Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate vs. Community Internet

The Progress Report. Posted June 14, 2005.


The gap is growing between those who have access to information technology, and those who don't. Now the battle to close the digital divide has spilled onto another front -- the fight for free municipal broadband services.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Though outgoing FCC Chairman Michael Powell may find it funny to joke about a "Mercedes divide," the ever increasing gap "between those who have access to information technology and digital content and those who do not" is no laughing matter.

Now the battle to close the digital divide has spilled onto another front -- the fight for free municipal broadband services. After last year's Supreme Court ruling that states can bar "cities from offering high-speed Internet services," lobbyists from the telecommunications industry swarmed on state capitals with one singular purpose: "to take cities out of the broadband business by state dictum."

Telecom enjoyed some initial success until anti-municipal Internet bills failed in three straight states -- Iowa, Florida and Texas. The ever-determined industry then set upon "an outrageous attempt ...to protect their duopoly over broadband from competition" with the help of one of their own.

Doing their shilling on the steps of Congress is Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), a former employee of Southwestern Bell, who recently introduced legislation that "would extend the ban on municipal broadband services to every city in the country." (You can send a letter to your representatives asking them to oppose the Sessions bill.)

The Socioeconomic Divide on Broadband

Similar to the gap seen in basic Internet access, there is a vast divide between socioeconomic classes when it comes to high-speed Internet access.

A recent report found that "virtually every rural state remains underserved and uncompetitive," while "in urban areas, many families are priced out of the market." Telecom giants "have failed to bridge the digital divide and opted to serve the most lucrative markets at the expense of universal, affordable access."

One expert compared such high-speed Internet access inequity to "having the moderate and upper classes in IMAX theatres, while the underprivileged are still watching silent movies."

The Case for Community Internet

Over the course of our nation's history, municipalities have played a key role in "building and maintaining critical infrastructure." Therefore, a chief claim made by opponents of municipal broadband -- that local governments are incapable of running complex broadband systems -- is a statement that "defies history and the experiences of daily life."

Also, municipalities care about more than profits and do not "enjoy a wealth of state and federal subsidies" and other perks thrown at telecom giants. Local governments, which are "accountable to local citizens [and] understand their own needs," can "provide needed broadband services designed to address community needs" rather than just the bottom line. Municipal networks will "provide the competition necessary to keep rates low and quality of service high" as well as "increase investment in local communities." Other developed nations that have surpassed America in providing broadband access not only permit but oftentimes encourage "local governments to build out broadband networks."

Innovators No More

Though President Bush would like to celebrate the increased accessibility of the Internet, over the first three years of the Bush administration, the nation "dropped from 4th to 13th place in global rankings of broadband Internet usage and the latest mobile-phone technology."

Once considered a leader of innovation, the United States is being outdone by many other industrialized nations that are "positioning themselves to be the first states to reap the benefits of the broadband era: economic growth, increased productivity, and a better quality of life." In fact, broadband service is seen as essential to economic development.

As broadband "becomes a necessary utility for commerce, education and healthcare," high-speed Internet services will be as critical to a nation's infrastructure as water pipelines and electricity grids or schools and hospitals.

The Case Against Corporate-Only Broadband

Desperate to maintain their monopoly, telecom giants have "done their best to demonize" municipal broadband projects, launching "an aggressive lobbying and misinformation campaign."

Earlier this year, Verizon, which successfully blocked Pennsylvania residents from obtaining low-cost Internet access without its permission, circulated to lawmakers, journalists and opinion leaders a so-called fact sheet that was chock full of erroneous statistics on the "failures of public broadband."

In actuality, "municipal broadband has been a success for those communities that have begun offering service ... [and] the propaganda maligning municipal systems is nothing more than industry-sponsored folklore." All their shadowy lobbying work obscures the fact that "the commercial broadband market has not only failed to bring affordable access in 2005, it is nowhere close."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why Cities?
Posted by: asque on Jun 14, 2005 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A city may be better than a corperation, but only margenally so. Where are the apartment building owners, the neighborhood associations, PTA's and other NPO's ? Why not build your own network to cover your block? The only advantage a city has is the ability to hide the cost in taxes and other fees.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why Cities? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Why Cities? Posted by: asque
» RE: Why Cities? Posted by: bbandbrat
» RE: Why Cities? Posted by: FoxWizard
Corporate fascism on the rise
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 14, 2005 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Following the conservative lie, telecom/cable companies propagandize that for city government to offer internet access is big government whereas if they overcharge and mug customers like they've been doing since 1980, then somehow it's not a crime. It is interesting that in TX and FL, states where corporate interests usually win, the telecom giants got a setback for their attempts to monopolize. There is nothing wrong with a city offering its residents affordable broadband existing side by side with the existing telecom/cable giants. Maybe the corporate nazis are scared that GOD may finally be on its way to punishing these companies for monopoly malpractice !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Municipal services.
Posted by: churchofone on Jun 14, 2005 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an excerpt from "Connecting the Public: The Truth About Municipal Broadband", as linked in the story: Municipal broadband plays a critical role in making the goal of universal deployment a reality. Traditionally, local governments have proven vital in deploying necessary infrastructure. For example, local governments built municipal power systems as part of the efforts to electrify America in the first part of the 20th Century. Local governments run public transportation networks and sewage networks, maintain local roads, build schools and hospitals despite the fact that private businesses could, and in many places do, provide competing services. As broadband becomes a necessary utility for commerce, education and
healthcare, hundreds of local government entities across the country have taken up their traditional role of providing needed services to residents and local businesses. - It's always worked pretty well in my community. If you don't have municipal development of rural areas, in particular, you will end up with a segment of the population that the "for profit" section ignores, due to the scale.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Countries not built on corporate greed exist
Posted by: larsje on Jun 14, 2005 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me compare the US to Estonia to underscore how good access to technology can be when a government isn't based on and doesn't bow down to corporate greed. In Estonia the government is striving to provide every single person with free or extremely inexpensive high speed internet access. There are more broadband internet hotspots per capita than anywhere in the world and it is still growing rapidly. Even in parks and out in the woods you can get online free. More bars, restaurants, hotels and gas stations have hotspots here than anywhere else. And the ones that aren't free are not like the pay spots in the states (x dollars for an hour or 15 minutes). No, the charge is about 65 cents for 24 hours, and when you buy 24 hours it is good for all other pay hotspots in the country for the 24 hours. The stats that put the US in a miserable 14th place for broadband access don't even count the smaller nations like Estonia - the first and still only country where every single classroom in every single school has internet access. Some governments look out for their citizens, not the interests of corporate (and private) greed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it's already lost
Posted by: paschn@comcast.net on Jun 14, 2005 8:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Valiant fight, but it's already lost. Those who aren't fooled by Pig Bush just don't have enough money to fight him and the other whores. Dust off your passports and head for,....anywhere but here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speaking to the Converted
Posted by: nakis on Jun 15, 2005 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In two words, Ownership Society.

I can understand the feelings of loss and frustration. Wanting to give up when facing a monster of gigantic proportions does make one want to wet themselves. But we can't give up. This is America. We have to continue to push back. That's been the Neocon philosophy. Fight for every inch until we own everything. Fortunately it is the philosophy of the socially conscious justice and seekers of equality and liberty.

First we must educate. Change the media. Boycott till they do.
And fight these fights as the one this article is about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cities - Crucial to Relevant Citizenship
Posted by: StuartH on Jun 15, 2005 9:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people are unaware of it, but cities are places where citizens can actually participate in government. It isn't easy. Many of the issues, and telecommunications is a great example, are aggravatingly complex. But citizens who embrace complexity and master the essentials can actually have some influence.

Having an infrastructure that serves the public as a First Amendment vehicle and through which communication can be delivered that might actually serve to enrich public dialogue in a way that can be accessed across the community, is a citizen interest. It is not, however a corporate interest.

Most people don't seem to grasp the significance of the fact that public property belongs to the citizens. If the municipal government is operating with its head on straight, it bargains for the best deals with corporations seeking license to use rights of way that are owned by the public. This isn't communism. It just makes sense.

The way the system is set up just by virtue of the existence of a city, the public owns a lot of right-of-way real estate.

It would be poor stewardship to just give over those rights-of-way to cable companies and telecom operators without thinking about what the city could gain by letting those operators have what amounts to a very great advantage in getting access to putting a siphon in the back pocket of property owners and renters.

It would also be poor stewardship to ignore history. Around the turn of the century there were actually municipal policy documents in place that specified where the ghettoes ought to be and why electrical or other infrastructure investment was to be limited in those areas. It was thought that black, hispanic and poor people were never going to amount to much anyway and that resources should not be wasted in those areas. They had no reason to hide this at the time. It was a common belief, especially in Texas where I became familiar with local municipal history.

We live in a more enlightened era, but we fail to learn the lessons of history. If civic leaders have any intellect at all, they should see advocating for equitable distribution of community infrastructure assets as a smarter path to a more prosperous future for the whole community in fifty years or longer.

Giving way to the corporate lobbyists is closer to a return to the nineteenth century thinking we abhor today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement