Digital technologies have transfomed our business and personal lives. Our digital literacy has grown as new digital devices continue to multiply – personal computers, mobile phones, laptops and mobile wireless devices, ditigal TV, High definition TV, 3D TV…
At no other time in our history has information and communications technology been more important to our society, our future direction.
But the complexity and sheer number of devices, services and technologies can be confusing to consumers, businesses and to the state attempting to develop policy, anticipate future developments and get the competitive and legislative framework right.
Every time human society has developed a new network infrastructure, huge changes have resulted. Think of the effect of roads, railways, shipping lanes, electricity networks and most recently the telephone network and air routes on our society, our economy and our understanding of the world. And now broadband. And wireless networks.
There’s a question I keep asking myself about the role of the internet in our lives. It’s not a luxury. It’s so much a part of the vast majority of people’s lives now. For business, information access and sharing, for human interaction. People of all ages, all levels of society, all occupations. Like the telephone was in the earlier part of the 20th century. Just as electricity gradually became an essential service for each household to enable refrigeration of food, a well-lit house at night. An electric stove. A washing machine.
So is it time to consider the internet as an essential service? And if it is, then what are the implications for policy on a whole range of issues? Access to ultrafast broadband, no matter whether you live in urban Auckland or the South Hokianga?
The ability for older poeple to have a computer in their homes and learn how to use it to have direct consultations with their doctor or a hospital clinic.
For parents to use programmes like Skype to discuss their children’s progress with the teacher at a time that suits them all. For children to have easy access to laptops and computers at home and at school. And even for those computers to be networked.
This broadband and computing revolution dominates our lives. It’s exciting and there are so many possibilities.
We know there is more to come and we know that all these changes add up to a faster, freer and more prosperous society than at any time in the history of our species.
But we’re yet to properly have the discussion about the extent to which at least some of these technologies are becoming essential services. What do you think?
The Internet is without a doubt an essential service in a modern economy and a modern society.
By the Internet, I don’t mean email, the Web or Skype. I mean the channels these things flow through – the actual connections to people houses and businesses, unfettered and unfiltered. Once those connections are in place, everything else can and will be provided by suppliers around the world.
It’s this distinction between the connection and what flows over it which has been missed in a lot of the S92A debate. The Internet is not the problem; it’s the use some people are making of it which is the problem. And, lest this sounds too much like “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, let’s bear in mind that a large majority of different uses of the Internet carry social and business benefits and don’t harm anyone. Ant Healey of APRA’s assertion that “without us, the Internet would be empty” is ludicrous and should be treated with the derision it deserves.
The basic problem here is that a new infrastructure is reducing the costs of shipping some kinds of good – information goods. In a previous century, those affected by a new way of transporting people and goods reacted by trying to suppress it. They didn’t succeed then and they won’t succeed to day.
Clare, excellent blog. In my view, it is an essential service. And yes, information technology is the life blood of the global economy and has, to a large extent, been responsible for creating the conditions for lifting millions out of poverty and extending the reach of liberal democracy. All fairly obvious, really. However, I’m not sure exactly what you are driving at here in a public policy sense?
I start to worry when I read a politician musing on turning a social phenomenon into an “essential service”. When they’ve convinced themselves (and persuaded us) that it is, they’ll try to control it. That control will be cocooned in euphamisms: essential; wild west; protect children; protect creative industries; empower and all the other catch-phrases from both Labour and National that set their jubblies wobbling.
In the thirties the governemnt took fright at the implications of radio and we were stuck with a bland, unadventurous state-controlled service for more than thirty years.
The Internet evolved without select committees, officials’ reports or election promises. In other words, it’s exactly how its users want it to be. When you declare that it should be available to all, that means subsidies to those who can’t afford it. No problem but then a government will be the paymaster and demand a say in content. Already National has started filtering it. Politicians, leave it alone, please. It’s doing great without you.
Agree with John here mostly, keep the internet as untouched by the government as possible. Government should just be users, not controllers. Have a look at the Government Shared Network for example, designed to ensure all govt dept’s could get the same price breaks through bulk buying power, it has instead ran at a loss of millions.
Just one disagreement though John, National has not started filtering the internet. DIA is running a filter system that ISP’s can voluntarily sign up to. Apart from the voluntary aspect I am dubious that DIA could have progressed this far with this program since Nov ‘08, so I suspect the project began under Labour. Regardless, if this filtering (targetting child porn sites) is in some metrics successful then it may just avoid compulsory filtering.
There’s no way that any government will be able to control the Internet in the long term.
Like any self-healing network, those “controlled” portions will be routed around by it’s, probably faster, and certainly “uncontrolled” successor.
There’s no way governments can keep up with that – technological change is just too quick.
Same goes for trying to stop peer to peer sharing – can’t do it on the Internet? – do it on something else – probably in the near term carried over the Internet but either cryptographically hidden or carried undetectable in the noise.
Just give up now, it’s a war that can’t be won.
Of course it’s essential – a free market can only work when people have access to full information which is something that you just don’t get through advertising. This means that the telecommunications network, like roads, is infrastructural and competition doesn’t work in infrastructure.
Multiple networks will cost more than a single network and the economy will have to pay for them all. On top of that most of the network won’t give a profit so private investors won’t build it. Why do you think that, when Telstra came over here from Australia, they immediately started lobbying for LLU?
Competitive ISPs through LLU have the same issue – they cost more due to more hardware being needed, more people needed and interconnect agreements needing to be negotiated.
All this is why we had a state owned network to begin with. Because privately owned and competitive networks were going to be (and are) expensive. Since selling Telecom our network hasn’t gone backwards (much*) but it certainly hasn’t improved the way it would have if it stayed a state owned service. In 1985 the Post Office C&M branch made a profit of some $270m (1985$) all of which was then invested back into the network. In 200x (can’t remember the exact year or exact figures) Telecom made close $1b in profit, ~$150m was invested back into the network. Barely maintenance level.
Then there’s the services that will be available. Streaming movies, internet radio stations, games, scientific research etc (I remember an article a while back about someone in a NZ uni who was working with someone in a US uni. The person in the US wanted to email some data across – it was half a gigabyte. It would have taken the US guy minutes to send it but, ATT, the NZ guy weeks to receive it). This means that every house needs a broadband connection and that it needs to be far better than ADSL2+. Continue leaving it to “the market” and our network will continue limping along like the three legged dog that it is and NZ will continue not having some opportunities.
We need to go back to a state owned network.
* In the late 1980s fiber optic cabling was being laid out to cabinets. When Telecom started putting in ADSL those cables were removed and replaced with copper. Have a look in Telecoms ICMS and you will find the evidence.
An “essential service” – what a horrible phrase. It reduces the internet from its position as the free expression of the people down to some business model politicians and merchants can exploit for their own venal ends.
Is the internet essential – no, of course not. Planet Earth and its inhabitants are not suddenly going to evaporate if the internet were to vanish tomorrow. Even the technology the internet has thrown up is not “essential” – people will still communicate, still buy and sell goods, and still find myriad ways to amuse themselves.
I don’t know about “essential”, but it’s certainly a utility, or a piece of infrastructure. You can still live quite comfortably without the internet if you have enough to do with your time otherwise, as most people do. At the moment it’s mostly a convenience.
I do imagine that it will progressively become more and more essential however, and as time passes we’ll probably see moves to, for instance, make charitable donations of old computers to disadvantaged families so they don’t have to live without internet access and can shop for things that you might simply stop finding in physical retailers, or so they can use library resources, or educate their kids properly. Fortunately we’re not to the point of needing that yet- although if you have an old box to dispose of that you won’t use for a server or something, might be worth sparing a thought for people who’ve never had a chance to use one.
There is a problem in the use of the phrase “essential service” which distorts the nature of the problem and exposes the topic to ridicule (see BLiP’s comment above). Perhaps the issue is better framed in considering the disadvantage of not having convenient and reliable internet access.
Many paople use the internet for various personal reasons including email communications, time saving services (e.g. online payments, banking and shopping), information gathering, social networking, and online auction sites. Those who have have regular internet access through work, home, or school enjoy many conveniences and advantages over those who do not.
Is the internet an essential service? probably not. Is someone who has regular internet access in a significantly more advantageous position than someone who does not? I think so. The internet is a powerful resource and I believe everyone should have convenient access to it.
[...] then (on a separate post) that issue of whether the internet is an essential service. I’m sensing a strong public discussion beginning to build around this and you’ll be [...]
Eventually convergence will replace the entire current PSTN with IP based services. Since the delivery of a phone line will be down the same pipe as the “internet” then the bundled service will be an essential one if you wish for all New Zealanders to fully partake in civil society or take advantage of e-government.
Ditch the now outdated “kiwishare” – which has been thoroughly subverted by inflated wire maintainance, rental fees etc etc now anyway – and replace it with an “e-Kiwi” option.
[...] I’ve mused on this issue before. See my previous post Is the internet an essential service? [...]
[...] Is the internet an essential service, like the telephone, like electricity? If you use your telephone to conduct an illegal act, such as a drug deal, is your telephone disconnected? If you use your electricity to grow marijuana in your house, is your electricity cut off? [...]
[...] This is what I’ve been saying for a while. I first wrote about it last July. [...]