Hi Frank -
First, thanks for pointing out the "alignment" of the study's sponsors.
Myself, I tend to view everything as suspect - depending to some extent on the source - and therefore no longer bother with the usual disclaimers and qualifiers, which perhaps I should have.
The specific problem with broadband and HSI is quantifying the benefits. Research has revealed nothing, so far. I've found no studies, research or data (beyond the linked material) that justifies, in dollar amounts, our position that broadband is A Good Thing.
We have an argument (which we strongly believe) with no supporting evidence. It was in that context that the study was submitted: better than nothing.
You're absolutely right: terminology with no fixed meaning is used regularly. The FCC's "broadband" isn't our definition of broadband, but it's still broadband by somebody's definition, and it's better than 56K.
Who's to say their definition of broadband isn't "good enough"? On the basis of what evidence (not opinion) do we support our claim of insufficiency?
Where's the evidence to support the claim that 300 mbps is better than 100 mbps? OK, yes, we all know you can do "more" with 300 mbps, but where's the dollars-and-cents justification?
It's somewhat amusing that with reams of telecomms studies and theses published globally every year, we've yet to see an authoritative quantification of broadband's benefits.
Nations like Korea, Iceland and Japan have apparently relied on pure logic to support their broadband investments. Here, where the Internet was born, pure reason just isn't doing it.
Jim |
