Once again the United States ranked behind most of Europe and Asia in broadband availability, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which surveyed its 30 member countries and ranked the United States 15th -- for the second consecutive year.
Meanwhile, it appears after a decade of rapid growth and reaching approximately 60 percent penetration in the United States, broadband has reached a plateau point. Some researchers, like John Hodulik of UBS Research quoted in PC Magazine, speculate that the broadband has simply run out of room to grow.
Even if that were true, has broadband run out of room to improve? Growth does not have to measured in terms of available infrastructure and per capita subscription. PC Magazine defines broadband as 256 Kbps, which is similar to FCC broadband speeds we've discussed in previous posts. Internet content is sucking up more and more bandwidth and soon -- heck, now -- those speeds will not be adequate for the video, voice and data services that consumers enjoy.
If the the United States is expected to climb the international rankings in broadband, service providers will need to find ways to grow. Supporting content is key. Else broadband providers will be seeing a negative impact on penetration, rather than this perceived plateau.
How can the United States stay competitive on a global scale? Are we really at a plateau? Let us know in the comments.
The Broadband Plateau in the U.S.
| ← Stop, Collaborate and Listen | FCC Not Paying Attention to Broadband Market → |
May 27th, 2008
2 Comments
I am curious why governmental leaders have been slow to react to studies like the one by OECD that rank the United States low in broadband penetration -- especially in economically strained times like these.
I often hear comparisons of broadband communications to the transcontinental railroad in how high-speed services could help connect communities and improve economic development.
I often hear comparisons of broadband communications to the transcontinental railroad in how high-speed services could help connect communities and improve economic development.
May 29th, 2008 // By Brad Kramer
Currently, the overwhelming majority of broadband in the US is delivered by a cable broadband or DSL (telecom) provider. Who would get it that doesn't already have it? The poor, the ignorant, the isolated, and those who don't want it.
Thus, we must see the cause of the plateau in penetration you describe as based on inadequacies in either pricing (costs too much), education (don't appreciate its value) or infrastructure (not available).
Only increased competition or government policy mandates will bring access pricing down to stimulate more subscribers - which will come first?
And unless things change, infrastructure growth will still come primarily from the large players, who lack any incentive to build out faster than they already are - we are a big country, and they're in no hurry to blanket it with broadband.
Sure, at the edges we're likely to see some innovation by 1) the WiMAX consortium; or by niche wired and wireless providers in 2) rural markets, 3) exburban rings around growth cities, or 4) in the "swiss cheese" coverage holes of major providers in suburban and urban areas; or by 5) motivated municipalities, probably smaller towns who otherwise risk being left behind as broadband infrastructure gets built out.
In summary, there's a good reason we're stuck where we are; 1) those who have the ability to change things (government and cable and telecom incumbents) lack sufficient motivation; and 2) most broadband users remain ignorant of what is possible, so they're content and satisfied with what they have.
We'll move off this square only with 1) governmental leadership that challenges the status quo with a redefinition of broadband upwards of 256Kbs and new policies to stimulate competition or infrastructure growth; or 2) a growth in availability and appreciation of high bandwidth content and applications, which will expose our current infrastructure and services paradigm as bankrupt, behind the times, and grossly inadequate. The needed pressure will be brought to bear from above (government) or below (market).
May 28th, 2008 // By John Cooper