Comments on: Broadband for All May Not Be as Urgent as Many Say

By: Broadband for All « Doug Neeper's Blog

Broadband for All « Doug Neeper's Blog — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:07:07 +0000

[...] Broadband for All May Not Be as Urgent as Many Say November 29th, 2009 by Andrea Dimaio – A Gartner Blog http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2009/11/29/broadband-for-all-may-not-be-as-urgent-as-many-say... [...]

By: Sir Gershon and His Reviews: Good but not Great

Sir Gershon and His Reviews: Good but not Great — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:29:37 +0000

[...] As in Australia investments in broadband will exceed Gershon savings by a factor of 20 to 30, and nobody really knows how beneficial those will be, this casts doubt about how “efficiency” and “effectiveness” ought to be measured. [...]

By: The Daily Digest 12_2_09 | Navarrow Wright

The Daily Digest 12_2_09 | Navarrow Wright — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:18:38 +0000

[...] Then of course after you read this article you may be surprised to know that there are people out there who don’t think this is important. I think the broadband naysayers are those who only look at the implementation costs and not the opportunity or the people who stand to benefit from broadband’s use. Take a read http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2009/11/29/broadband-for-all-may-not-be-as-urgent-as-many-say... [...]

By: Chris Parente

Chris Parente — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:56:42 +0000

Interesting post. I follow the logic of your argument, but do you realize what you’ve outlined is the antithesis to how the Internet has developed?

The Internet grew first, and then people and companies figured out what new applications and business models it enabled. Facebook is five years old, Google less than ten. Citizens can’t be told how to use added bandwidth — they have to want to. And to ask government to design new uses is a stretch — not because the people lack initiative or intelligence, but due to a very risk averse culture.

By: Graham Colclough

Graham Colclough — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:06:45 +0000

Like transport in cities. The better the roads, the more we’ll just fill them. And it will be much worse with the information highways. Free is the the answer. It’s the subtleties of incentives, constraints on use, and different commercial and pricing models that we need to focus on.
I’m not sure too many places have managed to get properly into that debate.

By: Think eGov » Blog Archive » Infrastructure versus services?

Think eGov » Blog Archive » Infrastructure versus services? — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:30:07 +0000

[...] versus services? 29 November 2009 1 views No Comment “Broadband for All May Not Be as Urgent as Many Say” says analyst at Gartner Andrea DiMaio. He argues that investments in services should follow [...]

By: Flemming Engstrøm

Flemming Engstrøm — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:09:33 +0000

I think that the emphasis on building infrastructure is stil important since this is the a basis for all digital communication.

“If you build it, they will come” may not always be true but i’m sure that the negation “if you Don’t build it, thet will not come” is very true.

On the other hand I agree that there should be more emphasis on putting non-entertainment functionality into the infrastructure. Building digital services should be as important as building the infrastructure.

This will happen, the development of theses type of services comes slower, much slower than the entertainment-services. But when they emerge they will use the infrastructure and they will use the experience and knowledge from those who build the entertainmentservices.

I have been working with public IT for more than 20 years and the delvelopment of it-services during the last 5 years has been incredible, maybe 200 percent more that the 15 early years. I still feel we are moving slowly and I wish I could give a big burst.But thats not have it works, i t takes time. You can build a new service very fast, but the implementation will take time.

BUt they won’t come if we don’t take good care of the network. The infrastructure must be agile and ready, not old and inadequate

By: Nick Jones

Nick Jones — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:35:50 +0000

I sometimes feel that “broadband for all” initiatives from government are often rooted in a political misunderstanding of the nature of an information society. I suspect many non-technical politicians think that broadband is like roads. The infrastructure for exploiting roads already exists (cars, trucks, logistic distribution centres) and so on. So if you build more roads, or better roads they will immediately be exploited in ways you already understand.

But broadband isn’t like that; we are still in the process of discovering exactly what terms like “information society” actually mean. So just providing more broadband or faster broadband will not alone create an information society. Worse, because we don’t yet know what other infrastructure and services will be required to achieve this mythical “information society” government can’t even invest to provide the missing pieces to complement the broadband. Don’t get me wrong, better and faster broadband is a necessary foundation, but governments shouldn’t delude themselves that they know what it’s a foundation for.

By: Tweets that mention Broadband for All May Not Be as Urgent as Many Say -- Topsy.com

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:04:08 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Brian Ahier, Andrea DiMaio. Andrea DiMaio said: Broadband for All May Not Be as Urgent as Many Say – http://bit.ly/8T3HtP #gov20 #egov2009 [...]