Let’s now attempt to evaluate what effects Google’s recent moves to advocate for faster internet speeds, to become more vertically integrated, and to be less dependent on large telecom providers will have. As we asked earlier: How will users be affected by faster and more open internet access? Will policy changes and market maneuvers by large service providers, like Google and Verizon, improve the Internet on the whole?
To answer these questions, we must first benchmark where high speed Internet in the United States now stands. Then we can assess how these changes might have an effect on internet usage, which is at the center of current debates.
U.S. Internet Benchmarks
The International Telecommunications Union currently ranks the United States 19th in cost for service, behind France and Austria, among nations that use the internet. According to the latest FCC report, approximately 95% of Americans now have access to broadband, although the method of calculating this statistic has been questioned. High speed access, however, has been about equal in urban and rural areas since 2008.
Several factors play a role in determining how people use the internet, including location, the quality of services offered, cost, access to computers, and education. In fact, these variables often tend to maintain a “digital divide” among different groups of users. For example, the Commerce Department estimates that only 37% of Latinos and 46% of African-Americans in the United States are on-line, while 65% of Caucasians and 62% of Asians use the internet regularly. The differences are even more pronounced when considering household income: 38% of U.S. families earning less than $25,000 per year are on-line, while 83% of families earning $75,000 or more use the Internet.
The resulting separation in classes of internet service, researchers from Pennsylvania State University predict, will have a direct effect on educational and business opportunities for those who have and those who do not have access to broadband services.
Access by students as a prerequisite for future jobs is also highlighted in a study by the University of California, Berkeley. That research suggests that wired broadband access is usually not affordable to large numbers of Latinos and Africa-Americans students, while the extra cost of mobile internet access is also becoming prohibitive. The study also found that access determined by affordability is evident when inner city school districts and non-profit organizations are forced to reduce technology budgets, limit computer access in libraries due to staffing cuts, and neglect maintenance and upgrades during a recession.
As a result, effective access to broadband internet services, including mobile wireless services, is closer to 35% of the population in the United States at present, largely because wired broadband and mobile internet services are more affordable to middle class users who live in urban areas where the fastest services are available.
An Ambiguous Future
So to answer our questions: First, while the speed and openness of most ISP service is improving for Americans, service costs remain relatively high and apparently out of reach for many users. This creates a division between those who can afford and those who cannot afford broadband services. Secondly, policy and industry changes have not permeated traditional social barriers, especially economic status, race, and education, which influence adoption and continue to hold back user numbers. Third, there remains an assumption by policy makers and industry leaders, similar to supply side economists that faster and more robust internet services will eventually “trickle down” to less affluent users as investment in broadband continues. As a result, there seems to be less motivation to bring faster internet access to lower income groups.
There is also a fourth conclusion. What works for Google today may not work for Google and others tomorrow. Such is the “hit or miss” character of current initiatives to improve the internet. The evolving nature of the global network, especially issues related to internet regulation, also makes it difficult to assess, much less predict, whether current policy initiatives and business strategies will have long term benefits for users. We are even less sure whether present inequities preventing some population groups from fully utilizing the internet will ever be overcome.
We can, however, use our perspective outlined in the previous chapters to compare developments by current policy makers and large corporations with those throughout the history of media development in the United States. Those insights should provide a clearer picture of what the internet landscape might look like in the near future. For without such historical comparisons, we cannot hope to understand what we observe in today’s sound bite, video clip, hyper speed news cycles in any context and with any accuracy. That will be the task of our next chapters.
Notes
International Telecommunications Union – Country Rankings: http://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2010/03/26.aspx
US Department of Commerce Report: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/index.html
Free Press: FCC Ignores the Digital Divide: http://www.freepress.net/files/broadband_report.pdf
Penn State Report: “Small Business and Broadband: Key Drivers for Economic Recovery”,http://comm.psu.edu/about/centers/institute-for-information-policy/smallbusiness.pdf
U.C. B. Report, “Disconnected: a Community and Technology Needs Assessment of the Southeast Los Angeles Region”, http://clpr.berkeley.edu/pages/news.html
“Broadband Internet Regulation and Access: Background and Issues”, CRS 2006 report: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/ib10045.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment