THE AUTHORITY

Back in January, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas proposed turning Vermont into the first ‘e-state’ in his inaugural address.

Wireless communications and broadband internet access are near the point of convergence – meaning the technologies that support each will be the same. More specifically, modern telecommunications will be based on Internet Protocol, or IP, a digital language that can support voice calls – like cell phones and standard telephones – as well as internet communications – such as email and web pages.

Building on these technological advances, I propose that by 2010, Vermont be the nation’s first true “e-state” – the first state to provide universal cellular and broadband coverage everywhere and anywhere within its borders. When you turn on your laptop, you’re connected. When you hit the send button on your cell phone, the call goes through. There would be no more endless downloads, no more hopeless hellos, and no more “can you hear me now.”

This goal is within our grasp if we move quickly and decisively during this legislative session. |via|

Vermont moved both quickly and decisively on this issue, and passed H.248 back in May, allocating 40 million bucks as seed money for generating the 200 million or so to put the plan into action. Is this a good thing? Keep reading.

I have to praise Douglas for speaking intelligently about technology issues without sounding like an idiot; that’s a pretty rare thing in politics. And the “Internet for All” slogan makes me want to cheer out loud. But anyone familiar with the history of broadband infrastructure in America ought to be skeptical of this kind of rhetoric.

Specifically, the talk of ‘coverage’ is suspicious. “Internet for all” is ambiguous between:

Everyone has the option to buy a private connection owned and operated by a telecommunications company.

And

Everyone has access to an open connection run by the government.

Both situations require a big investment in infrastructure, and the $40mil figure seems to be concerned with that. The infrastructure is important, because currently not everyone has even the option to connect to the internet by any means.

But talking about ‘coverage’ makes me suspicious, because coverage is much different from access. My house is covered by at least 3 different wireless cell phone networks, but I only have access to the one I pay for. The examples provided in the article suggest free internet, but the proposal explicitly stops short of that.

Will there be free WiFi everywhere in the State?

That is not a goal of the plan. It is likely that some businesses and even some localities may choose to provide free (or ad -supported) WiFi access on a local basis and State infrastructure will help increase the opportunity to try many innovative kinds of service delivery.

Of course, I don’t mind paying for internet access; I pay for other utilities too. The big problem with broadband in America isn’t just coverage, it is the monopolistic control that telecoms have over last mile internet access. I’d like to hear some reassurance that this plan is an attempt to address real connectivity and access issues, rather than just handing over taxpayer money to strengthen existing monopolies under the guise of ‘coverage’.

Reading the FAQ, the project continually makes reference to an ominous “the Authority”, which undermines any hope I have that this project will actually help do some real good for internet infrastructure.

The Governor has requested that the Legislature authorize $500K to pay the costs of establishing the Telecommunications Authority to oversee and work with the various State agencies, as well as public, private and non-profit companies to make the dream of total connectivity and an e-State come true.

H.284 currently states that the Authority will have a board of directors that is made up of the Treasurer, as well as appointees from the Governor and the Legislature. This board will oversee the Authority’s actions and projects.

The Authority will work with existing providers; such as telephone companies, cable companies, WISP and cellular companies to determine the location for enabling infrastructure such as towers and fiber optic capacity. The assets that the Authority will own such as towers or fiber will then be leased back to providers. These lease revenues will pay off any debt, bonded or other.

So the people in charge of the project are government appointees that will work closely with the telecom companies. Really, this sounds like a way for the telecoms to get the government to pay for increasing its customer base, and there doesn’t look to be any safeguards against monopolistic practices in isolated areas. I guess that could eventually change, if the government still owns the network, but I’m not optimistic.

While this confirms my suspicions, I don’t think it is a waste.

First of all, if people respond positively to these kinds of initiatives, it will let politicians know that we care about the state of the technology in the country, and they will be more likely to listen to us on future issues. Net neutrality is not a dead issue yet, and a politician who has already considered internet issues carefully will be less likely to make a rash and uneducated decision on internet issues in the future.

Second, because of the renewed interest in infrastructure problems, and the populist “Internet for All” message which attracts even committed economic conservatives, this will almost definitely be a political victory for Vermont and its governor, and that will encourage other states to follow suit. Since this plan isn’t perfect, it leaves plenty of room for some other state to say “Here’s what Vermont did, but we’ll show you how to do it right.” A connectivity revolution would be incredibly positive for the country.

Next up: The internet as a public utility!