[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’FAITH, HOPE & CHARITY ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY IKE SEÑERES
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Internet everywhere
I USED to say that we could deliver internet everywhere, for as long as there is a signal. I do not say that anymore, because nowadays, there is always a way to have a signal everywhere, actually anywhere for that matter.
There is no more limitation now as far as the connectivity options are concerned. The only limitation if ever is the cost of the connectivity, but that should not really be a problem, because whatever it costs, the system will always pay for itself.
In theory, the availability of internet will always create new value added in more ways than one. In other words, not matter how much it would cost, the benefits it would bring would always have a greater value.
In a manner of speaking, it could be said that nowadays, there is no more place to run to, because everywhere you run to, there will always be a signal and if ever there is no signal, there is always a way to bring in a signal. In many places, the signal could be made available via ordinary wired or wireless means such as fiber optic cables and WI-FI networks.
Aside from the ordinary means, however, signals could also be brought in via microwave, via satellite, via balloons, and even via drones. In extreme, there would always be non-telco means of bringing in a signal, for example via other radio frequencies and via television white space.
At the risk of stating the obvious, I will still say that the biggest obstacle to bringing in the signals is the cost of the primary infrastructure. Sad to say, even if the said infrastructure will eventually make money in the long run, money is still needed to put it up. Since the size of the initial investment is really the main problem, the solution so to speak is to lessen the size, and in doing so, it would also lower the initial costs.
Towards that goal, I will now offer two solutions, if only to start the discussions that could eventually bring up the other solutions. The first solution as I see it is to maximize the potential of whatever infrastructure is already in place. The second solution is to subdivide the problem into many manageable parts, following the principle of subsidiarity.
The local phone networks, the local cable operators and the electric cooperatives are the three types of local companies that already have some kind of infrastructure in place, in one form or another. Although existing infrastructure may not be internet ready as of now, they have certain assets that could readily be enhanced or upgraded so that these would enable them to become internet capable.
For example, the local phone networks could convert their existing copper lines into Digital Service Lines (DSL), the local cable operators could convert their existing coaxial cables into fiber optic cables and the electric cooperatives could use their existing electrical posts to also carry fiber optic cables.
I mentioned the primary infrastructure earlier, because the secondary infrastructure, being the so-called “last mile” could actually be invested in by local entities such as the barangay councils, the homeowners associations or the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), the latter including the multipurpose cooperatives.
On one hand, investing into the primary and secondary infrastructure could be a problem, but on the other hand, it could also be an opportunity for these local entities to make money by becoming the local internet providers in their respective areas. That is really not too difficult to understand, because the internet is a good business that has a sure market.
While it would be normal for the business sector to view the challenge of building the infrastructure strictly from the viewpoint of profits, the public sector should view it not only in terms of the financial costs, but also in terms of the social costs of not having any infrastructure at all. In that sense, the social costs could actually be viewed in terms of the opportunity costs, being the productivity or the value added that was not created because the signals are not available. In a way, this apparent conflict of realities could be compared to the financial and social costs that are incurred because of not having solutions to the problem of slow traffic flows.
There was a time not too long ago when the internet was a luxury that was enjoyed only by those who could afford its high costs. That time is long gone, because nowadays, the internet has become a necessity. By now, the reality has reversed, because most of our people could no longer afford not to have it.
Of course, the internet is relatively cheaper now, but money is still an issue nowadays, because not having internet could become the cause of not earning money. Beyond the issue of money, some countries have already declared that the internet is a basic need. Other countries have even gone further to declare that having access to the internet is one of the basic human rights./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
