A “Broadband Czar” is the Last Thing the Industry Needs

Implications: 1.      Sadly, the U.S. federal government does need to get involved in order to have a nationwide network. 2.      However, its participation should just be limited to mandates to the large telephone companies and to providing funding to local governments. 3.      Getting multiple federal agencies directly involved with telecom infrastructure is a recipe for disaster.

Analysis:  The mere fact that the term, czar, has taken on a positive connotation shows how far the U.S. has gotten away from its original concept of limited government.  Just the idea of having one person in an autocratic position contradicts the whole notion of a representative democracy.  

Unfortunately, Michael Copps does not seem to run into any ideas involving the federal government that he dislikes.  That’s all we need is to now get the Human and Urban Development agency join the myriad of entities that have failed to get the country ubiquitous broadband services in the U.S. – including the U.S. Congress, the executive branch, the FCC, the DOJ, the FTC, and the 50 state commissions.  Too much government participation will only ensure that there will be a lot of “losers” in a broadband “revolution.”  

It is best to keep as much control at the state and local levels in developing a broadband infrastructure.  As the source article points out, “other states can learn from North Carolina's...efforts.” But any proposal that calls for “coordinat[ing]...government agencies,” which have trouble getting anything done by themselves, is foolhardy.