The Obama administration is working to draw a broadband map of the U.S. to help set policy, but the cost and actual utility of such a map is under fire from some quarters.

Broadband availability for the masses was one of the planks of the Obama electoral platform. In order to gauge the current state of broadband in the United States, a study was deemed needed to determine actual availability today in order to map out a plan to improve tomorrow’s access to fast internet. Therefore, as a part of the broader economic stimulus program, the Obama administration made available a maximum of $350 million to study broadband and to produce a national map showing broadband availability.

Analysts from many quarters have said that the amount selected was exorbitant. Last week the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the agency responsible for the study, agreed that the $350 million amount was too high, and that it would now spend $100 million on the program and then reassess where things stood. Of course, that does not mean that the $100 million figure is the limit, and opponents are still saying that they are worried about the expense, according to an AP story. Several sources have said that the total amount should probably be in the $30-35 million range.

The broadband map and its underlying data will be used to determine how a larger amount, $7.2 billion, is used to improve broadband availability for those that currently do not have access to fast internet services. It is also problematic that the national broadband map will probably not yet be complete when the time comes to address the problems being studied. In all likelihood, this situation will result in a delay in finalizing the plan for improving services rather than proceeding with a multi-billion spending plan without sufficient information.

Still, the cost is an issue. In a major 2008 survey, the availability of broadband was not the major reason that people did not use broadband. It was in fact a distant third after the fact that they did not care about broadband and that the internet was too difficult to use. In addition, the cable industry says that is is already providing broadband to 92 percent of American addresses. It is also clear that many of the 8 percent without available broadband live a in rural areas.

It seems that perhaps the captioned money would be better spent finding ways to reduce urban broadband costs, and on improving broadband availability in rural areas, which has an entirely different solution set than improving broadband access in urban areas. It may have been wise, it seems, to do a less expensive survey to see what the problems are before allocating money to fix a problem which may not even exist.

Related:

Entry was posted on Sunday, September 13th, 2009 at 3:37 pm under Internet, Politics, Technology.

Read more entries by Michael W. Jones.
Stumble It!