First, let me offer this story from The Dallas Morning News. A notable quote:
Only 14 percent of dial-up users say they’re stuck with the older, slower connection technology because they can’t get broadband in their neighborhoods, [the Pew Internet and American Life Project] reported Wednesday.
Thirty-five percent say they’re still on dial-up because broadband prices are too high, while another 19 percent say nothing would persuade them to upgrade. The remainder have other reasons or do not know.
“That suggests that solving the supply problem where there are availability gaps is only going to go so far,” said John Horrigan, the study’s author. “It’s going to have to be a process of getting people more engaged with information technology and demonstrating to people it’s worth it for them to make the investment of time and money.”
Of course, the article goes on to say that most who do not subscribe to a broadband internet service are those who are poor or who are elderly.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have DSL through AT&T and I enjoy the service. I have a wireless network inside our house such that my wife and I can both be connected to the internet at the same time from anywhere in our home.
Yet I’m concerned that Internet access demand is a policy issue. Sure, FDR prioritized rural electrification, but clearly that’s a supply issue. Electric providers in those days refused to acquire the land required for electric wires and stretch those wires across expanses of land only to supply but a few homes and/or businesses with electric power. Although most wanted electricity, the government – nor any other identifiable group – never told people, “Oh, you should want this electricity! Look how great it is!” Rather, FDR’s Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, ran a line in front of every house, mansion, and shack in the country and collectively informed the residents, “If you want this power that’s running through the wires in front of your house, call us and we’ll hook you up.”
This is very different. This seems to suggest that there’s something wrong with a person who doesn’t use technology. Nevermind that it might be a personal preference, you should want broadband internet access, and if you don’t, that’s a problem we should study.
Of course those who are poor are disproportionately likely to not have broadband access. If a person either maxes out a credit card, uses a rent-to-own agreement with exorbitant interest rates but low weekly payments, or tries to win a sweepstakes to afford a computer, the simple reality will be that person likely lacks the disposable income to purchase broadband on a recurring monthly basis. (Now, if a broadband firm provided a stripped-down, lower-speed version of its service and people don’t sign up for it because they don’t know about it, there’s a problem to study.)
Similarly, why should elderly people be told that they need broadband? Many take the attitude that they survived perfectly fine for decades without computers, much less internet access and sure as heck aren’t going to need it now in the twilight of their life. There’s some comfort and/or nostalgia in the familiar, paper-based information resources. They figure they can get to the library or the bookstore or even the landline telephone to get their information. I just don’t see why my 85-year-old grandmother who knows nothing about computers, the internet, and likely doesn’t even know that videoconferencing exists should be told she needs broadband.
This seems like an advertising schtick masquerading as a public policy issue. Broadband providers who, admittedly, make a huge capital investment in the infrastructure, seek to gain a larger market share by growing the pie. Everyone who wants broadband most likely has it and most don’t want to switch. Thus, by getting the elderly and the poor to sign up, providers grow their customer base without the battle to convince people to switch.
Second, I can understand the frustration of many elderly with technology. A rather useful resource here in the law library touts that it is “going green,” after its publisher printed and mailed the resource all over the state for years. Shortly after it “went green,” aka published the content only on its website, it ended the service altogether. I know it’s better for the environment and I’m sure that, in some respects, it’s more useful now than it was in paper form, but geez, they did make stuff harder to find.