Save Access

From MuniWireless

Why ConnectKentucky Makes a Bad Model for U.S. Broadband

August 27, 2007
By Carol Ellison

The United States risks falling deeper into the world-wide digital divide if states model their future after a Kentucky initiative that embraces DSL as the broadband standard.That’s the fear articulated by Sean P. Aune on Tech.Blorge and it deserves to be echoed here.

DSL’s download speeds range from 128 kbps to about 3Mbps and uploads are even slower. Nevertheless, ConnectKentucky, an initiative in which incumbent providers are heavily invested, is touting the state’s model as one for the nation. Kentucky deserves a lot of credit for extending current broadband options, including DSL, to its rural communities. It enjoys a success rate that’s admirable for a state as rural and mountainous as Kentucky. But should one state’s strategy be super-imposed on a nation, particularly when that strategy is married to technologies that are not delivering the band width needed for the emerging demands of high-speed connectivity?

That is, of course, a rhetorical question. The answer is “it shouldn’t.”

ConnectKentucky is largely focused on expanding service through private providers heavily invested in DSL. It has succeeded in getting a majority of residents in that rural state connected. But, when it comes to national policy, consideration should not stop at just building out current service. Contrast ConnectKentucky to the goals in Minnesota where communities are eying fiber build-outs as the solution.

Aune predicts a DSL mindset will hammer shut the coffin on U.S. competitiveness in broadband connectivity if it’s used as the centerpiece of a national strategy. He’s right—and not just because DSL is slow.

Back in May, we summarized quite a number of the proposals and initiatives being presented in Washington as national leaders debate what could go into a national broadband model. Readers expressed a variety of opinions regarding issues and models that should be considered in the debate.

Kentucky is hardly the only state pursuing aggressive initiatives. New Hampshire and Vermont are also on the fore front. Not coincidentally, these are all very rural, mountainous states where the chief concern is pushing broadband out to remote communities that previously had little to nothing. So anything better than dial-up would have been welcomed. But is that what the nation should settle for?

Communities that enjoy a wealth of broadband choices, such as mine here in the New York metro area, have enjoyed a plethora of broadband options from private providers for some time. Here, the concern is not getting broadband but getting fast reliable service that can support the band-hungry applications customers want delivered. Even more importantly in my area—where memories of Sept. 11 will forever linger—is the question of raliable, redundant, fail-safe service that can handle large-scale public emergencies.

We’re certainly not alone in those concerns and, as areas around the nation achieve universal connectivity and begin looking to what more they want and expect of broadband, the question will increasingly turn from access to speed, reliability, and whatever it takes to run the applications communities deem necessary to their future and well-being.

Click here to read Aune’s remarks.