,000
You can read the paper here, although it's in Word format.
Posted
by D. Weinberger at April 7, 2003 10:50 AM
Comments
David Deans is one on the most knowledgable people I've encountered in my years working on broadband deployment. My focus has been primarily on rural areas and tied to economic development, but I have to echo his comments about those local governments being clueless.
I recently had a conversation discussing WiFi deployment in the state capitol city here. Two concerns they addressed to me were how to tax it, as David noted. They're concerned about the revenue stream.
The second concern was a thinly veiled "what is it good for?" I tried to explain how valuable it would be only to find that the government infrastructure at our state level doesn't see any need for WiFi to gain access with their laptops. They're using old desktops. No laptops, no mobility, no perceived need. But they did seem to understand the value to lawyers, lobbyists and those of us who testify on occasion.
All in all it distressed me greatly to find how (a) ignorant, and (b) apathetic the "local" government is, at least here in Vermont. They talk about it, but in reality, they haven't moved an inch forward in two years. Not an inch of measurable progess. Even when they see a tangible benefit, even when ROI is proven, the wheels of government turn very slowly.
Posted by: Ken Camp | April 7, 2003 11:53 AM
Well the Tech industry runs at 3 times normal speed while government runs at 1/3 normal speed. So we're a factor of 10 faster than they are. Hardly surprising then that they're becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Posted by: Julian Bond | April 7, 2003 02:08 PM
Julian,
The government is far from irrelevant when it has the ability to mandate undesirable restrictions on the use of technology, for example, the DMCA.
The government is far from irrelevant when it has the power to use technology to expand surveillance into citizen's lives.
And the government is far from irrelevant when it has the power to lock people up, and kill people in faraway places.
We can't just shut our eyes and hope it goes away.
- Adina
Posted by: Adina Levin | April 7, 2003 02:28 PM
I thank Ken for the Kind words. Your story from Vermont will no doubt resonate with many of your fellow peers tackling similar issues in other states and municipalities.
If you had a chance to read my paper, then you'll notice that I'm now seeking out analogies to draw a parallel with an internet-centric concept that I'm evangelizing to my own broader public sector audience.
Honestly, I've had only limited success with this approach so far, but that's not what really keeps me going. I've decided that if they just don't get it, then perhaps I need to try harder still to clearly articulate my message (regarding the socioeconomic benefits of internet access).
IMHO, state and local government public policy is a microcosm of what you hear an see happening in federal government circles -- it's not less complex or currupt. The lobbyists are just as pervasive, and the minefield of vested interests makes it difficult to navigate to the finish line.
That said, I tell myself not to lose faith, and I stick to my agenda, no matter what. Perhaps I've just built up a kind of force field of determination over the years, and so I can deal with the challenges because I feel so deeply about this cause.
Julian and Adina add two other points of view, but we all have a common thread when we refer to government -- it's us, and them. And yet, I bet that we would all agree that substantive citizenship really means so much more than merely "feeling" patriotic, it means engaging in your local community. There is no monopoly in public service, if we choose to participate.
Perhaps one of the most profound ways that we can demonstrate we are in fact real citizens is by daring to be heard, and thereby influence local government decisions. Therefore, I'd encourage anyone who has a strong conviction for this, or any other honorable cause, to stay the course.
Posted by: David Deans | April 8, 2003 01:10 AM