[*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat

[Tom Poe]

Bill Reid wrote:
> Tom Poe wrote:
>
>> Broadband without Internet is a phrase often used to describe 
>> decentralized telecommunications.  Isenberg seems determined to frame 
>> the issue in terms favorable to the incumbents.  Or, maybe I'm too 
>> locked into conspiracy tendencies.
>> Tom
>>
> I do not quite understand why you think he is framing it "in terms 
> favorable to the incumbents". Isenberg is not a fan of phone or cable 
> companies.
>
> -- Bill
>

Here's the key passage that leaves me wondering what Isenberg is up to:
<quote>
I repeat, Most of the time when we say Broadband we mean High
Speed Connections to the Internet. Broadband is synecdoche.

Without the Internet, "Broadband" is just another incremental
improvement. It makes telephony and TV better. It makes the
Internet better too. But the key driver of all the killer
apps we know and love is the Internet, not Broadband. And, of
course, the Internet is enabled by lots of technologies -
computers, storage, software, audio compression, video
display technology, AND high-speed wired and wireless
networking.

Now, Broadband is a very important enabler. The United States
has slower, more expensive connections to the Internet than
much of the developed world. And that's embarrassing to me as
a US citizen.

Imagine if a quirk of US policy caused us to have dimmer
displays. That would be a quick fix, unless the display
terminal industry demanded that we disable the Internet in
other ways before it gave us brighter displays. Or insisted
"all your screens are belong to us."

High-speed transmission does not, by itself, turn the wheel
of creative destruction so central to the capitalist process.
The Internet does that. Broadband, by itself, does not fuel
the rise of new companies and the destruction of old ones.
The Internet does that. Broadband by itself is not
disruptive; the Internet is.
<end quote>

Congress listened to promises of video phones in 1992 from incumbents, 
available to everyone by the end of the decade.  It never happened.  
Centralized control seems to be the singular cause.  Today, we have a 
choice between centralized control and decentralized control, founded in 
the issue of local broadband infrastructure.  Isenberg wants to frame 
the issue as something other than where the issue lies.  We have 
demonstrations at almost every level that decentralized local broadband 
infrastructure turns the whole telecommunications industry on its head.  
Whether a "last mile" solution of fiber-to-the-home, or wifi, or wimax, 
or combinations.  For something less than $50 (one-time-fee) per house, 
a community establishes a local broadband infrastructure without 
Internet access.  Once in place, that local broadband infrastructure 
provides many generations of residents with free local 
telecommunications, and no technical expertise is needed to operate and 
maintain the infrastructure.  To gain access to this local broadband 
infrastructure, the incumbents would have to offer reasonable wholesale 
Internet pricing.  It wouldn't take long to build out such a 
decentralized approach, and Isenberg knows this.  So, why is he 
perpetuating a centralized approach to telecommunications?
Tom