Wi-Fight
There is one thing the telcos and cable operators can agree on: as far as broadband Wi-Fi is concerned, if they're not delivering it, no one else should -- especially municipal governments. Problem is, the established players are in no hurry to deliver it. Why should they deliver Wi-Fi service when they've still to reap the rewards of their existing broadband infrastructure deployment? I understand they desire to stop public funding of Wi-Fi infrastructure deployment and curb any new players from gaining a niche in their market. It makes perfect business sense for them. But does it make any sense for the public? Not really. Technology is moving faster than the established players may wish. They're used to milking their investment for decades, but they no longer have decades to play with.
From the public's perspective, regulated broadband Wi-Fi deployment makes perfect sense -- especially if it's done with public dollars. Access to information via the internet is now an essential public right. Everyone should have access to information, as they have access to hydro and water. There should not be an information gap between the rich and poor. A successful, functioning democracy requires information access to be ubiquitous -- and free. This is where the public coffers should be opened to cover the bill. What's remarkable isn't that the established telco and cable giants are having problems with this -- what's remarkable is the extent to which publicly elected officials will sacrifice the public interest to serve their corporate masters or their own financial interests.
CIO magazine's piece on this topic is focused on the United States -- but it's no different here in Canada. Think the CRTC is there to serve the public? The giants in Ontario, Rogers and Bell, have a stranglehold on the public. For a developed economy that counts itself as one of the top in the world for access to technology and social awareness, we're sadly far behind some Asian and European countries in our deployment of broadband for information access. The US continues to move backwards in this respect, and as usual, Canada is never far behind. When will protecting business turf yield to the benefits for the public?
From the public's perspective, regulated broadband Wi-Fi deployment makes perfect sense -- especially if it's done with public dollars. Access to information via the internet is now an essential public right. Everyone should have access to information, as they have access to hydro and water. There should not be an information gap between the rich and poor. A successful, functioning democracy requires information access to be ubiquitous -- and free. This is where the public coffers should be opened to cover the bill. What's remarkable isn't that the established telco and cable giants are having problems with this -- what's remarkable is the extent to which publicly elected officials will sacrifice the public interest to serve their corporate masters or their own financial interests.
CIO magazine's piece on this topic is focused on the United States -- but it's no different here in Canada. Think the CRTC is there to serve the public? The giants in Ontario, Rogers and Bell, have a stranglehold on the public. For a developed economy that counts itself as one of the top in the world for access to technology and social awareness, we're sadly far behind some Asian and European countries in our deployment of broadband for information access. The US continues to move backwards in this respect, and as usual, Canada is never far behind. When will protecting business turf yield to the benefits for the public?
Comments
Post a Comment