This week, organizations which rely on as many people as possible having inexpensive, reliable access to the Internet received some good news and some interesting news.

First, the good news. Associated Press reported a study showing that high-speed Internet services were growing in rural areas. According to the report, which is based on a survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project:

• Last fall, 24% of rural Americans had broadband Internet access at home, more than double the 9% rate reported in 2003.
• By comparison, 39% of urban and suburban dwellers had broadband last fall, up from 22% in 2003.
• Adding in people who use dial-up or access the Internet only at work, 62% of country dwellers use the Internet, compared with 70% elsewhere.

This is excellent news for companies with business models that would benefit from extending their markets out of urban areas. It is also important for organizations which had no alternative other than delivering services or information through channels less efficient than the Web in rural areas.

Associated Press also provided us with the interesting news. “Telecommunications companies want to be able to provide ‘tiered service,’ guaranteeing that, for a price, some packets will get to their destination on time.”

AP reports that the opponents of this approach fear that abandoning the “network neutrality” may allow the carriers to cut off sites that are late paying or competing with their own services.

For companies that have built a business model on near ubiquitous access to the Internet—notably Google which is now actively opposing this scheme—this change poses a considerable threat.

Of course, as AP points out, the carriers also have a business model: “Whether they tier their service or not, telecommunications companies need to expand capacity. To do so costs money, and the telecoms argue that Internet users will have to pay, one way or another. They say it’s preferable that the money come from those who need and are willing to pay for better service, rather than spreading the cost out over all users.”

The last time I wrote on this topic, I suggested this was an issue to monitor occasionally. You might want to start following it a lot more regularly.

RELATED ITEMS:             

Who’s responsible for cheap Internet access?

When you launch your web browser, are you engaging in civic-related communications? Or are you initiating a commercial transaction? Your answer may determine what role you would accept for government involvement in your online experience and what responsibility you believe corporations have for enabling your communications and transactions.

Why is this significant for web strategy? Because, in western democracies, we have the luxury of assuming that businesses and their customers will have guaranteed access to the Internet at a reasonable price. That assumption rests on decisions made by governments regarding how to regulate, or not, the Internet. It is also shaped by how the companies who create and manage the backbone of the Internet interpret their responsibility toward customers and shareholders.

In a high-profile example of what can happen in countries that lack our democratic tradition, we witnessed Google agreeing to censor its site in China. The move has been criticized, but not by Bill Gates, who defended his rival’s decision. Gates said that Internet technology contributes to political freedom and added that “I think [the internet] is contributing to Chinese political engagement . . . Access to the outside world is preventing more censorship.”

A recent article in The Nation, “The End of the Internet?” suggests we shouldn’t take inexpensive Internet access for granted in North America. The writer, Jeff Chester, states that: “If we permit the Internet to become a medium designed primarily to serve the interests of marketing and personal consumption, rather than global civic-related communications, we will face the political consequences for decades to come.”

People who launch their browser to participate in political dialogue will nod enthusiastically at this point, lobby their government for greater regulation and propose clear responsibility for corporations in enabling citizens to engage in free discourse.

Many, many more people, who use the Internet to research and make purchases, will roll their eyes, perceive no role for the government and expect corporations to be responsible for delivering better products at a cheaper price.

Chester’s article can’t be easily dismissed, however. For one reason, telecos and cable companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to deliver a return on their investment. To that point, he quotes Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, who told Business Week, “Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can’t be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!”

For another reason, Chester points out that these large corporations are aggressively lobbying the U.S. government to enact legislation that will support their revenue goals. “Under the plans they are considering, all of us—from content providers to individual users—would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail.”

An imminent threat? No, but it’s certainly an issue to include in your “environmental scan” as you assess your Internet strategy.

In the meantime, you can take in the ACLU’s projection of how web technology and rich data can turn a simple transaction, ordering pizza, into an interaction with Big Brother.