Speaking generally, I think your assessment of stimulus programs' fate is probably accurate. Even when there's consensus on the idea, execution seems to be falling short. It's one thing to express a concept, political or otherwise, but quite another to effectively translate it into reality.
Reviewing the successes and failures of different administrations, and looking beyond the different circumstances in which they operated, the key element seems to be effective leadership supporting a cadre of capable appointees. That's an elusive chemistry, and its absence has defeated businesses and governments alike.
Most would probably agree that Roosevelt's New Deal was the standard by which any comparable program would be measured. It was by no means universally successful; in its time there was tremendous controversy. The usual hodgepodge of ideological claptrap accompanied various accusations, including government interference and incompetence. Yes, there were mistakes, waste, ineffective programs, and boondoggles. But the judgement of history has been that overall, the New Deal set the stage for 40 years of American prosperity.
Successes and failures of Roosevelt's "New Deal" programs
chuckallan.com
---
Whether we're discussing broadband or financial reform, the current administration seems to be falling short. Outcomes are not achieving articulated goals. The question: is this an indictment of government, or of this particular adminstration's execution?
---
Upstream, an observation was that in any case, no private entity or group had sufficient capital to bring universal FTTH to reality.
So right off the bat, it's not a question of whether government should or should not be involved. If we want universal FTTH, government must be involved. But if we don't want universal FTTH, if we just want broadband pockets here and there, then we don't need government. We just need to continue what we're doing. As discussed previously, the main selling point for FTTH is the infrastructure argument. It's the same justification used for highways, airlines, canals, railways, municipal water works and many other aspects of our current existence, and government has been involved in all of them: from the economic construct and taxation to subsidies, incentives and direct participation.
Some of these were enabled by the financial construct (bonds for public works). Others had direct and indirect government support, at different levels of government. Quite simply, it's a gross misrepresentation to claim that infrastructure has been harmed by government involvement. In every way, from the economic construct to direct involvement, government has assisted. What's more, taxpayers have generally - not always, but generally - looked with favor on using their tax dollars for improving and maintaining infrastructure.
Incumbents make a laughable claim about the potential for government interference: the simple fact is that they owe their existence to the government that gave them monopoly status. Absent that construct, they'd be exposed to the cruel winds of competition;. That's the "government interference" they fear most: being returned to the condition from which for decades, government has protected them.
---
If one disagrees with the infrastructure argument (as some do, here) then it's case closed. We get what we get, and that's good enough. What's more, we get it in the same regulatory regime that has perpetuated itself since the time of Alexander Graham Bell.
If one disagrees with the regulatorium, we could at least dismantle the existing structure, and erect something more suitable to current realities. In itself, that would be a huge task.
If we buy the infrastructure argument, then we must find a way to simultaneously address the regulatory issues, the structural requirements, and the capital requirements for FTTH: massive tasks, each compounding the difficulty of the other.
---
If we buy the ideological argument that government involvement is necessarily destructive, then what are we to make of Sweden? Japan? South Korea? How is it that these countries have overcome their lamentable ignorance, and established telecomms infrastructure with aggregate throughput rates among the highest in the world? How is it that their populations are content with the result and their incumbents profitable?
Some jurisdictions have been very successful, not only in changing the regulatory regime, but in providing broadband to most of their population at reasonable cost. The fact that we haven't managed to do so speaks more to our system and oversight than government involvement per se.
IMO
Jim |
