Docstoc

Stenberg

Document Sample
Stenberg Powered By Docstoc
					                                          International Conference:
                                    European Rural Policy at the Crossroads
                                           Thursday 29 June – Saturday 1 July 2000

                                   The Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research
                                          King's College, University of Aberdeen
                                                         Scotland



    Telecommunication Rural Policy in the U.S.: Issues and
    Economic Consequences1
    by Peter L. Stenberg2

                      Abstract: The U.S. recently adopted broad ranging legislative and regulatory
                      reforms in telecommunication policy. The reforms have great portent for farm,
                      small town, and rural populations. Under the new legislation universal service
                      provisions were expanded and continue to serve as an economic safety net for the
                      delivery of telecommunication services across rural regions. In addition the tiered-
                      government system of federal, state, and local has allowed further action and
                      support at the state and local levels. This tiered system, with respect to universal
                      service, however, is under increasing economic pressure. The new legal and
                      economic revolution in the telecommunication service system may threaten the
                      continuance of an economically effective universal coverage system. Some new
                      technologies, however, may ease this situation further down the road. In addition,
                      some innovative socioeconomic policy programs may also address this situation.



              The information and communication system in the U.S. and western Europe arose from

    different policy schemes. The U.S. system evolved under a regulation of private industry policy

    regime. The regime is undergoing deregulation. The western European system evolved under a

    government-owned monopoly scheme, but telephone companies are now being privatized. While the

    U.S. and western Europe are moving from different economic frameworks into the New Economy both

    can gain from understanding communication and information policy effects that each are experiencing.

    Competitive rural telephone services are a critical issue worldwide.


1
  Paper presented at the international conference European Rural Policy at the Crossroads, The Arkleton Centre for Rural
Development Research, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 29 June – 1 July 2000.
2
        Dr. Peter L. Stenberg                               ph: (+1) 202-694-5366
        USDA-ERS-FRED                                       fax: (+1) 202-694-5663
        1800 M St. NW, Room 2192                            e-mail: stenberg@ers.usda.gov
        Washington, DC 20036-5831
9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc                Page 1                                                  July 2000
              Transactions in the New Economy will increasingly be on the Internet. Retail sales have

    received the most attention of all types of e-commerce activities, but retail sales will only be a small

    portion of total e-commerce activity. Already in the U.S. business-to-business sales on the Internet

    exceed business-to-consumer (figures 1a and 1b). The growth of business-to-business e-commerce is

    expected to continue to be rapid as more businesses shift their purchases to the Internet. This is also

    taking place in Europe and the rest of the world with total e-commerce transactions in western Europe

    expected to exceed $1.5 billion (1.5 trillion euros) by 2004 according to Forrester Research (figure 2a

    and 2b).

                                           Figure 1a: E-commerce Revenues in the U.S.


                                       1,400
                 Billions of Dollars




                                       1,200
                                       1,000
                                         800                                                  1998
                                         600
                                         400                                                  2003
                                                                                              (Projected)
                                         200
                                           0
                                               Business-to-Business     Business-to-
                                                                         Consumer
                                                                                       Source: Forrester Research




9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc                       Page 2                                           July 2000
                                                              Figure 1b: E-commerce Revenues in the U.S.


                                                    1,400
                                                    1,200
                 Billions of Euros



                                                    1,000
                                                     800                                                              1998
                                                     600
                                                                                                                      2003
                                                     400                                                              (Projected)
                                                     200
                                                          0
                                                              Business-to-Business Business-to-Consumer
                                                                                                            Source: Forrester Research




                                                          Figure 2a: E-commerce Revenues by Region, 2004
                                                                           (Projected).


                                                    3.5
                             Trillions of Dollars




                                                      3
                                                    2.5
                                                      2
                                                    1.5
                                                      1
                                                    0.5
                                                      0
                                                               U.S.     Western         Asia-    Eastern         Latin
                                                                        Europe         Pacific   Europe,        America
                                                                                                  Africa,
                                                                                                 Middle
                                                                                                   East
                Source: Forrester Research




9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc                                      Page 3                                                 July 2000
                                              Figure 2b: E-commerce Revenues by Region, 2004
                                                               (Projected).


                                        3.5
                   Trillions of Euros

                                          3
                                        2.5
                                          2
                                        1.5
                                          1
                                        0.5
                                          0
                                                U.S.        Western         Asia-       Eastern        Latin
                                                            Europe         Pacific      Europe,       America
                                                                                         Africa,
                                                                                        Middle
                                                                                          East
                Source: Forrester Research


              The challenge for rural regions is to share in this economic growth. The less rural areas are

    equipped for the New Economy, the further they, as regions of economic-space, will fall behind

    (Stenberg, Rahman, Perrin, and Johnson).

                                               Historical Perspective on Rural Telecommunication Policy

              The problem rural areas have faced historically has been that they have been at the end of the

    line in terms of telecommunication infrastructure investment (Egan). Europe and the U.S. have

    traditionally dealt with this problem in different ways with the major difference arising from the

    original ownership structure in the telecommunication service industry.

              In the U.S. at the end of the 19th century one company, the Bell System, held all the patents and

    the company collected monopoly rents impeding a wide adoption of the new technology. The

    telephone system was restricted to areas with enough wealthy customers, generally only the largest

    urban areas (Dyson). In practice it was the classic monopolist profit maximizing model. The growth

    and diffusion of the telecommunication system went through many fits and starts in the ensuing years.

    The patents raised economic and legal barriers to telephone service for most rural areas.

9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc                        Page 4                                     July 2000
              When the patents expired a host of new companies formed and entered hitherto unserved

    markets and costs of service declined. Professionals, such as doctors, saw the usefulness of telephones

    and invested in local systems. The telephone system, however, still was largely confined to urban areas

    (Dyson). Major telephone companies saw the critical mass of customers needed to make systems

    profitable to be lacking in most rural areas (beyond the outskirts of sizable towns).

              In more prosperous rural regions farmers built their own local systems buying equipment from

    catalog retailers and other manufacturers of telephone equipment. The systems varied from relatively

    sophisticated to quite primitive. In some cases so primitive that the telephone line was a strand of

    barbwire (Hatfield). Difficulties arose, however, with the refusal of the Bell System and many of the

    independents to allow these rural systems to hook-up to the urban systems and networks. Despite these

    handicaps rural telephone systems grew rapidly, though never were they in universal service.

              The Great Depression, and the concurrent collapse in the farm sector, brought the growth of the

    rural telephone system to a standstill with many customers no longer able to afford the luxury of

    telephones. It was not until the passage of the Communications Act of 1934 that universal service was

    promised (i.e. telephone service at affordable rates were promised for all households). It took another

    15 years, though, before sufficient funding was acquired so real progress could be made in bringing

    telephone service to all rural areas. By 1964 over three-fourths of farms had telephone service, by 1980

    only the most remote areas did not have telephone service. Today approximately 92 percent of rural

    U.S. households have telephone service, nearly the same ratio for farms. Rural households nearly

    match the 95 percent rate for urban households (figure 3). The remaining households either chose not

    to have phone service, can not afford even the subsidized phone service, or live in very remote

    locations.




9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc          Page 5                                              July 2000
                                                   Figure 3: Percent of U.S. Households with a Telephone by
                                                                      Metropolitan Status.

                      Percent of U.S. Households
                                                   96
                                                   95
                                                   94                                                               1994
                                                   93                                                               1998
                                                   92
                                                   91
                                                   90
                                                              U.S.              Non-Metro   Metropolitan
                                                                                              Source: Bureau of the Census



              The universal service, as it has been applied in the U.S. has been a subsidy program where

    payments are made to telephone carriers in order that they would cover service to high cost areas or

    poor households. The payments are internal transfers within the telephone industry. The payments, in

    the way the transfers are structured, reduce the cost of local telephone calls for households. The effect

    has been to increase significantly telephone penetration rates across income groups and reduce

    markedly rural-urban differences (figure 4).




9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc                               Page 6                                                July 2000
                                               Figure 4: Percent of U.S. Households with a Telephone by Income and
                                                                     Metropolitan Status, 1998.


                                             100
                 Percent of U.S Households




                                              95

                                              90                                                                                                                                                                                                                       U.S.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Non-Metro
                                              85
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Metro
                                              80

                                              75

                                              70
                                                   Under $5,000




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             75,000+
                                                                                          10,000-12,499

                                                                                                          12,500-14,999

                                                                                                                          15,000-19,999

                                                                                                                                          20,000-24,999

                                                                                                                                                          25,000-29,999

                                                                                                                                                                          30,000-34,999

                                                                                                                                                                                          35,000-39,999

                                                                                                                                                                                                          40,000-49,999

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          50,000-59,999

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             60,000-74,999
                                                                  5000-7499

                                                                              7500-9999




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Source: Bureau of the Census




                                                                                                                            The Rural Challenge

              Whether the locale is Maine, the Scottish Highlands, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, or

    Ireland’s County Donegal rural areas face many of the same challenges. Residents in rural areas have

    always faced higher costs for telecommunication services than those in urban areas and, at least for the

    foreseeable future, will continue to do so. Economies-to-scale are at the core of why they face higher

    costs.

              All rural areas, by definition, are characterized by low population density. The fewer people in

    any relevant geographic space, the fewer costs are shared for telecommunication services. Fewer share



9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc                                                                                  Page 7                                                                                                                                           July 2000
    in the cost of the central office switches, loop maintenance, and other common components of the local

    telecommunication system.

              Rural areas also have few large businesses or government operations. In the U.S., businesses,

    and to some extent government, use of telecommunication services have indirectly subsidized

    household use of telecommunication services. In practice, in the past, this has meant that telephone

    carriers in urban areas charged higher rates to their business customers and lower rates to household

    customers than they would have in a perfectly competitive market for telecommunication services.

    Rural telephone companies often do not have this luxury.

              Rural telephone providers must spend more per customer for maintenance and repair crews than

    urban providers. Rural maintenance and repair crews, especially those providing services in very

    remote regions, must cover a larger territory than urban crews. This, of course, results in more

    overtime, more travel expenditures, and all the other resultant expenditures that crews face when they

    are not near their home base.

              Rural telephone providers need more resources (per customer), including duplicate facilities and

    backup equipment, to protect network reliability than urban telephone providers (Egan). In addition to

    the economies-to-scale aspect, rural telecommunication equipment is spread across a larger territory

    and crews need additional time to reach a problem (on average). As a consequence more duplicate

    equipment is needed. Equipment serving rural areas is often much more exposed to the elements than

    urban-situated equipment. Rural-situated equipment, therefore, will experience breakdowns more

    often than urban-situated equipment.

              Telecommunication services have, of course, been undergoing a remarkable and fast paced

    transformation into what may now more accurately be called communication and information services.

    The cost of the new communication and information technologies, and resultant services, are not

    inexpensive (Egan; Malecki and Boush). One study of rural telephone carriers in the U.S. that serve

    only rural areas found that it would cost $11 billion to bring DSL service (one technology that would
9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc          Page 8                                            July 2000
    allow broadband Internet connections) to their customers. The study also indicated that it would not be

    able to recoup their investment from their customer base. They need accordingly, they argue, low

    interest government loans and other programs for them to invest in DSL. In addition to the rural

    telephone providers there are nonrural telephone providers servicing rural areas. It would cost many

    billions of dollars more to provide DSL service to their rural customers.

                                                 The Era of Deregulation

              The U.S. has addressed the challenge of providing affordable telecommunication service to

    rural areas in a number of ways. First and foremost has been the Telecommunication Act of 1934. It

    was revised by the Telecommunication Act of 1996 but the principle of universal service remains:

    provide affordable telecommunication service to all households. The Act incorporated earlier additions

    to the law to cover emergency services such as direct dial to police and fire departments. The Act also

    expanded on the concept by allowing the eventual incorporation of Internet service into the definition

    of telecommunication service.

              What this portends can be seen in the current household use of computers and the Internet.

    Rural households lag urban households in owning personal computers (figure 5). The lag, however, is

    largely due to the difference in the distribution of income between rural and urban areas. Across

    income groups the difference between rural and urban households largely disappears (figure 6). The

    cause of the aggregate difference between rural and urban households lies in the lower household

    incomes rural areas have vis-à-vis urban areas.




9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc          Page 9                                            July 2000
                                                                                                Figure 5: Percent of Households with a Computer by
                                                                                                                Metropolitan Status.
                                        Percent of U.S. Households
                                                                     60
                                                                     50
                                                                     40
                                                                     30                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1994
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1998
                                                                     20
                                                                     10
                                                                          0
                                                                                                Metropolitan                                                      Non-metro                                                                      U.S.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Source: Bureau of the Census




                                       Figure 6: Percent of Households with a Computer by Income and Metropolitan
                                                                      Status, 1998.


                                       90

                                       80
          Percent of U.S. Households




                                       70

                                       60
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           U.S.
                                       50                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Non-metro
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Metro
                                       40

                                       30

                                       20

                                       10

                                        0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              75,000+
                                                                                    5000-7499

                                                                                                 7500-9999
                                                                     Under $5,000




                                                                                                             10,000-12,499

                                                                                                                             12,500-14,999

                                                                                                                                             15,000-19,999

                                                                                                                                                             20,000-24,999

                                                                                                                                                                             25,000-29,999

                                                                                                                                                                                             30,000-34,999

                                                                                                                                                                                                             35,000-39,999

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              40,000-49,999

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              50,000-59,999

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              60,000-74,999




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Source: Department of the Census




9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc                                                                                                            Page 10                                                                                                                               July 2000
              The rural-urban Internet cost difference effect, however, can be seen readily. Rural households

    are less likely to use e-mail than urban households, though, arguably, they may have more need (in

    order to overcome relative isolation) for it (figure 7). The growth of e-mail use, however, has been

    rapid in rural and urban households. Households in rural areas were less likely to have Internet access

    than urban households no matter what income group they may belong figure 8). The universal service

    policy effect can be seen clearly when comparing the household income and telephone penetration

    (figure 4) with either household computer or Internet incidence by income (figures 7 and 8). Computer

    ownership and Internet access follow normal demand curves. The demand curve for telephone

    penetration, however, has shifted upward due to the effect of the universal service program. The

    subsidy and transfer program as has been used in the U.S. makes having telephone more likely for

    lower income and rural households than otherwise would be the case, but the program does not ensure

    all households will have a telephone.




                                                      Figure 7: Percent of Households with E-mail by Metropolitan
                                                                                Status.


                                                 18
                    Percent of U.S. Households




                                                 16
                                                 14
                                                 12
                                                 10                                                                      1994
                                                 8                                                                       1998
                                                 6
                                                 4
                                                 2
                                                 0
                                                        Metropolitan          Non-metro                  U.S.
                                                                                          Source: Bureau of the Census




9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc                                Page 11                                          July 2000
                                           Figure 8: Percent of Households with Internet by Income and Metropolitan
                                                                        Status, 1998.


                                      50
                                      45
              Percent of Households




                                      40
                                      35
                                      30                                                                                                                                                                                                                     U.S. Total
                                      25                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Metro
                                      20                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Non-metro
                                      15
                                      10
                                       5
                                       0
                                            Under $5,000




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   75,000+
                                                                                   10,000-12,499

                                                                                                   12,500-14,999

                                                                                                                   15,000-19,999

                                                                                                                                   20,000-24,999

                                                                                                                                                   25,000-29,999

                                                                                                                                                                   30,000-34,999

                                                                                                                                                                                   35,000-39,999

                                                                                                                                                                                                   40,000-49,999

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   50,000-59,999

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   60,000-74,999
                                                           5000-7499

                                                                       7500-9999




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Source: Bureau of the Census




                 When, and if, the Internet is incorporated into the universal program, the demand curve will

    shift upwards from what it is now. The competitive market in urban markets will also likely shift the

    incidence of Internet use across incomes groups. The issue of future competitiveness of the

    telecommunications market in rural markets, however, remains unsettled.

                 The cause-and-effect issue for household Internet use, however, is not quite as simple as it seems at

    first. Rural-urban differences in household behavior largely disappear when comparing Internet use at work

    (figure 9). The differences are not statistically significant, except that rural managers and other

    professionals are slightly less likely to use the Internet at work than their urban counterparts.




9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc                                                                           Page 12                                                                                                                                    July 2000
                                                               Figure 9: Percent of Households Using the Internet at Work by
                                                                         Occupation and Metropolitan Status, 1998.
                             Percent of U.S. Households

                                                           40
                                                           35
                                                           30                                                                                                                                                       U.S. Total
                                                           25
                                                           20                                                                                                                                                       Metro
                                                           15
                                                           10                                                                                                                                                       Non-metro
                                                            5
                                                            0




                                                                                                                                                                                            e    r
                                                                                                                                                               ...
                                                                       ..




                                                                                                            ..




                                                                                                                                         ..




                                                                                                                                                                                         th
                                                                  f,.




                                                                                                                                                              Fo
                                                                                                        c.




                                                                                                                                      ,.




                                                                                                                                                                                      O
                                                                   o




                                                                                                        O




                                                                                                                                     n
                                                                Pr




                                                                                                                                                       g,
                                                                                                                                  io
                                                                                           ce




                                                                                                                                 ct




                                                                                                                                                     in
                                                             .&




                                                                                         vi




                                                                                                                               du




                                                                                                                                                   rm
                                                                                          r
                                                           gr




                                                                                       Se




                                                                                                                       o




                                                                                                                                                  Fa
                                                                                                                    Pr
                                                          M




                                                                                                                                                                                                 Source: Bureau of the Census




              Local governments in the U.S. have been very active in bringing the Internet to rural areas. Rural

    local government workers are more likely than their urban counterparts to be using the Internet at work

    (figure 10). All other rural workers, including federal workers, were less likely to be using the Internet at

    work. Again the cost of Internet service is the most likely reason.


                                                               Figure 10: Percent of Households Using the Internet at Work by
                 Percent of U.S. Households




                                                                       Class of Worker and Metropolitan Status, 1998.

                                                          50
                                                          40
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    U.S. Total
                                                          30
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Metro
                                                          20
                                                          10                                                                                                                                                        Non-metro
                                                           0
                                                                                          Govt- State




                                                                                                                                   Private- For



                                                                                                                                                  Nonprofit




                                                                                                                                                                                                      Without Pay
                                                                       Govt- Federal




                                                                                                                                                               Self-Employed,
                                                                                                                 Govt- Local




                                                                                                                                                                                Self-Employed,
                                                                                                                                                                                Unincorporated
                                                                                                                                                  Private-
                                                                                                                                      Profit




                                                                                                                                                                     Inc




                                                                                                                                                                                             Source: Bureau of the Census




9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc                                                                                       Page 13                                                                                July 2000
              Rural-urban differences are also clear in home Internet use across class of workers (figure 11). The

    cost differences again make it less likely for rural government or private industry employees to use the

    Internet at home.




                                               Figure 11: Percent of Households Using the Internet at Home
                                                    by Class of Worker and Metropolitan Status, 1998.
                 Percent of U.S. Households




                                              45
                                              40
                                              35
                                              30                                                                                                                                U.S. Total
                                              25
                                              20                                                                                                                                Metro
                                              15                                                                                                                                Non-metro
                                              10
                                               5
                                               0
                                                                   Govt- State




                                                                                                   Private- For




                                                                                                                              Self-Employed,
                                                   Govt- Federal




                                                                                                                                                                  Without Pay
                                                                                                                  Nonprofit




                                                                                                                                               Self-Employed,
                                                                                 Govt- Local




                                                                                                                                               Unincorporated
                                                                                                                  Private-
                                                                                                      Profit




                                                                                                                                    Inc


                                                                                                                                                            Source: Bureau of the Census




              Telephone penetration is not the same across the country. In addition to the federal universal service

    program, states also have programs. The programs are not identical in the level of funding nor in their

    application. The effect can be seen in map 1. States, such as in the upper Midwest, have much larger

    programs than the states in the deep South. The southern tier states also have greater rural poverty. As a

    consequence distinct regional differences in rural telephone use is readily apparent.




              Not all rural areas of the U.S. have gone to the Internet as readily as have others. In a way history is

    repeating itself in the U.S.: the same economic groups and regions are moving first to the Internet as they
9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc                                                       Page 14                                                                             July 2000
    did during the early telephone era. Households in the wealthier rural areas are more likely to have Internet

    use. Farmers are again one of the rural economic actors to adopt the new technology first. Twenty-nine

    percent of farms had Internet access in 1999, roughly what the figure would have been for rural households,

    if the data were available (map 2). States with large farms, such as California and Arizona, had higher rates

    of Internet use. States whose farmers faced relatively low cost of Internet access, such as New Jersey and

    New England, also had high rates of farm Internet use. States with many poor farmers, such as Mississippi,

    had low rates of Internet use.

              Internet use at work was relatively low in rural areas (map 3). As few as 3 percent of rural

    households used the Internet at work in one state, with the high of 13 percent in another. The income effect

    can be seen readily when examining the state data. The states with the greatest enclaves of poor had the

    lowest rates of Internet use at work.



              Surprisingly, perhaps, Internet use for rural households was greater at home than at work. The

    highest rate for a state was 34 percent and the lowest was 7 percent. Rural households were twice as likely

    to use the Internet at home than at work. The spatial effect (with the ensuing effect on cost of service) is

    more pronounced for home use compared to Internet use at work, though the income effect is still readily

    apparent. Places of work tend to be more centrally located than homes.



                                           Transition Challenges and Conclusion

              The 1996 Act also brought on new challenges to cover universal service. With deregulation of

    the telecommunications market and technological change, the system of universal service provision

    began to fall apart (Egan; Garcia, et al). Essentially the old law was a transfer payment between long

    distance telephone providers and local providers, in addition to some transfer between businesses and

    households. Deregulation and technological change makes defining who should pay more problematic.

    No longer is long distance service provided by only one type of company. No longer is it strictly the
9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc          Page 15                                             July 2000
    case of the old copper wire company being the only source for local service. Wireless companies,

    Internet companies, cable TV companies, and others are beginning to offer competing services. With

    the competition crossing traditional service boundaries the level of critical mass necessary for

    competitive service may decrease, but many rural areas will still likely not have a competitive

    environment.

              Rural areas face a Catch-22, they need in-place demand to receive the full set of competitive

    services, but in-place demand will not exist without the full set of competitive services. Advanced

    telecommunications are also a necessary condition for future economic growth, but it is not sufficient

    by itself for economic growth. Rural telecommunication policy will have to part of a larger policy

    framework.

              All governments face the same issues in the transition to competitive private markets in

    telecommunication services: Should there be a universal service policy for rural areas? If so, who

    pays? Who receives the benefits? And how is it paid?




         References


         Dyson, Lowell, “An Overview of the History of Rural Telecommunications,” Rural

                 Telecommunications Workshop sponsored by the Economic Research Service, TVA Rural

                 Studies, and Western Rural Development Center, September 1998.

         Egan, Bruce L., Information Superhighways Revisited: The Economics of Multimedia, Boston:

                 Artech House, 1996.

         Garcia, D. Linda, and Neal R. Gorenflo, “Best Practices for Rural Internet Deployment: The

                 Implications for Universal Service Policy,”

         Hatfield, Dale, “Speeding Telephone Service to Rural Areas: Lessons from the Experience in the
                 United States,” occasional paper (Washington DC: The Annenberg Washington Program,

                 Communication Policy Studies, Northwestern University, May 1994.
9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc           Page 16                                             July 2000
         Malecki, Edward J., and Carlton R. Boush, “Digital Telecommunications Technologies in the Rural

                 South: An Analysis of Tennessee,” Rural Telecommunications Workshop sponsored by the

                 Economic Research Service, TVA Rural Studies, and Western Rural Development Center,

                 September 1998.

         Salant, Priscilla, “Telecommunications Use by Rural In-Migrants,” Rural Telecommunications

                 Workshop sponsored by the Economic Research Service, TVA Rural Studies, and Western

                 Rural Development Center, September 1998.

         Stenberg, Peter L., Sania Rahman, M. Bree Perrin, and Erica Johnson, “ Rural Areas in the New

                 Telecommunications Era,” Rural Development Perspectives, 12:3(June 1997), pp.32-39.



         Back to The Arkleton Centre Crossroads Conference




9f19c552-ba2b-4b66-96f4-7f9c3aa436a1.doc         Page 17                                        July 2000

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:7/31/2011
language:English
pages:17