Close the Broadband Gap? Phone and Cable Giants Just Say 'No'
By Tim Karr, February 10, 2010
When it comes to getting everyone connected to an open, affordable and fast Internet, the big phone and cable companies have a new motto: "Just Say No."
When the Obama administration called for a stimulus plan that included billions in grants to reach parts of the country that were struggling to get connected, the companies said "no" -- refusing to apply for money to close the broadband gap.
When Congress made open Internet conditions a part of funding the $7.2 billion broadband buildout, they said "no" -- filing objections in a push to block efforts to give these communities unfettered access.
And now that the first grants are being made available to applicants, companies including Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T are trying to stop funds from reaching groups that have plans to connect Americans stuck on the wrong side of the divide.
"They aren't leading, they aren't following, and they won't get out of the way," said Craig Settles, a municipal broadband expert, on NPR this morning. "They're not going to put proposals on the table because they don't like the rules. Yet they're not going to cooperate with the entities that are going after the money."
Public Interest vs. Entrenched Incumbents
NPR reported on a coalition of organizations that received $25 million in funding to connect people across Maine, including those in the most rural parts of the state. But Fairpoint, the Maine’s largest Internet provider, has tried to block this project, writing a state bill aimed at preventing the coalition from connecting many of the state’s residents.
And Comcast, the Philadelphia-based cable giant, filed reams of comments challenging the city’s wireless bid for federal funds to help close the gap with a less expensive option.
According to a report Monday in USA Today, Comcast also joined AT&T and Charter Communications in questioning an application to connect residents of Columbia County, Ga.; Time Warner Cable challenged a plan to offer broadband access to people in rural southern Ohio and northern West Virginia. All told, these companies have filed thousands of comments questioning funding for new projects to connect more Americans.
“We're at a point where it's the general public's interest vs. the entrenched incumbents,” Settles said.
The Demographics of Access
The stimulus funds are designed to address a growing problem. While the United States is the birthplace of the Internet, broadband adoption rates have dropped off dramatically as access came under the control of a powerful cable and phone cartel. Today, these companies provide connections for more than 96 percent of residential high-speed users. And they’re determined to hold on to that market share.
Even more alarming are the demographics of access -- the so-called "digital divide." According to analysis by Free Press, only 35 percent of U.S. homes with less than $50,000 in annual income have a high-speed Internet connection. And the broadband benefit is not spread evenly. Only 40 percent of racial and ethnic minority households in the United States have access to broadband, while 55 percent of non-Hispanic white households are connected.
When requests went out for proposal applications last summer, federal agencies in charge of the effort were swamped with more than 2,200 requests for a total of $28 billion to build connections to “unserved” and “underserved” communities.
The broadband incumbents, initially, stood on the sidelines. Now they’re trying to slow and, in some cases, stop the distribution of funds.
The goal of the broadband stimulus was to quickly connect millions of poor and rural populations to help fuel new economic growth, create jobs, engage more people in civic affairs and provide access to medical, educational and government services. But the challenges by the phone and cable companies and the rush of applications have delayed efforts to get these projects off the ground.
The holdup couldn’t come at a worse time.
We face a challenge to reawaken our democracy and drive economic growth in a world where America's greatest commodity is its people. Universal access to an affordable, open and fast Internet is the means to a recovery that benefits everyone.
We can’t afford to wait.
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.
Tim Karr
Timothy Karr oversees all Free Press and Free Press Action Fund campaigns and online outreach efforts, including SavetheInternet.com and Free Press' work on public broadcasting, propaganda and journalism.
Read Tim's full bio »
Comments
Fiber initiative
We are starting a fiber initiative here in Western Mass. By the way, we arent' mentioning our carrier because of our anticipation of this type of action. Same deal. No or restricted service, no desire to provide by the monopoly. With the plethora of lawyers out there can't we just sue or arrest someone??!! Frivolous, not frivolous. Seems the only way to get this stuff in the public eye. And, I dare say, given the fact that denying access undermines the economic viability of the system and denies people the ability to start businesses that will hire people, isn't this treason?!!! You could make a case, I think and why not. If it takes a picture of a CEO being led out of his/her office in handcuffs, so be it. It doesn't really matter if there is guilt involved. Suspicion is generally good enough these days. People are rousted for non crimes all the time to make an impression.
Look, this concept is not new. In our little town, at the turn of the 20th century, citizens literally trekked through the woods to string telephone wire because Bell wouldn't do it. It worked. There were thousands of districts like this for electric and phone throughout the US. Talk about a conservative endeavor. Righty's can put their money where there mouths are and buy municipal bonds to support these initiatives. Meanwhile I don't see anything wrong with using the tactics used to get a new senator in MA. Scare the bejesus out of people for any reason. Get what you want. Once people get a sample of fiber broadband NO ONE will remember how it got here.
Please Identify the Opposition
There are now huge, well-funded broadcast campaigns that make "No!" sound like something positive and economically productive. Please identify the cable and telco funders behind these lavish productions and media buys.
Unserved and underserved communities should apply for funding
It is not too late for underserved and unserved communities to apply for the last round of stimulus funding for high-speed Internet or broadband. The deadline is March 15, and in spite of the challenge in getting the incumbents to give up their turf, small ISPs and community anchor institutions, Indian nations, and other groups should get together and submit their applications for funding. The Rural Mobile & Broadband Alliance (RuMBA) USA is gathering a large coalition of small players in various parts of the country, from Wyoming,Texas, Arizona to Maryland, to present the federal government with the real deal, those that are unable to put together an application, but that are in dire need of broadband. For more information, visit: www.rumbausa.ning.com.
Don't forget Verizon
They are as bad as the rest. My father lives in an underserved area of western Mass, north of Amherst. He has been following this argument for a couple of years in his own back yard. The current news is Verizon is trying to sell off it's least profitable business, telephone and dial-up services, and duck out of being responsible for developing broadband to the area. Pretty shrewd.
AT&T and Verizon, in particular, have their eyes on a different prize... Wireless. We all know it and use it, but I don't think the public or the experts have any idea what will become of access to the internet as the wireless service continues to overtake the cable, DSL and other wireline services.
Hmmmmm.
Clearly the top Shareholders
Clearly the top Shareholders of the Telecom companies know very well that 100% broadband would take away the ability of their social class to propagandize and withhold balanced information from the most vulnerable Americans.
These are the anxious working-class people most susceptible to disinformation from the Tea Party, scapegoating Latinos, Gays, Liberals routinely pushed out there by Conservative and Right-wing owners of media companies to get votes for a conservative agenda. Thirty years of that agenda destroyed the middle- and working- classes with regressive taxation that foists the burden for our measly entitlements right onto the people who need them but can least afford to pay for them. Cutting taxes for the rich means everybody else goes into debt to pay for the Military charades which enrich only contractors and shareholders in those companies. 100% broadband would seriously limit their ability to promote war to enough Americans without access to any alternative critical or dissenting viewpoints.
They have no intention of giving all Americans the tools and information to be truly "created equal" to themselves. They know the importance of controlling access to media. That is why they had to change the laws to snatch and control Movie Studios, TV networks and radio stations away from Liberal and Progressive families who built them from the ground up. It got too dangerous and costly for them in the 1930s, and 1960s-70s when information and ideas were more freely available to all Americans, and the New Deal, Great Society, Clean Air and Clean Water movements got passed, and the Vietnam War got shut down.
They know exactly what they are doing and the FCC commissioners, US Congress and Supreme Court know exactly what they are doing too!
Your concern over the control
Your concern over the control of information is warranted, but not central to this issue.
The telecomm resources that we are talking about are actualy part of the public domain, and the telecomm industries have been allowed to privatize them for a substantial profit. The public should take back control of how this resource will be developed.
Politics aside, our country's health and longevity rely on equality, which is clearly becoming unattainable to those without adequate access to the means of obtaining, delivering and using information.
Entrenched opposition
What rationale do the opponents to broadband access offer?
You write: "The goal of the
You write:
"The goal of the broadband stimulus was to quickly connect millions of poor and rural populations to help fuel new economic growth, create jobs, engage more people in civic affairs and provide access to medical, educational and government services."
Can you please explain what jobs will be created by broadband access that will help these rural, broadband-less communities. Ebay? Websites? Bloggers?
In my opinion, dial-up internet is plenty fast for text based information sites. You really only need broadband for data-intensive content like video, flash and music. Text - a.ka. information - doesn't need broadband at all.
Your statements are misleading. What government, educational or medical services need broadband? Please explain.
$7.2 billion for broadband access! How much per household does that work out to? $5,000 , $1,000 , $500 . How many jobs do we get for our $7.2 billion dollar investment?
Did it ever occur to you that people who live in rural areas may not want all the fancy stuff that you city folk have?
Wow
Man, man. Gosh oh golly, us country folk just don't need all this newfangled stuff. If we had all of it how would there be anyone left for narrow minded idiots like you make stupid assumptions! Tell my neighbor, who can't sell his cheese on line and keeps asking me when he can get online to take advantage of valuable online ag stuff (which by the way HAS to include apps for viewing), that he can't have access. By the way, take a drive and check out how many satellite dishes you see. Why? I won't tell you. Perhaps your pea sized brain can figure it out! Or you can stop and talk to my other neighbor, ya the goofy one with the PhD that would love to hire a local assistant to help with the online course he can't offer because he's one of the ones that can SEE the end of the DSL line and can't get the provider to extend it! We are at least smart enough to know what we need. Broadband serves about half our town. It has been down for nearly a week. Here's some anecdotal info. This town is rural - 850 strong. Incredibly conservative. Commutes to work 20 miles plus, mostly plus. Here's the damage - again, only anecdotal. Two ecommerce websites down - thousands of dollars in locally grown products sold on line. A wedding photographer - down during the busiest season - potentially thousands. A psychologist unable to communicate, an internet design and maintenance company - owners have to travel to a served location. AND we do not care if the government stimulus gets here. We just want the right to start our own company without ANYONE'S help. Privately financed municipal bonds. And we are fought all the way by the corps that wave the flag day and night. This is treason. And by the way, some things are worth the money! Why would anyone buy a luxury automobile if it was just about transportation? Some of them are worth it.
Let's see, a locally owned telecom company that uses no public money, keeps all the cash collected in the local environment (not sending it overseas or outside the geographical area), hires local help, provides the potential to set up business and learning opportunities - one idea here is to keep kids in select towns home a day a week a month on a rotating basis and teach them through their TV. It would save MILLIONS in tax bucks just for transportation of these kids over a 400 square mile school district. Very unamerican. Very expensive.
Reply
Boy are you out of the loop.
Why don't you stay off the blog posts and go back to your purple jesus.
rural bloggers
"Can you please explain what jobs will be created by broadband access that will help these rural, broadband-less communities. Ebay? Websites? Bloggers?"
you think these rural networks are going to build and support themselves? you think farmers don't need real time access to data like weather or market prices? you think it might be better to have your tech support or customer service calls answered by someone for whom english is a first language?
you think a graphic designer or other knowledge worker might enjoy a better standard of living if they could live someplace where their income went further?
"In my opinion, dial-up internet is plenty fast for text based information sites. You really only need broadband for data-intensive content like video, flash and music. Text - a.ka. information - doesn't need broadband at all. "
so people in rural areas shouldn't be allowed to access videos and music? is there something in the youtube terms of service that states that you have to live close to a major population center? you think people in the country don't want to play video games?
"Your statements are misleading. What government, educational or medical services need broadband? Please explain."
government: research, political discourse, electronic filing of taxes and other records
educational: rich media for home schooled children, distance learning for higher education (online classes are way more than text!), continuing education for skilled and professional trades
medical: remote monitoring to reduce hospital stays for low risk patients, tele-medicine that lets a smaller number of specialists travel less and serve a larger number of patients. being far away from a city often means being far away from doctors and hospitals, and can mean expensive travel for specialized care.
$7.2 billion for broadband access! How much per household does that work out to? $5,000 , $1,000 , $500 . How many jobs do we get for our $7.2 billion dollar investment?
again, there are the obvious and immediate jobs: building and supporting the networks, there are the long term job prospects: existing businesses going online and expanding, new businesses starting up, people moving out of cities but keeping their current high tech jobs, or creating their own jobs.
even if someone from a city moves out to the country, they still need to buy clothes and groceries, send and receive packages, buy and/or repair homes and vehicles... that means more commerce and more jobs.
Did it ever occur to you that people who live in rural areas may not want all the fancy stuff that you city folk have?
and did it ever occur to you that you can find out if a community wants broadband by asking them?
did it ever occur to you that the telephone was once "city folk" technology? that radio and television were, at one time, "fancy stuff"?
did it ever occur to you that the next generation of rural americans may want to benefit from access to information? that they may want to participate in the political process?
Hard to figure, huh?
Gee Pete, are you still puzzling over all the fuss 95% of legitimate scientists are making about this so-called 'Global Warming' foolishness? Heck, it's snowing where you are, ain't it. And your '29 Model A still gets you around to everywhere you can figure out is worthwhile to get to, right? Shoot, these city slickers and their new-fangled learnin' and stuff, it's gettin' to where a body can't hide even behind the barn from new thinkin'. Hurts your head, don't it. Worst of all, your little brother and his friends are gettin' rich from some deal on them computers. Don't give up Pete, your buggy whip business will be comin' back any day now.
You are obviously ignorant of how folks can do business online
First of all, you don't speak for all country people. Far from it.
Secondly, there are many ways to make a living online and most of them require broadband. Many medical services require broadband-- for instance, a rural doctor consulting with a city specialist via a webcam conference during consultation. Remote Universities, which cost less than a brick and mortar education, also use videoconferencing.
Broadband isn't just for entertainment anymore. Not by a long shot.
Did it ever occur to you that this is infrastructure our country needs for its future? One can only imagine what you would have said, back in the day, about rural electrification.
Broadband & Rural access
As a rural citizen with the slowest form of dial-up and no DSL lines available, I reflect the need need better internet service at an affordable price. I use the internet constantly and must wait online for very slow downloads of articles and text matter. There is a genuine need for improvement. We have fallen far behind much of the world in many respects (education, competition for jobs, etc.) because we do not have broad enough access.
Broadband
The people in these areas, not necessarily only rural deserve this service. The internet belongs to the people not the big phone and cable companies. If you think you are ever going to get a fair shake from these corporations, think again. You really need to read the news more.
I read the news every day. I
I read the news every day. I am a journalism student with a degree in broadcasting who has studied these issues for the past 15 years.
When we, as a nation, talk about creating infrastructure to be competitive in a global economy, it doesn't seem smart to be counter-productive i.e. spending lots of money for broadband access for very few. This is not the way to become more productive as a society, only less.
Living in a small town or rural area has benefits that people living in suburban and city areas don't have. Should everyone living in a city be entitled to great countryside views and beautiful fall foliage, low taxes, no overcrowding, no traffic etc..
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
It's simple economics. Why does it have to be a struggle.
I guess I forgot to read the part in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that mentioned broadband access or electricity. Was that before or after the one about IMAX theaters and strip clubs.
If you want access, go and get it. If it isn't available then maybe there is a great business opportunity for you. If you think cable and phone companies are trying to deny you the right to market your goods to unprofitable customers just to "control the masses" then you have a court case.
However, if you want the government to provide you with free access because you "deserve it" then you need to amend the Bill of Rights.
That's ironic....
If you are in broadcasting and journalism then you must know that access to information plays a central role in ALL aspects of our computer age. The people who live in the underserved areas are unable to play a part in the landscape of business and politics. It's not about entertainment.
As for medical purposes, everything is being converted to electronic information, and faxes are very slow. Imagine a specialist in another state needs to review an imaging scan on a patient, but the hospital cannot send it, or don't even have that technology. Are you satisfied with keeping parts of our country in the dark?
Did you think who are these people in these underserved areas? They are mostly farmers, factory workers, blue collar laborers, family members, citizens, tax payers, etc. In other words, we are all part of the same american tapestry. The small businesses in these areas also cannot compete or survive if they cannot keep up, then what happens to those jobs too? If we don't do something we will widen the gap of class division.
The jobs you ask about are not just those who use the internet as a business, but all of the supporting industries that build and maintain those services. Plus, once the access is available, then more businesses can exist in those areas, thus raising the quality of living for all.
You also MISSED that some businesses that are trying to take advantage of the federal funding are being blocked by the telecomm giants. The giants own the nodes of these networks across the country and can throw up all kinds of roadblocks to keep growth from happening. I work in telecomm, and it is one of the most cutthroat businesses out there.
But we all need to be reminded that the access that makes telephone, broadcasting, and data networks possible belonged to the people, not the telecomms, and that they took the license and fudning offered to them a long time ago to build out this infrastructure. They have been "cherry picking" the most profitable markets for 40 years, and it is high time they build out adequate access to all citizens in their designated territories.
Let's learn from the past and help to make smart policies, and hold these telecomm companies responsible for living up to their promises. The laws already exist, the money has been ponied up, there are no more excuses, just do it.
Are you really telling me
Are you really telling me that there is no way for a hospital or doctor to get broadband to access potentially life saving services? Do you think we are stupid?
There is already satellite broadband. The technology exists. Use it.
It is a false argument to say that broadband is unavailable. In other words, you are lying.
The telecom companies are in business to make a profit, just like those farmers and blue collar workers you are talking about. Wouldn't they fight to protect their business interests as well?
As a journalism student, I hate hypocrisy. That is what is going on here.
Satellite broadband exists, now you want Americans to kick in $7.2 billion dollars to create other services. Why? Just so you can do it?
It isn't smart fiscal policy. I really don't understand how you can say it is. Please explain how many jobs can be created by using different technology, funded by the taxpayers, to supply broadband.
Again, it already exists. Do a google search. It's called satellite broadband.
People have access already, they are just not buying it.
Doctors have access, hospitals have access, businesses have access etc..
They all have access, why should we pay $7.2 billion for them to have different access? That money can be well spent on life saving food for the millions of Americans who starve and are dirt-poor.
Think about it.
"There is already satellite
"There is already satellite broadband. The technology exists. Use it."
The satellite internet you are speaking of is expensive and unreliable, and as a result is out of reach of many people whom would need or desire to use it, so no, I don't think hes lying at all.
"The telecom companies are in business to make a profit, just like those farmers and blue collar workers you are talking about. Wouldn't they fight to protect their business interests as well?"
No, they shouldn't be allowed to protect their business interests as far as the internet is concerned, as their needs are in direct conflict with consumer and social needs. The internet has become more of a utility rather than a convenience; therefore, steps need to be taken to ensure equal cheap access to everyone, regardless of whether they want it. No one forces anyone to use electricity, yet it is available to everyone regardless.
I see this as an issue of equality. I feel far more compelled to be a tool of the needy rather than a tool of the greedy, which is how I currently see you.
"As a journalism student, I hate hypocrisy. That is what is going on here. "
A mere student? Surely you have better credentials than that?
"They all have access, why should we pay $7.2 billion for them to have different access? That money can be well spent on life saving food for the millions of Americans who starve and are dirt-poor."
To make internet access more convenient, give people more choices, improve competition, and improve the overall infrastructure of America. The cost will be absorbed mainly by people who will be well off regardless. Your appeal to the "save the poor" was cute and rather ironic.
"There is already satellite
"There is already satellite broadband. The technology exists. Use it."
The satellite internet you are speaking of is expensive and unreliable, and as a result is out of reach of many people whom would need or desire to use it, so no, I don't think hes lying at all.
"The telecom companies are in business to make a profit, just like those farmers and blue collar workers you are talking about. Wouldn't they fight to protect their business interests as well?"
No, they shouldn't be allowed to protect their business interests as far as the internet is concerned, as their needs are in direct conflict with consumer and social needs. The internet has become more of a utility rather than a convenience; therefore, steps need to be taken to ensure equal cheap access to everyone, regardless of whether they want it. No one forces anyone to use electricity, yet it is available to everyone regardless.
I see this as an issue of equality. I feel far more compelled to be a tool of the needy rather than a tool of the greedy, which is how I currently see you.
"As a journalism student, I hate hypocrisy. That is what is going on here. "
A mere student? Surely you have better credentials than that?
"They all have access, why should we pay $7.2 billion for them to have different access? That money can be well spent on life saving food for the millions of Americans who starve and are dirt-poor."
To make internet access more convenient, give people more choices, improve competition, and improve the overall infrastructure of America. The cost will be absorbed mainly by people who will be well off regardless. Your appeal to the "save the poor" was cute and rather ironic.
I think you're stupid
You are one of the stupidest people I have ever read on-line in one of these posts....... stay off the web if you hate it so much - hater.
Re: I read the news every day.
Nice post.
Thank you for the information
Thank you for the information I kind of knew some of that but you enlightened me on a little more.
wow leveling guide|canon ef 50mm f/1.8 ii camera lens|leather messenger bag
Nick, if arguments were
Nick, if arguments were broadband you would be doing a service covering all those rural areas!
As a web designer, i will say that the idea that "critical information is all in text, so you only need dialup to get it" is ignorant of the "truth on the ground"...