Understanding Digital Culture (chapter 4) by Vincent Miller. Could we benefit from returning to state owned communication services?

Chapter 4 of Millers book, an undergraduate text book mind you, discusses the problems of the so called 'digital divide'. A disparity between people, both domestic and global, when it comes to access to communication networks. The main talking point of this chapter is the growing divide between the developed west and developing nations worldwide, but it also briefly touches on the subject of domestic divides. Selweyn appends this gap by taking into account other factors such as the quality of available hardware, internet speed, experience with digital media and a perceived benefit of using these technologies.

The main problem addressed in this chapter is that the growing importance of modern communication technology might widen the gap between the wealthy west and the poor 3rd world even further. What interested me most was that the text mainly sees communication services as a product of private companies. I would therefore like to look deeper into the domestic digital divide, and propose the notion that a state owned communications network might be preferable in some cases.

The Iconic British red phone booth.

One might remember the days (I certainly don't but many before me might do) in which telephone services weren't provided by corporations, but by national and local governments. The first thing that comes to mind is the iconic telephone booth, but there were times in some nations where even the phone in your own home was connected to a public network. The same was once true for internet access in America. Those familiar with the history of the web will immediately remember ARPANET and NSFnet. Both were government owned networks which provided access to universities and scientific insitutions.

Those days are long gone now, and communication services are now provided, as in most western nations, by telecom companies. The question is: Do these companies have the interests of consumers and quality standards in mind? One look at the twitter account of Time Warner Cable, AT&T or Verizon in the US would suggest that this is not the case. These pages are riddled with complaints about slow speeds, downed connections and terrible stability.

To understand what might be causing the apparent lack of quality that these providers 'sell' to their customers, one must first look at the underlying network. Compared to a nation like Sweden or the Netherlands, the US is lagging far behind when it comes to the adoption of fiber-optic cable. Most of the infrastructure in the US consists of low quality and outdated copper cables, most of which haven't been replaced for over a decade. This infrastructure is almost in constant need of maintenance and repair. Then why not replace it? The unearthing of a vast underground cable network and the placement of a fiber optic network is a daunting and costly task. Apparently, it's more profitable for Internet service providers to repair the existing networks than to replace them. This might be one of those cases in which the quest for profitability in an open market might hold the growth of a technology back.

Average download speeds in the world. Image courtesy goes to CNET.

It is in situations like these where a repossession of the national communications network by the government might not actually be a bad thing. Many believe that a private market outperforms the public sector, because the competition in the open market promotes quality and innovation. In the case of the US internet infrastructure, this competition is actually holding innovation back, because the most innovative option isn't the most profitable one. Rebuilding the nation's entire infrastructure would only lead to short term losses, and in the dynamic crisis market of today short term performance is everything.

The government in this case could be seen as a non-profit organization. It is not bound by the need for profit and competitive advantages. With only the interest of the public in mind, the government could work to finally bring the much needed innovation of fiber optics to the American internet users. When looking at the possibilities from a public sector perspective, this would be an enormously beneficial investment for the US government. An improved infrastructure can provide market wide benefits, both to corporations and citizens, by providing a competitive edge for the information age. The education and research sectors can also greatly benefit from an improved infrastructure. This could also provide some long needed economical growth and a vast amount of short term jobs.

*Author's note: This is in no way a promotion of governments regulating the internet. This is a summary of the potential benefits from a government providing the service, not regulating the usage. Like any other government service, transparency and availability of information are of the utmost importance.