Public Access, Private Profit

Following is a transcript of an interview on Democracy Now! with Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy and Steven Titch, senior fellow for information technology and telecom policy at the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank.

For millions of people in the United States, high-speed Internet access is an unaffordable luxury. To counter this, local municipalities across the country are looking to community-owned broadband wireless access as a cost-effective way to bring affordable broadband into their areas. This has sparked a battle with cable and telephone providers over how public or private access to the Internet should be. Chester and Titch debate whether local governments ought to be allowed to provide private broadband access.

At the heart of the issue is a new Pennsylvania law that heavily restricts cities in the state from providing Internet access.

The law — which was heavily backed by Verizon and other carriers — bans local governments from creating their own networks without first giving the primary local telecommunications provider the chance to provide service. The measure is being closely watched around the country, where phone and cable companies are pressuring state legislatures to limit what municipalities can do.

Amy Goodman: It’s good to have you with us. Let's talk about this Pennsylvania law. Do you consider it a victory?

Steven Titch: I don't know if you can put it in terms of victory or defeat. It's – on one level, I would call it bad law following bad policy. Going into that might take us a little bit off the idea of muni networks. On the basic levels, though, muni networks, especially competitive muni networks, are a bad way to spend city resources which are limited to begin with. Because they duplicate networks. The private sector is meeting the demand effectively and economically. I would argue with the contention that high-speed Internet cost is priced out of many people's ranges. As you mentioned, it creates the problem where the city competes with the companies it taxes, franchises, licenses, and, in general, regulates. The city, in essence, becomes a player in a game it regulates. It creates an un-level playing field by that measure, dissuading commercial investment and alternatives. And finally, instead of expending the money to build an entire municipal broadband network, there are alternative ways of achieving the goal of providing low-cost community Internet access that puts less city money at risk and affords more accountability to the people. You can talk about that, too.

Goodman: Jeff Chester, your response.

Jeffrey Chester: Well, look, access to the Internet is an essential First Amendment freedom for the public. Beyond the competition issues, which I'm happy to talk about, I believe that you really can't look at the Internet as something akin to television, you know, or broadcasting or cable. It is a special medium. And having access to it – and broadband access will be essential very soon, that will be the standard – having access to it in your home will be the key. Any parent with kids who do homework, knows how important it is to have the Internet in the home. Now, one reason why the U.S. is falling behind other countries, we're now down to number 13 in terms of broadband access, is because it's priced too high. The big cable and telephone companies – principally the big telephone companies, are going around state by state, as you said, to prevent cities and counties and even the states to provide alternative Internet access. The cable and telephone companies want to have a monopoly. One reason why we have 40 percent of U.S. households without Internet access, and it stayed at that level – 40 percent of the country does not have Internet access (at) home – it's principally because they cannot afford it. So, we have to provide all kinds of means to get broadband and Internet access out to people, make it cheaper. And community access also provides an important First Amendment function because then you are not just dependent on the big cable and telephone companies that are controlling the future of the U.S. Internet.