Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - [internetworkers] Broadband Bullies Shouldn't Benefit From Stimulus

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Christian stalberg" <cstalberg AT web-analysts.net>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [internetworkers] Broadband Bullies Shouldn't Benefit From Stimulus
  • Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:23:46 -0500

Broadband Bullies Shouldn't Benefit From Stimulus

By Art Brodsky
Communications Director for Public Knowledge
Huffington Post
January 8, 2009

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/broadband-bullies-shouldn_b_156427.html

It's all well and good that President-Elect Obama wants
high-speed Internet connectivity to be part of the
economic stimulus package. The goal, he said in a
speech today (Jan. 8), is, "expanding broadband lines
across America, so that a small business in a rural
town can connect and compete with their counterparts
anywhere in the world."

This isn't an abstract notion, or one to be simply
glossed over by numbers. Here's Will Gilmer, a farmer
in Lamar County, Alabama, speaking at a news conference
with Gov. Bob Riley: "When farmers need up-to-the-
minute weather and commodity information, that usually
involves going to a Web site, going to make a cup of
coffee, drinking the coffee and then coming back to see
the page only half loaded."

Noting that DSL lines end less than a mile from his
house, Gilmer said broadband can also help farmers tell
their story: "Many people these days simply don't
understand where their food comes from. As farmers,
many of us want to educate the public about how
production and environmental stewardship go hand in
hand and how we care for our animals." Gilmer said,
adding he his Internet connection is too slow to post
the videos he would like to post.

In Bar Harbor, Maine, residents said they need higher
speed access, either because they have home-based
businesses or, as in the case of some city department
heads, work from home. Dana Reed, the Bar Harbor town
manager, said Time Warner wouldn't extend its broadband
service more than 293 feet from its existing cable
line.

What's to be done with these telephone and cable
companies who refuse to bring their customers into the
digital age and contribute to the local economies? Why,
what else? Shower them with millions of tax dollars in
grants, or tax credits, government bond-funded support
or even loan guarantees so that they extend higher
speed services to areas in which they haven't seen fit
to expand it before, despite the demand. Those are the
kinds of suggestions on the table for a stimulus
package.

What else have they done to justify such public
largesse? In Bar Harbor, Time Warner is protesting
state grants to companies that want to fill in service
areas where the cable giant has declined to go. In
North Carolina, AT&T is leading the state carriers in a
bid to undermine E-NC, the fine, homegrown agency that
supports broadband expansion and mapping. Their tool of
choice, of course, is the "Connected" franchise, which
telephone companies control, and which reports only the
deployment data the carriers want reported and under
what conditions. (And shame on the Gates Foundation for
further legitimizing these guys by including them in a
plan to bring service to libraries.)

It's pretty clear that if new areas are to be served,
and if underserved areas are to be upgraded, then
either the incumbent telecom companies have to clean up
their acts, or they have to make way for others. It's
also clear that consumers should get some benefits out
of the deal. As of now, consumers could be stuck on one
hand with paying the telecom provider high monthly fees
for the new service while at the same time having their
tax dollars go to pay these big companies that won't
upgrade their service (but have sufficient coin to
spend millions of dollars to buy back their stock).

The good news is that there is a relatively cheap way
to stimulate the telecommunications sector. The bad
news is that the Federal Communications Commission or
Congress have to do it. One or the other have to create
new competition by allowing for other companies to have
access to the lines of telecom and cable companies
through wholesale or line sharing. This policy worked
wonders back when there was simple old copper in the
ground with much less capacity than today's advanced
networks, and works wonders in other parts of the
world. We should bring it back here. Second, support
for consumers and companies should be reconfigured to
encourage broadband. Low-income consumers benefit from
programs to help them get regular telephone service;
high-speed Internet (but not TV service) should also be
included. Telephone companies get support for serving
rural areas with regular telephone service. That money
could be redirected to providing advanced Internet
services as well.

If Congress and the new Administration are looking for
more traditional stimuli, by all means bring on the
grants and tax credits - with a twist. First, allow any
company to apply for a grant to provide broadband
service in an unserved or underserved area - regardless
whether it's the local telephone company or local cable
company. Service territories and franchise areas
shouldn't count for much here. If a small,
entrepreneurial company, or consortium of companies, or
even another telephone company, wants to try it out, by
all means let them try to build a small network that
will connect to the phone or cable network. The whole
network doesn't have to be duplicated.

Cities and towns should also be encouraged through
grants and subsidies to remedy market failures through
construction of their own networks, or partial networks
to make up for the lack of services their residents are
getting from the existing companies. Even though the
telecom companies have fought around the country to
prohibit "competition" from municipal governments, they
had better not take on that fight here.

If there are no other takers, than let the (generally
anti-government) phone and cable companies step up to
the trough for the money, albeit with conditions that
could range from line sharing and wholesaling to build-
out and data speed requirements with obligations to
report publicly on deployment progress and location.
The companies might complain but, heck, it's free money
to pay for the network while they still buy back their
stock.

Finally, let consumers - individuals, businesses and
government - get some of the tax credits for upgrading
to faster service or starting to take a broadband
service. Maybe the vision of that much increased
demand, even if fueled by a subsidy, might be enough to
make the companies get going. Will all that cost money?

The goal of the stimulus package is to have not only an
immediate effect on the economy, but also to provide a
platform for long-term growth. Perhaps these are some
elements that could do that.
_________

Art Brodsky is the communications director for Public
Knowledge, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest
group, and is a veteran of Washington, D.C.
telecommunications and Internet journalism and public
relations.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.6/1887 - Release Date: 1/11/2009
5:57 PM



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page