Questions from Sen. Kerry: How Can We Connect America?
September 25th, 2007 by tkarrIn a guest blog post, Sen. John Kerry asks for your ideas to repair America’s broadband failures and deliver a fast, open and affordable Internet for everyone. Respond to the Senator by commenting in the thread below. Senator Kerry will circle back to address some of your comments and report on developments in Washington.
By Sen. John Kerry
If you talk to anyone in Washington, there’s no disagreement that high-speed Internet access is critical to our economic competitiveness, and that a robust and competitive broadband market is key to an affordable and readily available Internet.
Guest Blog Post by Sen. John Kerry
|
For small business, it is critical for the growth of their businesses and the creation of jobs. But everyone agreeing that something’s important doesn’t get the ball rolling in Washington, and there’s been precious little actual progress toward improving broadband penetration recently.
That’s why on Wednesday I will chair a hearing to explore the impact of a lack of adequate broadband access on our nation’s small businesses. We’ll be looking for ways to move closer to making broadband accessible and affordable for every American and every business. We’ll hear from advocates for greater broadband penetration (including Free Press’ own Ben Scott), and 2 FCC commissioners will be there, as well. You can watch the hearing live at http://sbc.senate.gov.
Speak Out About Universal Access
And, in addition to watching, please put in comments below your own thoughts, recommendations, and plans to improve broadband penetration. You spoke loudly about the need for new competition as the FCC considered spectrum policy. And you had great success.
So let’s keep your contributions flowing as we try to get a better Internet in this country. What are your ideas for helping the small businesses and all Americans get faster Internet access?
As activists on this issue, I know you don’t have to hear the statistics: more than 60 percent of the country does not subscribe to broadband service — many because they don’t have access to broadband Internet service or simply can’t afford it. Even in my home state of Massachusetts, a nationwide leader in technological innovation, broadband still has only reached about 46 percent of the public — and that’s the fourth-best rate in the country!
It’s almost hard to wrap your head around the fact that 7 years into this century, more Americans than not have either no Internet access at all or are still stuck on dial-up. It seems like so long ago that the buzzword was the “information super-highway,” but much of America is still bouncing down a country lane. That is just unacceptable.
Restoring America as a Broadband Leader
America’s Internet speeds lag badly behind universal standards. The birthplace of the personal computer and the Internet now has far worse broadband penetration than Europe and Japan. Without national broadband access, we’re throwing sand in the gears of our economy, placing a technological ceiling of job growth, innovation and economic production.
Small businesses — the backbone of our economy — won’t be able to fairly compete. The problem is especially bad in rural areas, and those are some of the areas most in need of economic development in this country.
Some experts estimate that universal broadband would add $500 billion to our economy and create 1.2 million jobs. We need to make universal deployment a national priority to keep America hooked into the increasingly fast global economy, but we can’t get that deployment without competition in the broad-band market.
Let’s Start the Conversation Here and Now
We need a national broadband strategy with a strong federal regulatory framework to encourage competition; companies won’t get there on their own. Competition spurs innovation, enhances service and reduces prices. And while we’re at it, we need to make efficient and widely available use of the spectrum, a valuable public asset. Much of our spectrum is underutilized, shelved and hoarded by selfish incumbents. Revisions to our spectrum policy must break open the locked portions of our spectrum to maximize that national resource. From drafting “white spaces” legislation to supporting fair spectrum policy, I’ve advanced and supported a list of measures designed to correct these market failures and increase broadband access.
It’s way past time for the country to get serious about this. President Bush has promised national broadband by 2007, and we are inexcusably, tremendously, scandalously short of that goal. Previous generations put a toaster in every home and a car in every driveway as signs of economic progress. To stay competitive, we should strive to do the same with nationwide broadband. Our economy, our businesses and our families are counting on us to deliver.
So, remember to put your recommendations below, and I’ll try to circle back after the hearing with another post about what I learned at the hearing and from all of you.
= = = = =
SEP 27 UPDATE FROM SEN. KERRY
= = = = =
Dear all:
I’ve been reading through your comments, and I just wanted to say that there’s a tremendous amount of useful information and suggestions here. I told the FCC yesterday at our broadband hearing that you had some great ideas. Too much to respond to right away, so I’m going to sit down, read them all carefully and get back to you with a full post responding to your great ideas and next steps. Thanks for participating; I learned a lot already from your comments. I’ll be back soon.
Sen. John Kerry
September 25th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Hi Sen. Kerry-
As a resident of Boston, MA it is unbelievable that in this “world class” city we cannot get DSL, or FIOS into our neighborhood.
The only viable choice for broadband is through cable TV. It order to get the best price for broadband internet I would have to sign up for cable TV. Satellite internet is another option, but the cost is very high.
I still use dial-up, because I don’t really have the need for cable TV right now, and to be honest, the cost would be about 3 times higher JUST to get broadband. What’s the benefit to that?
Why can’t we get DSL and FIOS into more neighborhoods, and why can’t there be lower cost, satellite internet options for the “masses”, like there is for satellite radio?
One of my biggest complaints is the lack of competition. Why do our lawmakers continue to allow this to happen? We desperately need more competition, more choices, better service, lower prices.
Why don’t we have the same choices for internet service providers that people in England do?
Thank you for reading!
September 25th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Hey, Senator Kerry,
The internet was born during the time of Local Loop Unbundling, which is what made the internet a success, and which is the regulation that is currently in effect in most of Europe and in parts of Asia where broadband choices are many, speed is great, prices are lower, and real competition exists. Peple in those countries have DOZENS of choices of broadband providers. And the broadband providers are rolling out their own fiber with no monetary help from those governments.
What a contrast!
Here in the US the Telecomms were given hundreds of billions of dollars in tax incentives to build out broadband by 2006, reneged on the deal, kept the money, and then whined to get price protections in place that effectively KILLED LLU and put thousands of ISPs out of business, using the “we don’t have enough money to build infrastructure” argument. Meanwhile they’re spending that dough to lobby you folks so they can scr*** us worse. As you can understand, this situation isn’t sitting well with us taxpayers.
Now they want to turn the internet into a push media and tell us what we’re allowed to access at high speed. They want to be gatekeepers in many ways, and charge for every step of our trip along the network. This will effectively KILL the internet, and our economy with it. It will certainly put this small business web designer out of business.
For more details on all this, do some reading here:
http://wetmachine.com/totsf/
and here:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Ask_this.view&askthisid=186
and please interface with Senator Durbin on this. He did a fabulous thing over at OpenLeft, opening the conversations with the techies who have the experience running the network and who easily debunked the FUD coming out of the Telecomm Lobbyists. Oddly enough, I remember reading that he did the same experiment on a Conservative website with the Elephant techies, and though there were some minor differences in method to solutions, the substance wasn’t as far apart as you might expect.
http://openleft.com (search the term “Durbin”)
Thanks for doing this. I feel this issue is right up on top with the Iraq thing, since if the telecomms succeed in taking away our voice they’ve effectively killed democracy. And Neocons seem to want to allow them to do just that, quid pro quo for the NSA wiretaps.
Which leads me to make one more statement. Corporations need to be held accountable when they break the law. Don’t let AT&T and other wiretappers off the hook.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
[…] join the discussion and leave us some comments. Thanks for visiting!John Kerry is blogging over at SaveTheInternet.com. He hits the major points: broadband access is good for everyone, including small business, […]
September 25th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Hi Senator Kerry!
My idea would be to make the Internet more like a utility (gas, water, electricity, etc…). As time goes on, the Internet will only become more important to society. Even now, it is hard to fully participate in social and political life without reliable high speed Internet access. This problem will only get worse unless broadband access is recognized as a universallly necessary service.
The Internet as a utility would mean it is universally available, universally affordable, and completely net neutral.
Thanks for listening. I look forward to hearing your proposals.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Senator Kerry,
As I can see it, its clear that some sort of opening of access to the infrastructure that enables acccess to the Internet is necessary in addition to some sort of incentive for an increase in available infrastructure in those areas where it is unavailable.
In my experience, the citizens of many communities are essentially left with one choice for broadband access if it is even available to them: DSL or Cable. Its also been my experience that in for the citizens of many communities, that limits you to a choice between one of two companies and whatever pricing schemes they may have available. To me, this points to a need for an open access infrastructure for Internet providing.
Improving the infrastructure itself is tantamount it then seems. Having grown up in rural Minnesota, I’m quite familiar with the limitations of the current system we have. For many rural families, one is limited to dial-up, because a voice line is all that can reach their home. DSL can be limited distance, and if the cable company hasn’t laid a cable line into your area, there’s no access to a cable modem either.
While the problem can be fairly easily defined, a solution is much more difficult. Forcing openness in communities with broadband access I suspect would be painfully difficult at best, and building whole new lines of access within the more sparsely populated areas of our nation would be quite expensive as well.
To borrow the thinking of J-Ro above, perhaps the best solution would be to task a subset of our best engineers and scientists for whom this area is a specialty to work on creating a new infrastructure medium for the Internet that would be accessible much like a utility for all Americans. Given the difficulty of such a task, in the interim we could press for the opening of the current infrastructure to alleviate the lack of access currently present.
Respectfully,
Wayne A. Manselle
Eugene, OR
September 25th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
susanq, I forgot to point out. You said, “As a resident of Boston, MA it is unbelievable that in this “world class” city we cannot get DSL, or FIOS into our neighborhood.”
Right now Verizon is trying to kill Local Loop Unbundling in the last few places in the Northeast that still have some sort of Local Loop Unbundling in effect. Boston is one of those places, so it’s going to get even worse if they succeed.
http://bitchslappin.net/the-fcc/fcc-and-congress-you-gonna-listen-to-big-telecommmedia-or-us
September 25th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I was recently appalled to discover the 13 states have actually banned free wireless internet access. Meanwhile, the free wireless that is available in many metropolitan areas is barely functional at best.
Also, the functionality of US mobile internet devices lags well behind those in Japan, South Korea, and much of the EU, because US wireless technology is both considerably more expensive to use and less useful than in these nations.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I agree with J-Ro, the internet should be supplied by a government utility that is highly regulated. This would provide inexpensive high-speed internet to all people. Often times, the big phone companies don’t see a profit in building in some neighborhoods, so they just don’t offer the service. This effectively cuts off everyone living in that area. Many rural areas seem to be in this predicament. It often takes non-profit organizations like Mountain Area Information Network in Western North Carolina to provide internet services.
http://www.main.nc.us/index.html
In addition to providing access to more people, Congress should pass a law that guarantees Net Neutrality as a fundamental right every American has. The internet should always facilitate and never impede the free flow of data and thus, ideas. Protect the internet!
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
September 25th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
I really like the idea that we make the internet into a utility, besides the airwaves are our property and all that goes with that. You know, we the people, and we should be able to decide who gets the contract to manage them on our BEHALF. Believe me the infrastructure argument does not hold water anymore and I am sure there are many companies that would drool over the thought of being able to help shape it’s future. So treat it like a public utility and regulate it. I have a funny feeling that all those technological advancements they keep saying won’t get implemented will get done if these corporations understand that this is OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. I am not against them making profit but in this era of the DE-VALUED dollar those fat cats need to understand the days of passing their high costs of living on to the consumer are going to stop!
September 25th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Senator Kerry,
True competition is the only thing mega corporation will listen to. At this point I think is should be the right of every citizen to have access to information that educates the populace. The government should run it (I agree with molson3) Just today, I found out I’m losing CPAN2 due to “digital” upgrading. Where’s the FCC? Why don’t we have net neutrality…and why oh why are the public airwaves used by corporations for corporations benefit and not the citizenry? If they effectively take out the internet, we will become a nation of lemmings…oops, did that already happen?
September 25th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
The issues of freedom of information, informational equality, and business rights are at stake. Proponents of one side of the debate believe that all people have a fundamental right to information, and that no one should be denied that right by their internet service provider. The other side believes that businesses should have the right to regulate the flow of information over their service.
Because the government is in the business of ensuring a functioning market, and the rights of its citizens, there appears to be a dilemma. Fortunately for the Net Neutrality side, the case for freedom of information can win the debate from a market standpoint, as well as a human rights standpoint.
For the functioning of an ideal market, complete information is key. The more people with access to information, the more likely the market will produce an efficient level of goods and services. The internet is the perfect means to fulfill this need. It in fact has increased efficiency in the market dramatically since its inception.
The businesses who wish to regulate this information would impose far more costs on society than the benefits they would gain. Incredibly beneficial externalities that the internet provides act as a public good. The government has an incentive to protect those benefits for society and for the free market.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Senator Kerry
I agree with bj. Verizon is trying to kill Local Loop Bundling. They are only selecting the areas they feel like coming into in our area. The competition that was promised is only in CERTAIN areas and mine is not one of them. So how is that competition. And Comcast keeps raising our rates. You only get the low rates for 1 year then you get thrown into a sort-of medium high rate. They give you a sort-of good deal. But Verizon is picking and choosing who they want to give their FIOS service to. Mostly into the rich neighborhoods and forced into the areas they were forced into so they could lay their fiber optic cable.
But we need to keep the high speed Internet available and competitive to everyone. I also like the utility idea. It would definitely bring the cost down. That is what we need. Even bundling has not brough the cost down. My neighborhood that I live in even having high speed does not get the benefits of the high speed. We are spposed to get 6 mbps. We barely get 2 mbps and 4 mbps tops for the year that I have had it and Comcast is still working on it. And I have been paying for high speed Internet.
Please Senator, help keep the Internet alive and viable!!! Thank you
September 25th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Internet access was once something extra, something a person could live without, a luxury. No more. It’s now a necessity. So many transactions take place online — shopping, bill-paying, even renewing your car’s registration and completing homework assigments — Internet access is something *everyone* must have.
How do you make sure the poorest among us have that access?
In addition to free access at libraries and other public places (e.g., city/town halls), free Wi-Fi access would help ensure everyone could gain access to the Internet. Whether this should be funded federally, statewide, or locally is the next discussion, but I think our goal should be free Wi-Fi access within our cities and towns.
Access should not be held ransom by a few big companies. It should not be private industry that decides who can and cannot get access, because of where they live, ability to pay, and the like. The ubiquity of everyday tasks to be completed online negates that.
Information wants to be free — and so does the Internet!
September 25th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
It is worth remembering that the internet was developed mostly through federal funding (as a DARPA program, among others). As such, it can reasonably be regarded as a public utility. The privelege of using it should be won simply by paying taxes. As technical demands place an increased burden to provide speed, many citizens will begin to be excluded from the benefits this technological wonder provides. Telecomms want a two-tier system. One in which “premium” users have access to increased speed and other resources. They will claim they have to do this in order to cover the costs of improving existing infrasture. At the same time, they will ask Congress for federal funds to help pay for it. This is a sure way to: a.) squandor tax revenues (it wouldn’t be the first time a Telecomm has squandered federal funds to help cover infrastructure needs), and b.) further widen the income/education/quality-of-life gap in this country.
I believe federal funds should indeed go toward improving internet infrastructure and making it comparable to other developed nations (South Korea, for example). But if “we” pay for it, we should own it. If we end up with a truly enviable tool for the future, we should all share in its cost, and have equal access to its benefits. Ultimately, I believe this is the only way to ensure that all citizens have access to this increasingly important resource. What’s true of public highways and public schools is true of the internet - its too important to leave in private hands.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Dear Senator John Kerry,
Everyone is giving an anecdote, so maybe an anecdote is a proper starting point. I moved out to California during the late 90s to join the workforce who were creating what we now see as the Internet. The atmosphere was too exuberant. Competition made it impossible for smaller fish to swim with Menlo Park backed IPOs sharks. We paid for this by losing many good companies that never came to fruition. The ironic aspect is that the Internet is constantly evolving. This evolution shouldn’t be left to those with access to money, corporate friends, or access but to the dream that the Internet will look different tomorrow — that the Internet will belong to everyone tomorrow.
Back then, you could drive from East Palo Alto where funding for textbooks in classrooms wasn’t dreamt of to Palo Alto where you saw a few people here and there throwing obsolete monitors into the trash. The connection is not made even today. The explorers who created the Internet of today knew about East Palo Alto and it sickened them.
I’ll step off my soapbox. But before I do, I would like to say that Bush hasn’t spread Democracy around the World, the Internet has. If access to the Internet (esp, high speed) you lose small businesses who most likely have solutions GE hasn’t thunk up, you lose artists, musicians, people of conscience speaking out.
I have a belief that everyone possesses inalienable rights. The right to high speed internet has become as inalienable as free speech. Am I the only one who still believes in rights?
September 25th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
The attempt to privatize the Internet is but one more example of the legacy of taxpayer swindles that are the fetid legacy of the Reagan administration and the bipartisan antisocial mentality that has come in its wake. Even prior to this quarter century of extreme oppression, we witnessed near-monopolies of cable “service” whose unacknowledged leakage interfered with antenna reception and blackmailed even the most obstinate of non-customers into surrendering.
For all the propaganda that has been pounded into our heads for nearly a century, capitalism is not democracy—on the contrary, a dictatorship by corporate cronies, such as we have now, is fascism—and its mythical self-regulation does not render strict governmental control unnecessary, any more than the RICO laws are unnecessary.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Dear Senator Kerry:
In reading the other posts so far, a common theme appears to arise: competition.
It might have been the History Channel that ran a show a few years ago ranking the 100 most important inventions of all time. Ranked #1 was the printing press. Of course, the potential impact of the internet on economic development, freedom and democracy worldwide makes the printing press seem quaint.
Why didn’t television, a more widely distributed technology, outrank its centuries-old predecessor? Some might say it’s because the television market was quickly consolidated by the then radio oligopolies, who were beholden to a similarly concentrated market of advertisers.
Senator, as you’re probably well aware, our media market is now more concentrated than ever. Worse, the telecommunications dynasties are busier than ever doing all they can to close the internet to competition for the sake of their already bloated executive paychecks.
There is simply no better champion democracy and the ideals of America’s founders than a leader who would fight to safeguard the freedom this new technology can usher in. And such protection requires no taxpayer dollars:
Step 1 - Pass a “net-neutrality” act, guaranteeing equal access to the internet and preventing the “television-ization” of this new engine of democracy and economic growth.
Step 2 - Pass another no-taxes-required bill preventing the telecomm. companies from outlawing municipal and other wireless ISP start-ups, as they did in Pennsylvania.
Step 3 - The heck with it. If you accomplish steps 1 and 2, you’ll already be a hero.
Thanks for inviting these comments. Keep fighting the good fight.
Desperate for Democracy,
New York
September 25th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Dear Sen. Kerry,
My question for you is: Are you willing to take a brave stand against special interests, to listen instead to the public and open the Internet for everyone?
Everybody — with the possible exception of the phone and cable companies — seems to agree that connecting more people to a faster, open and more affordable Internet is a good thing. The question is: how?
The powerful Telco lobby would have us believe that a “hands off” approach is best — otherwise known as “hand over” control of the Internet to them.
We have done this already — lobbyists have strong-armed Washington into ceding to the phone and cable companies near complete command of the market. Today this duopoly controls more than 96% of residential broadband connections. But what has this got us? A failed marketplace, especially when compared to what other advanced countries now offer their citizens.
The best way to restore America’s prominence is to have Congresspeople like you take a stand against the telcos and ensure that America’s communications infrastructure benefits the common good. Like the public highways, the information superhighway must be considered a key piece of public infrastructure — an indispensable part of our society that provides vast economic and social benefits to all.
To that end, it’s important to support bills such as the “Community Broadband Act of 2007,” which allows cities to wire their citizens much like a 21st Century library system.
It’s also important to see that the FCC allows unlicensed access to “white spaces” to open up new possibilities for the next generation of mobile Internet devices and municipal networks. `
Brave leadership involves seeing that all broadband networks — whether wired or wireless — are open to all producers and consumers of Internet content on fair and equal terms without discrimination. “Net Neutrality” and “Open Access” offer maximum choice to all consumers while fostering competition and innovation where it is needed most. It also stops self-interested gatekeepers from holding captive the online marketplace of ideas.
It’s important to support the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act,” which protects Net Neutrality and stops gatekeepers from blocking degrading or slowing down content they don’t like.
America must look at our Internet as one of the great public works projects of our time and build the world’s most advanced communications networks without stifling the free flow of information that has made it so important.
As an influential senator, You can take the lead to make an Internet that’s for everyone. Compromise at nothing less.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
As a person with disabilities the internet is a godsend, but in the form of dial up which is becoming neglected by all companies as they want one to pay the out of sight monthly fee for high speed.
In Rural America and in this town we have but one option for either service with No Competition. WE cannot join high speed at a reasonable price ` it is not within the average budget of a person on a fixed income..
Please someone use come common sense and not allow the big Corporations to take away this control and allow the free enterprise system flow free for everyone and without being with one provider it is unfair costly and not in the American way of doing things ..
Profits for Stockholders and Corporation salaries come first then the Consumer…this internet is the lifeline to the the world for all and espcially those who cannot explore much of the world in person .
So let’s let democracy work and not allow such restricted access especially in Rural America.. Monopolies are not warranted for a internet the taxpayers invested in long ago and now BIG BROTHER Corporations want to control all at a drastic price ~ Please don’t buy into this rape of the public voice across the country and others.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Hello, Senator Kerry,
It is the size of the dinosaur that determines who gets the bones of high speed Internet connectivity. Here is a specific example from rural Middle Tennessee where I live.
BellSouth, now AT&T again, has been the sole telephone service provider in my area - they have a monopoly on local service connections which also includes Internet connections. In the largest town in my county, there is DSL in most of the city and there is also competition from Comcast cable. The rest of the county has no high speed access from anyone. Why? Not enough profit for AT&T. It has been this way since I lived here the past 10 years.
In the adjacent county, one of the least affluent and least populated in Middle Tennessee, ANYONE WHO WANTS to pay for it can get high speed DSL. Why? Because the county and several others adjacent counties have as their prime telephone service provider a rural telephone cooperative which is NOT BellSouth, not AT&T. The board members of the cooperative decided 6 years ago that they were going to provide their service area with DSL and they covered their three county area in less than two years.
When the government decided to let AT&T re-glomerate, that was one of the worst decisions ever. AT&T still holds monopoly power over most of their service area, especially in rural Tennessee, and unless they are forced to provide the public services required of monopoly utilities, they will do as they damned well please.
If you want to see AT&T move, then pull the plug on their monopoly and allow other service providers to use their lines FOR FREE to provide high speed services. They have plenty of bandwidth. You will be amazed at how fast a dinosaur can move.
Cheers,
September 25th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
We are being held hostage, Were’s home land security?? AT&T and thier cronies are cabable of providing the best internet structure in the world. But not until they are allowed to charge a arm and a leg for it. They want you to know that it costs money to do this. And they have the Sentor in my home state pounding the drum for them (Gordon H Smith). But the truth is if they would make it more affordable to the masses, they would be making more money than the billions they’re making now. Read my story http://www.savetheinternet.com/yourstory/295837
September 25th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I’m one of the few lucky ones, because Storm Lake, Iowa has 2 cable TV, 2 cable-modem high-speed Internet, 1 DSL high-speed Internet, and 3 phone companies to choose from.
But if you live in most other areas of Iowa, you’re stuck with either Mediacom for high-speed Internet access through cable, or Qwest for high-speed access via DSL.
That is called a DUOPOLY, and BOTH providers want to be given the ability to become “gatekeepers” who would THROTTLE ANY traffic that dosen’t have a “sweetheart deal” with them.
That means that they would have the ability to decide, arbitrarily, WHICH websites you could access at high speed, which ones you could only access at slow speed, and which sites wouldn’t load up AT ALL, because the providers decided to either outright BLOCK access to those sites, or THROTTLE access to them!!
That is why, until there are MORE competitors in EVERY neighborhood in this country, regardless of whether or not they’re rich, poor, or middle-class, the U.S. MUST have ENFORCABLE Network Neutrality regulations on the books, to PREVENT these “incumbent” providers from turning the Internet into a “two-tier” system of “haves” and “have-nots”!!
So, PLEASE put REAL Network Neutrality regulations through Congress…PUSH ’til it GIVES!!
DON’T let cable and phone company lobbyists decide the Internet’s fate for the future!! PLEASE let there be MORE competition, and a NEUTRAL, OPEN, and FREE Internet FOR ALL!!
September 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Thanks for asking!
Please consider the importance of Public, Education, and Government (PEG) services that need access to broadband infrastructure. We need you help to support non-commercial voices and ensure Localism and Diversity in our evolving communications sector.
The concept of PEG Broadband is a useful way to organize the fundamental public policy questions that need to be addressed. As you consider the issues for next generation digital media, there are many important lessons learned from last generation analog media… here’s a modified summary of comments offered to the FCC’s at a Localism hearing back in 2004 http://www.fcc.gov/localism/hearing-monterey072104.html
1. Commercial media/telecom alone do not adequately serve local community needs and interests, and consolidated ownership exacerbates the problem.
2. Local public interests are at stake as Congress and the FCC reshape the regulatory landscape.
3. The best way to promote PEG Broadband services is to ensure local and diverse ownership and to set aside bandwidth with adequate operating support for non-commercial, public service media/communications in every local community.
4. PEG access media provide a model for PEG Broadband to support true localism in our media/communications sector.
5. Local and State governments must have meaningful roles to adequately protect consumers and to effectively advocate for local needs and interests to be met.
Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of PEG Broadband!
September 25th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
First off, I think it’s great a large public figure is taking on this effort head on. The current broadband situation in the United States is ridiculous and reeks of fraud, corrupt business practice, and more than ever - the placement of special interest group needs over that of the general public.
I’ve been following the Comcast broadband issue ever-so-closely over the last few months with their recent P2P crackdown (which I find disheartening considering it’s legitimate usage). This website (more or less) sums up my frustration: http://comcastissue.blogspot.com/
Now will you read it STI? Will John Kerry read it in it’s entirety? I can’t help but feel this issue by a public congressman will off the bat be poorly represented because of a lack of understanding/education on the subject. The ideal leader of this fight would have a degree in Computer Information Science and have respective knowledge of network deployment, scalability, and management. Notwithstanding the lack of a computer literate government officials, I don’t think all is lost.
Government needs to first off step in and take control of the infrastructure. Government SHOULD lay the lines, maintain them, and prevent blackouts - making sure that content from the various datacenters around the nation are peered correctly. That’s it. To inspire competition, providers should “provide” service and consumers should be able to pick from a wide variety of options. I don’t understand why monopolistic competition is allowed to run it’s course in our country. This argument could inevitably take me down a whole entire different path of discussion of domestic priority and the shortcomings of our current administration. But I digress….
Overall, this problem is multi-faceted. Special interest groups and lobbyists need to be put in their place. Government needs to step up and start regulating unfair business practices and take control of the infrastructure (and upgrade it). Legislation needs to be re-written and/or revised - you all realize that the current FCC definition of Broadband is anything above 200K. Maybe I threw away my 14.4k modem a bit early…
Keep fighting and let people hear your words. They can’t ignore you forever.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Aside from protecting net neutrality, I would investigate the $200 billion theft by major phone companies when they failed to complete contracts for upgrading internet infrastructure in certain areas of the country:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
If we’re serious about improving the infrastructure in this country, we can’t let big companies rip us off without delivering anything. Not only will this not improve the country’s broadband capabilities, it will also encourage companies to steal money for future projects that may come of this discussion.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
I spend part of the year in Paris, France where all the phone and cable companies (both privately owned and state owned) are offering a complete package of DSL/telephone/basic cable TV for about $20 a month plus tax. What makes it even better is a free modem and a free decoder box for the TV. If that’s not enough all phone calls are toll free - to France, to Europe, to North Africa, to North America and a bunch of other places as well. As a result, the only extra charges are for premium TV channels. Why can’t we have this here?
September 25th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
THE INTERNET SHOULD BE LIKE RADIO, FREE TO ALL WHO TUNE IN. IT SHOULD “PLAY” AT THE SAME SPEED FOR ALL. THE INFORMATION SOCIETY CANNOT HAVE SOME WITH ACCESS AND SOME WITHOUT….THAT HAS NEVER BEEN BENEFICIAL. AT THE SPEED CHANGES ARE OCCURING, THERE IS NO POINT IN NOT COMBINING TV, PHONE AND INTERNEST INTO A ONE STOP SERVICE AVAILABLE FROM MANY, MANY PROVIDERS. THERE IS NO LOST PROFIT IN FREE ACCESS TO CONSUMERS!!
September 25th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Telephone companies such as AT&T and Comcast charge a small fortune for their services. I am not sure that the government should actually own the lines, as then repairs would really be bogged down! When they broke up Ma Bell it was the best thing that could have happened. Now the conglomerates are back; what happened to the laws about monopolies? The internet should be readily available to anyone who needs it, not just those areas whom the big companies are willing to place lines in. The internet should be considered infrastructure now and maintained as such. The lines should be laid and serviced with an eye to everyone, not just a few, and should NOT be in the control of a few. There are some excellent ideas on this forum, and for once I would like to see a politician put his money where his mouth is and work for someone else besides himself; as far as I am concerned there is not a single politican in this country that is truly representing US; they mostly are in it for themselves and we are the losers. Kudos to you if you stand up for what is right; we, the voters, are watching closely what happens in this issue. Don’t even get me started on Cable TV, where you have to pay for THEIR choices! The nonsense has got to stop. The internet cannot be controlled by a few who wish to limit access. It is a wonderful thing and having gatekeepers who decide who gets what would ruin this. The gatekeepers wannabees did not invent this and should not be in control. Period. Case Closed. the internet belongs to everyone. It is time we caught up with the rest of the world. Out with the dinosaurs.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I think it is essential for our country to start considering broadband a public utility. However, there are a few things to keep in mind with how this plays out in reality.
Municipalities are not always able to take on the building of a reliable broadband infrastructure on their own, and are forced to look to the private sector for help with funding for construction, maintenance, and supplying Internet service.
Instead of forcing them to take private money and sign binding contracts that are not always in the public interest (and will lead to redlining, price increases, etc.), money for these projects needs to come from other public outlets.
Beyond the baseline of passing federal legislation to override state laws that currently ban publicly-owned broadband networks, let’s also propose federal funding for municipal broadband projects, at least until they get off the ground or a list of reliable implementation models becomes available for municipal providers.
Already, many many cities and towns around the country have implemented municipal broadband. But it seems to me that the success of these projects often relies on some more or less must-haves (smaller population size, flatter topography, preferably no competition from a stronger private telecom, etc). Especially in large cities (New York, San Francisco, etc), governments can’t even rely on private money to help with build out, because companies look for the kind of profits that seem virtually impossible to achieve at this point from a free or low-cost broadband network (even wireless, not to mention wired broadband). These cities are left with no options for publicly-owned, city-wide broadband as of today.
The point of this ramble is that it is not enough to ‘consider’ broadband a public utility — we must take into consideration current information available on how cities have tried (and succeeded or failed) to make it so, and based on that information, help them financially to build out these networks.
If municipal broadband succeeds, it will offer strong competition to incumbent telecom providers, forcing buildout and lowering prices. But it is an infant ‘industry’ with a lot of big dogs already in the market. The federal government needs to allocate money to help it grow.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Dear Senator Kerry,
This is another in a long line of sad commentaries where corporate interests outweigh the needs or the rights of the people in the USA. Night after night, issue after issue, our news media reports how the people’s voice is ignored in Washington, D.C.
Thanks for taking up this important issue. Please pay heed to the wise comments from everyone here who has taken the time to post a response in this blog.
It is important to note that competetion is a key theme to these responses and a necessary ingredient in any antidote to this situation. Internet Neutrality is a must. In an effort for the USA to remain competetive in the world economy and its people to be first class internet citizens, we hope you are successful in garnering support for the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.
Best of luck in your efforts.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Senator Kerry,
I would please ask that you support a free Internet, or ‘Net Neutrality’. There are many programs and options available to people and organizations who feel the need to filter their web searches, protect children from browsing potentially harmful sites or prevent employees from accessing ‘banned’ sites. We as individuals should be allowed to choose to filter, or not to filter, our own home based internet connections. I was surprised to learn my own connection is being filtered. Sadly, in my area, I have no other viable options for accessing the internet.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Let us get a quick grip on this issue. India and China will be passing us by and lots of other lesser nations out pace our broadband speed and usage already. What is the excuse…government and the telcos are in bed together. Competition, regulation, both…and fast action is needed. I live in a rural area of Northern California. We are severely underserved by CATV and Telcos. There is no incentive or desire by the providers to stretch out to missed customers who can only resort to slow dial up or maybe slow and expensive satellite. Let’s redirect some of those telco lobbying dollars to solving this problem.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Senator Kerry,
Thank you for participating in this forum. This is how our democracy should be, where individuals have an equal voice to lobbyists, and money doesn’t let any single group bend the ears of lawmakers more than common citizens.
As the CEO of a small technology consulting business, I rely on the Internet. Almost all of my work is conducted remotely. I am fortunate to be in an area that was recently enabled to use FIOS, and the speed is excellent. Obtaining the service and dealing with their customer service is a trial in patience, but what do you expect from a monopoly (Verizon)?
My primary concern is the desire of telecom companies to throttle service based on who you are or what you’re willing to pay. I should not have to pay more to get preferential treatment. I should not have to pay more to avoid having my web site blocked by an ISP. The mob did/does that, and it’s called a protection racket.
The internet, like telephone service, should be equal to all. No service provider should be in a position to censor, limit, or exclude content it serves to its customers.
I know that my situation is not unique. I’m sure that the Verizon’s and AT&T’s of the world would be pleased as punch to collect the extra revenue, but the result would be devastating to businesses such as my own. We must have a Net Neutrality initiative in place before we take any further action to fix the Internet.
If legitimate competition existed, ISPs wouldn’t dream of taking away services, and they’d be falling over themselves to offer cheaper, faster, better service. Look at the cellular phone market, where you can freely switch service providers. Costs are affordable, packages are varied, and innovations in service are high. Contrast that to Internet providers, where choices are limited at best, and we continue to fall farther and farther behind.
As a side benefit, an open, neutral net promises to make us a greener, healthier, and happier nation. My company provides specialized services to customers all over the country, but we all work either from home or a local office. I no longer commute, so my car isn’t on the road, contributing to the problem of global warming and traffic congestion. I’m home for my family most of the time, which makes the bond with my wife and children stronger. No longer do I leave in the morning before they’re awake, and return home in time to tuck them in. I’m healthier, because the time that used to be spent commuting, I now spend cycling or roller blading with my daughters. I’m not breathing contaminated, recycled air all day, and my productivity is much higher.
My business is not unique. As our economy shits to being more technologically driven, more and more employees will be in a position to work from home at least part of the week. Happy, healthy employees are more productive, and make us a stronger nation, but it can’t happen without competition in the ISP market and enforcible Net Neutrality laws.
Thank you for your time and concern for this issue!
September 25th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
It seems to me that the Internet is still such a new technology, that much regulation at all with regard to providing it is liable to stifle new access much more than it is likely to help it. How can you help something grow if you don’t know what nourishes it?
Congress did a very smart thing in the early days of the Internet in refraining from over-regulating the content of the Web, and the type of commerce that went on. As a result it flourished.
Unfortunately, they took the opposite approach when it came to the physical infrastructure that made up the internet. They allocated a bunch of money for very specific purposes, and gave it to a only a few entities. How is that supposed to spark innovation? The result is that most companies STILL run on T1 connections that, if we are lucky, only cost us half of what they did 10 years ago. While this may seem like progress to some, in the technology world, things double in power or halve in cost every 6 months. This is stagnation in the worst sense.
Big old companies have little to gain from innovation. It’s the small companies that drive innovation and development. If you want innovation, you have to help the little guys. The big guys will figure out that they need to innovate or die - and believe it or not, they will find the money to pay for it from their own pockets if they have to. Stop protecting existing providers. Offer rewards for results, not contracts for plans. Look at the X-prize.
Oh, and as a general rule, stop trying to regulate technology. The last thing we need is people making up rules for things they do not understand. “The Internet is a series of tubes.” Good grief! I don’t mind a little regulation in content, but when someone suggests that there might be a completely new use for a piece of spectrum, why on earth would you not let them try to make something of it?
September 25th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
More than anything, I think you and every Democrat needs to get behind Net Neutrality - and STAY behind it, no matter what the Republicans allege. It’s vitally important to educate the American public that the Internet belongs to THEM (as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the Internet was originally considered part of our country’s defense, and should have been made a public utility) - and not to media conglomerates like Time Warner, Verizon and Cox.
If Big Media is allowed to have their way, the U.S. will become a second-class country where innovation and creativity is stifled, or only permitted in a very limited sense if the Corporate Masters PERMIT it.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
The internet is the technology of now. And broadband should be open to all Americans in America. I have some friends one in VA and the other in New Mexico and they can not get broadband.
I am glad I can but, this is something that should not be optional and only have dial-up service. I am speaking those they did a voice.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Limiting service options to cable, satellite or [monopolized] telephone lines has effectively limited public access to the internet. This has deleterious results re: business, education and an informed citizenry. While in the short term, a regime that controls communications consolidates power in such manner, in the long term these ill-gotten “gains” serve to diminish these resources…
Strength through diversity, regulation to stop monopoly, protection of freedom to choose sources. REAL security issues. Please wegh in positively for “Net Neutrality” a soubriquet indeed for “Internet Freedom” but what we need by any name.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Sen. Kerry I believe when you can a difference in all having access to broadband connection. We are looking forward to you being our voice in House.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Dear Senator Kerry,
Just some ideas below that came immediately to mind. No ordering of priority is implied.
Thanks for asking and listening!
Sincerely,
Duane (Formerly of Boston)
o Consistency across the US free from state, local and community interference.
o Consistency of pricing structure across the US and freedom from large corporations hogging and price fixing the services.
o Strong adherence to Open Standards.
o An Internet for the people!
o Technology defined by the technology leaders and scientific community of technology (no offense), but no politicians strong-arming direction. No politicians or corporations speaking on behalf of the technology leaders and scientific community of technology with a biased view and propaganda.
o No Lobbyists.
o No strangle holding by major corporations with no-bid contracts for only the sake of big profits.
o A high priority focus on net neutrality.
o Investigation first into land or wireless. Reaching remote areas might be best served via wireless. Let the technology leaders and scientific community of technology lead the way, again (no offense), but not politicians and others with a first priority interest sometimes in personal fame, power, profit and greed so unfortunately common in the US today.
o Consistency in the technological solution.
o A wise degree of hardening against natural or man made catastrophes.
o A tiered À la carte system of standard offerings, no bundling and providing unwanted services to spread cost allocation. Provide a sound fundamental service structure and then adders, as needed, by free choice!
o An inherently hardened system to virus’s, Trojans, spyware and the like.
o Solid protection against government surveillance without strong and appropriate safeguards.
o Guaranteed speed across the US. Broadband should be the top priority.
Note: I have a guaranteed speed of 5mbit, soon to be 8mbit 7×24 from http://everestkc.net/ and that is what I get. Others should be able to do this, eventually. We need to stop consistently falling behind in the US.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I am an applications developer in New York City. I didn’t study computer science in school but sort of fell into the business during the dotcom boom in 2000. Who knew that a struggling musician would love programming so much? With that said, I am concerned that if our country doesn’t provide cheap/free, easy, wireless access to the internet, unfettered by corporate greed, as well as improving our public school system we will be technologically surpassed by other countries that do invest in this type of infrastructure. We must remain strong and competitive and I fear if we fail to do so in search of short term corporate profits we do so at our own peril.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I’m surprised, aside from the obvious comments about monopolistic control of the Internet via access - that no one has pointed out that universal broadband access is not only possible - but feasible now. Companies like Telkonet can supply broadband access via electrical lines that are connected to every home in the country. Why this hasn’t taken off is beyond me - aside from the political will that is absent (lobbyists?). The same argument holds for solar power - every home and business that has a roof could contribute to a solar grid that would provide the US with all the power it needs! Gee - what is stopping us? (lobbyists?). What is needed in this country - is a new revolution - to free us from greedy corporations and weak-kneed politicians that can only emit a lot of hot air but no light!
September 25th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I have to agree with what everyone above is saying. The internet should be considered an utility like electricity, so that everyone can have access to to it at fair prices.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
[…] is in regard to a guest blog post by Sen. John Kerry: Questions from Sen. Kerry: How Can We Connect America?, sent as a trackback.] Technorati Tags: broadband, Internet, John Kerry, net […]
September 25th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Senator Kerry,
I agree with “adz,” and I believe in an open Internet, free from
monopolistic control of territories by private enterprises.
I also believe that the Internet should function as a way for
citizens to vote on public referenda affecting the entire
country. For example: four issues per year affecting everyone
could open for discussion on a dedicated web site (the involvement
of cable television would help immensely in this endeavor), with
two months open to discussion based on peer-reviewed data, and
one month open for people to vote on the issue. (As an academic,
I would prefer that voters would have to qualify to vote by taking
an online test of their knowledge of the issue, rather than merely
“vote their gut.”) The site might require a certain percentage of
votes (say, a 60% majority) in order for the vote to count–and
“count” would mean that when the issue comes before Congress,
the vote of the participants (and Congress might stipulate a
minimum number to qualify) would count as a fixed percentage
of the House’s or Senate’s vote–for example, 5% or 10%–a
modest but potentially decisive voice in national decision-making.
We have entered an age that permits direct participatory democracy.
This proposal would require an amendment to the Constitution,
but one that would encourage an electorate so alienated from the
political process that barely half of eligible voters exercise their
franchise to care again about their country. It could make the
people directly responsible for the kind of world propose to live in.
It could make the Internet and related communication outlets an
integral part of the country even more than it has become an integral
part of the economy. Such a proposal requires the same kind of
universal access as citizens have to the voting booth (recognizing
stipulations like age which restrict, e.g., minors from voting). That
kind of access, in turn, requires significant modifications in the
present configuration of Internet access and related legislation.
The people of the United States need a meaningful voice in their
own governance, and present technology offers the opportunity
to make that voice decisively heard.
Sincerely,
Daniel Zimmerman
September 25th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Greetings Senator Kerry:
Please consider the importance of ensuring that every America having access to high speed connectivity to the Internet!
As you may be aware, the Internet has become one of the most important communications tool across the entire world. However, here in America, we have allowed mega corporations to decide what type of Internet access the American people will have. For too long, conglomerates such as; Verizon, AOL, ATT, Comcast and other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have controlled the speed at which we transmit data from one datapoint to another. They have done so, in a deliberate manner to fatten their pockets and we, the people must be given a chance to add balance to this important debate.
As a Senator in the 110th Congress, you have the power to ensure that American citizens will not be sold out and blocked out from having equal access to high speed service over the Internet.
Which is by the way, made abundantaly available all across the world, with the exception of the United States of America.
I strongly encourage you to do whatever is necessary to provide the citizens of this great country fair and equitable access to high speed Internet service to every locale in these United States.
Don’t let the conglomerates write their own bills that will guarantee them great wealth for generations to come. We the people deserve to have laws that will be fair and balanced across the Internet speed spectrum. I don’t think it would be fair to allow ISPs to segment various levels of speed to the Internet for a premium level price. When in reality, it does not cost corporations any more or any less to open up high speed Internet access to everyone. When in fact, the slicing and dicing up the various access speed levels to the Internet will in of itself create more overhead costs in the long run.
If other countries can provide high speed service to the Internet for a much cheaper price, then why can’t the American people have the same level of access too faster service for lower costs?
Afterall, ISPs are using public right-of-ways to install the FIFOS infrastructure and have done so by using cheap labor (illegal immigrants) to perform these tasks. I have personally seen this happened within my own community. And within days after the lines have been installed, I received hand delivered brochures that were hung on my doorknob from the companies who solicit high speed access to the Internet for a low introductory price of $99.00 per month. Out of that $99.00 per month premium, I estimate the company’s profit margin to be around 45%-60% per household(conservatively speaking). Now, I interpret this as intentional highway robbery! More importantly, it is exploitation of the workers and to citizens they are serving.
Therefore, I strongly emphasize that you take a bold step in being the first Senator to support legislature that will indeed be fair and balanced toward the PEOPLE!
In closing, I would like to leave you with this verse:
The president is up there in the White House for you…not you here for him. The secretaries act in their bureaus for you…not you here for them. The Congress convenes every December for you, Laws, courts, the forming of states, the charter of cities, the going and coming of commerce and mails are all for you.
~Walt Whitman
Thank you.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Senator Kerry,
I am encouraged by your effort to listen to the average citizen when it comes to this issue. America was once on the forefront of communication technology in both development/research and in deployment. We have, unforgivably, fallen behind many other countries in this regard.
We have reached a point in this country where a few powerful organizations have far too much say in the development of laws that work against bringing the necessary Internet services to the average American. With the existing technology, we have the means by which to provide Internet access to almost every American. The use of frequencies being released as we move towards DTV could result in America being the first country to make a monumental step towards bridging the digital divide. Imagine a country where the majority of citizens have free access to information. The potential for economic growth by providing this type of access is tremendous. This is only one method to bring universal broadband access to everyone.
Additionally, regardless of what others say, consumer choice with regard to high-speed Internet access is a joke. I currently live in Houston, TX within walking distance of the largest medical center in the world and I only have two companies to choose from when it comes to high speed internet, Comcast Cable or AT&T. Both of these companies offer plans similar to each other but not on par with other countries and neither uses fiber optic to the house. They may use fiber to an access point in the neighborhood, but without fiber to the house, internet speeds will never rival those in other countries.
By the way, why hasn’t AT&T or any other telecom company been held liable for the billions in breaks they received to run fiber throughout the country since they never actually did it?
Another important issue facing America is the issue of providing regulations regarding Net Neutrality. As you know, this is an issue that cannot be ignored. Without any regulations to guarantee unrestricted access to the entire Internet (not just the parts pre-selected by corporations) the country would be at a major loss and regardless of the lobbyists statements, innovation and development would be crippled.
Again, I applaud that you are willing to continue to research this issue outside of the telecomm lobbyists views and hope to see promising action in congress by you and other representatives.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Hello, Senator Kerry,
Thank you very much for paying serious attention to this crucial issue and thank you even more for giving us an opportunity to comment.
I’m a poster child for the problem. My husband and I have an internet based business. We live in an idyllic, fairly rural environment which is, of course, seriously underserved by the telecommunications industry. There is no DSL available, the cable lines stop about 2 miles away. Dial up on old phone lines doesn’t allow for any of the functions we need to maintain our business. (Have you ever tried uploading photos of products to a website on dialup on old phone lines?)
To have access to broadband so we can run our business, we had to invest in an expensive satellite dish and pay more in monthly charges than our friends 3 miles away who have DSL. We are grateful that we at least have an option but that we should have to pay this much more for a service that people 3 miles away have easy access to is insane.
The problem with satellite broadband (in addition to the cost) is that useage is limited to a certain amount of mgs/24 hour period. If you exceed that, your internet connection drops into the slow lane for the next 24 hours. We’ve resorted to driving into town to the library with our laptops to download software updates and we can’t take advantage of much of what’s available on the internet in video and still have enough bandwidth left to run our business.
This is just insane! Access to the internet today is like access to electricity in my great grandmother’s time. The internet should be classified as a public utility in the same way as electricity and water are because, increasingly, it is essential to survival in this global economy. Japan and Europe are light years ahead of us with internet access and their economies and societies are thriving because of it. The US will not be able to compete in a global economy without major changes in access to the internet.
Thank you, again, for being an activist for this issue. Please do what you can to help us.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
We are losing, or have lost, so many of our rights under the constitution (which I now must type in lower case as it’s been abused so much by the Republican administration) and have so little left. Our media is owned and operated by greedy corporations. This was supposed to be a country of individuals, supported by a strong Constitution, bolstered by education for all, with a free press and a strong representative government. At times it seems as though all we have left is the internet. Protecting the internet is crucial as it has become the last bastion of freedom in this country. Please do all you can to protect our rigths.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Senator Kerry,
**From: The Washington Post - washingtonpost.com
http://tinyurl.com/3xxpt5
“Japan’s Warp-Speed Ride to Internet Future”
“By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, August 29, 2007; Page A01″
“TOKYO — Americans invented the Internet, but the Japanese are running away with it.”
“Broadband service here is eight to 30 times as fast as in the United States — and considerably cheaper. Japan has the world’s fastest Internet connections, delivering more data at a lower cost than anywhere else, recent studies show.”
**To find out why, read the article.
**More:
“In 2000, the Japanese government seized its advantage in wire. In sharp contrast to the Bush administration over the same time period, regulators here compelled big phone companies to open up wires to upstart Internet providers.”
**COMPELLED BIG PHONE COMPANIES TO OPEN UP WIRES TO UPSTART INTERNET PROVIDERS!!!
**Competition is key. Competition is THE key.
**I’ve said enough, the article speaks for itself.
**Thank you, and respectfully,
**Mark Holt
September 25th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
I can’t imagine life without the internet. I use it daily. It’s more important to me than any other means of communication. I can find information I trust there, I can find out what is going on in the world without being assaulted by blow dried, face lifted nitwits spouting inanities. Once it was against the law for any corporation or person to own more than a small portion of communication in this country - since Ronald Reagan destroyed the anti-trust legislation that protected our right to know - and made it possible for someone like Rupert Murdoch (who has made a fortune combining explicit sex with conservative politics in every possible media), we’ve come to depend almost exclusively on the internet. This country is based on knowledge and education. It’s a crime that we only have one means of communication where we can find out what’s real in the world - but since that’s what we’ve got, then we must keep it intact and as much as possible out of the hands of the greedy wretches who want to control our information and thus our thoughts. This may be THE modern issue, as it could make or break every other issue that is on the table nationally.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Dear Senator Kerry,
Please support net neutrality. As all the mainstream media become more and more centralized, the people… and the republic need the diversity of information and views that the internet provides.
Thank you,
-Joe Gumbosky
September 25th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Dear Senator Kerry,
Thank you for providing this opportunity to address the issue of broadband service in the US.
First, we need net neutrality.
Second, we need to put some effort into how we deliver broadband without conflicting services reducing the value of the purchased broadband. In my home, it isn’t a problem, but in my sons’ apartment where they are paying for the broadband access, the competing services can effectively negate the value of what they are paying for. I am of the opinion that broadband access is like the old telephone access and improved by monopoly and regulation, not by free competition. I spent a weekend with 2 of my sons during which they could not use the broadband access they paid for because someone with a competing service was blanking their access channels.
I am not a technician, just an economist. Sometimes monopoly rights with appropriate regulation work better than the free market.
Sincerely,
Midi Cox
San Diego CA
September 25th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
When it comes to the Internet and high speed access Senator Kerry’s question “how can we connect?” is not the important question. We have the technology to provide universal affordable access to the Internet. The more fundamental question is, are the “shock economists” willing to invest in the future or are they blinded by short sighted economic models that see quarterly profits as the only desirable goal?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Dear Senator Kerry,
As CTO of a company that is seeking to exploit the accessibility of the Internet, I do have some things to say.
First, as you know none of the major Telco’s or inbound ISP’s have invested one thin dime in the research and development of the Internet, this has been solely funded by the American taxpayers as the defense project called ARPAnet. Which was designed for one purpose, to provide the United States with a highly resilient data-communications network that would be nearly impossible to destroy by an enemy. Their investments have only been in the hardware necessary to provide the infrastructure from point to point. Even this has been offset by the fact that MaBell had already invested in telephone poles and underground conduits that are used, for which we the taxpayers also subsidized with granting them a monopoly within the community. So far, we the taxpayers have shared the costs for companies to provide telecommunication access besides the fees that they charge.
Considering that we already underwrite the telco’s with monopoly status, it would be detrimental to allow them to charge websites for access to the customers. Net Neutrality is the only option we can have for situations where monopoly status is given. If the Congress votes to remove monopoly powers of the ISP’s as it did with long distance calling than Net Neutrality becomes a moot point as there is now the potential for competition. By allowing, the inbound ISP’s to impose favorable status to some websites and omitting others from access increases their profit margin while they no longer need to invest in the infrastructure. My company ClearVoyager has designed a product that can conceivably allow people to start businesses with state of the art computing structures at roughly 15% of the normal costs, however without Net Neutrality companies like Verizon and TimeWarner can steal our research and development simply by blocking us and charge people allot more than we will for an inferior service. However, until the issue of NetNutrality is resolved once and for all investors are skittish. Who would want to invest in a small company when the mega corporations can simply put your web address in a blocking filter and direct potential customers from your site to theirs or anyone who pays them.
Congress must prohibit the individual states from stopping free wireless broadband, allowing both private companies and municipalities the option to provide this service. Prohibiting the individual states from restricting access does in fact fall under the Commerce clause of the Constitution, as the probability of crossing state lines is high. Allowing private companies to provide wireless access is the option that could have the best and most immediate impact in providing communities and the poor with internet access. Companies can trademark their networks for advertisement, allowing them to advertise on the login screen could be the incentive to get this private investment going. Having free internet access will only help the poor. Providing free wireless access to school children can help to lower the tax burden on property owners.
While we may dislike some messages on the internet, as Americans we cherish the freedom to say and read things that others may find offensive. Some people and organizations have squashed free speech by threatening the outbound ISP’s who hosts these websites with lawsuits. Congress needs to pass a law that prevents individuals or corporations from suing the ISP to shutdown the website unless they have a court order to do so. If there is libelous or defamatory material on these sites the proper recourse is to seek relief from the website’s owner. Only if the owner or his agent cannot be served with legal papers should the ISP shutdown that website. Basically the Internet is a town square and outbound ISP’s are the soapbox, it is the websites that are the speakers. If someone was to stand on the Mall in Washington and say John Kerry hates Heinz Ketchup and loves Hunts would you sue the federal government for providing a place for that person to speak? Of course not, you would seek relief from the person who said that in a court. It is the same, because someone may not like the message, the ISP should not suffer for providing a venue for those views. You would not go running to the Capitol police to escort that person off the Mall until you had your day in court and proved them to be liars. It is not up to the Capital police to determine what is true or false, same is true with outbound ISP’s. Only when the website is found by a court of competent jurisdiction should the ISP drop that website as a customer.
Finally, web sites must be protected from companies like Google that alter the website to allow them to sell their advertisements on it. The crux of the problem with companies like Google that they can take another’s work and use it to sell advertisements to competitors. Google says that their customers want this, but they have failed to ask the websites’ owners. It is not harmless in what Google is doing, people devote both time and money to present their information in the manner they want, but Google is altering the style and structure of the website. I will give you an example that you can relate to. Going back to 2004, if I searched Google for John Kerry I would find websites for both your supporters and detractors, and this is what it should be, but if I was on to your website, I should reasonably expect to find your message unadulterated. But with Google the term swift boat would be tagged by them and I could see on your website advertisements for the Swift boat veterans for truth. Now I ask you is that fair or has your investment been compromised?
So to sum up my thoughts I would hope to see the following as a comprehensive bill to advance the internet.
1. Limited monopoly on ISP’s like Verizon, Cox Cable, TimeWarner, Comcast, etc.
2. Ability for companies and municipalities to act as an ISP provide free wireless access
3. Net Neutrality
4. Protection of outbound ISP’s from being a party to the initial lawsuits.
5. Protection of websites from alteration in both content and style by a third party.
Thank you for this opportunity to air my thoughts. Respectfully yours,
Theodore Moran, Partner and Chief Technology Officer
the ClearVoyager Corporation
“Visionaries of the design and delivery of efficient and adaptable virtual application development and testing platforms.”
US Office
167 Fort de France Avenue
Toms River, NJ 08757
908-420-0552
UK Office
9 Huckleberry Close
Barton Hills
Lutton LU3 4AN
44 1582 510 545
September 25th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
In a lot of countries that I have been to have free Wifi in parks and shopping centers. Even in Taipai there is a blanket of wifi for 7 miles throughout the downtown metro center and was growing. Imagine that free internet in NY City ALOT of people would get connected. I know the US has some of that but usually it is to encourage you to go to there shop but on a more powerful level would be fantastic.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
It is critical that all Americans have access to high speed internet. My daughter cannot afford to supply her home with internet service and she lives in adjusted income housing! Her daughters do not have the opportunity to do the research they need for school projects, she cannot take advantage of employment and education opportunities available. There were many promises made, but there has been no pressure from government to make the Internet available for everyone. It only helps to further divide us along economic lines. In cities where local government has tried to offer broadband service, phone and cable companies have spent $$$$$$ to stop them! Tells me, there’s a lot of money being made. I believe internet access should be made available like electricity…
September 25th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
I recently caught Hughes.net manipulating my usage to their benefit. I printed the sheets, got an update and 3 free months use. If they “fap” people, they cut their usage down to almost nothing. They do this to enough people, they can sell more space for people to join. Make more money.
At one point they gave me so much satellite space to use, the way I want to use it. Now I can’t, I get fapped…. They manipulte people.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
As I understand, efforts by cities like Philadelphia to create a municipal utility to provide free or low-cost broadband wireless to all their residents were made illegal in 2005 by Congress, at the urging of the usual suspects, like Verizon, ATT and Time-Warner.
Why can’t cities, towns and counties provide this service and reduce the inflated costs provided by private carriers? The spectrum belongs to us, and private companies should not have the right to monopolize it to themselves.
Other countries provide widespread cheap broadband access. Are we going to keep falling further behind in this technological area too?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
When did we start hearing about the problem of Internet neutrality? about the time of the ATT/SBC/Ameritech and GTE/Bell Atlantic mergers, which was also about the time that the FCC decided that broadband modems (that’s right, the modems themselves) were no longer part of a common carrier telephone system.
It all comes down to the wires. The Internet is not a cloud, it is data moving on wires (ok, there’s some wireless in there, but that’s basically a last-mile technology), and most of those wires are, or were, built with ratepayer money as part of the public switched telephone network. The telcos, with their armies of lawyers who pour out of the elevators every day at every state and federal regulatory agency across the country, have wrested access to these wires from the common carrier system, and deposited it instead in the virtually unregulated category of “information service.” That’s the trick. And with that, the way is free for the carriers to create “bottlenecks,” exact premium rates for what was normal carriage, and create a network of affiliated vendors who are all tithing to the mother church.
We need to return to common carrier principles, a network that’s “dumb in the middle.” This is how the Internet became what it is today.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Dear Senator Kerry:
Thank you! Please continue to help spur competition against big phone and cable companies.
I agree with you that “Restoring America as a Broadband Leader” will benefit the country as a whole.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:10 am
I am not competent to propose any ultimate answers, but I observe that the internet has completely changed the complexion of daily life, information, and commerce in its present form. For those who have access. This is potentially so fundamental a change in the economic and social structure of society, I can not accept that it might be relegated to private enterprise, nor stratified according to economic influence.
While it was a monopoly, the highly regulated telephone system in the last century did, in effect, make telephone service available to everyone and it became the equivalent to a “right” - no one was left out, and while some areas remained the equivalent of “oatmeal cans with strings” for a while, there was affordable access and it was not income dependent.
I agree with the concept of making internet access somewhat the equivalent of a utility, like water or electricity. While perhaps not completely true now, this is, in whatever form it takes, the infrastructure underlying the economy, information, social contact , and social evolution for the forseeable future. We are looking at 2040. It’s going to be pretty amazing. We need to lay the groundwork now.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Through the years, we have watched a number of media slide downhill. First it was AM radio which degenerated into a vast wasteland. Next it was FM radio which today, with very few exceptions, is well on its way down the same path. Both are profit-driven and hence meaningful or thoughtful content is of little value as it generally will not “turn-a-buck”. Neither of these have tumbled downward as fast as television whose content is obviously pointed at the mindless millions who dominate the ratings. After all ratings mean dollars. The printed media is no better as it comes more and more under the control of fewer and fewer individuals. In even our largest cities, many are a one newspaper entity. If you happen to agree with the political bent of the local paper, you are happy and everything you read is gospel. If you don’t the local written media is a vaccuum into which no air can be injected.
Please do what you can to keep and encourage a free voice and a free America which is not controllable by huge corporations or by any other power structure which seeks to enforce stifling control. Today the internet is the only frontier these forces have not yet controlled.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:44 am
At 68 years of age this republican became very unhappy with both the Dems and republicans. After a lot of searching, MoveOn has ultimately become my vehicle for pursueing reform and good governance. Key to the success MoveOn creates is the ability for grassroots organizations to have a voice, organize, raise money and takle action through the mass voice of the internet. Hence, congressional protection of netneutrality is a must, making available orphaned frequencies ( TV, radio, etc) for internet use and breaking up big-media monoplies are critical.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Dear Senator Kerry,
I sincerely hope you are able to make a difference on this issue. The United States is not currently leading the world in any really important area except perhaps military spending and exporting of weapons of destruction.
If we want to be world leaders we will have to get our act together and put an end to the system of government run entirely by moneyed interests who own both the Democratic and Republican parties.
We have to spend on infrastructure so our schools are adequate and our bridges don’t fall into the rivers. Our railways are badly in need of proper upkeep as well and yes, the internet in America is not as good as it is in many other countries and yes that is the direct result of letting it increasingly become a profit center for some at the expense of it being a powerful business and educational tool for all.
The issue being discussed here is a symptom only. I wish you well and support your efforts as I supported your candidacy.
Steve
September 26th, 2007 at 1:25 am
Hello, Sen. Kerry.
I have a brief anecdote. I sent a letter to my representative, Elton Gallegly (R-CA-24), outlining my concerns over this issue, as he has voted against the concept of network neutrality wherever possible in the past. I included sources where necessary to indicate I actually had some inkling of what I was talking about, but more importantly, to get a response out of him, as I’d love to see a general response to many of the points either of us have brought up. Of course, I received a form letter in return, as I was moderately confident I would, but–better yet–the form didn’t even get my position right! I guess even Gallegly’s assistants don’t give enough of a damn to put letters received about the issue in the right pile.
I get the feeling that many republicans like Gallegly don’t care about this issue–they brush it off as a purely economic one, allowing them to cache it in the schema of “no regulation, regulation = BAD”. This is not merely an economic issue–it’s a social one.
Some would go as far as to claim that it’s an extension of the polarization of rich and poor, and while I think that might be a bit drastic. However, it certainly seems more and more on-the-mark, with corporations like Verizon lobbying against free, municipal wi-fi for impoverished inner-city areas. This was apparently the case for inner Philadelphia in 2004–at the time, less than half the neighborhoods there even had internet services available–but then-mayor Ed Randell threw his telecom buddies a bone by signing into law a bill written almost entirely by Verizon.
They used, as justification, the argument that corporations shouldn’t have to compete with the government. This sounds reasonable, but what competition is there when the area’s primary ISP doesn’t even think it could see profit in laying down lines for poor areas? “We won’t give them access, but you can’t, either”? Is this selfishness or just hubris?
I have one more example. I used to be a subscriber to Adelphia, which Time-Warner-AOL and Comcast purchased/split the customers of after it was busted for… corruption? Anyway, the two purchasing companies purposely bought up plots of the former company’s customers in such a way that they could be sure they would never need to compete in those areas. While I suppose this is perfectly legal, it bothers me that we’ve reached a point where conglomerates seem to be competing with their customers’ ISP options more than they are with one another.
At any rate, I don’t think much of congress understands how important this is, and how important it’s going to become; it’s easier to toe the line on issues that could be perceived as economic. A jolt is needed, something to make them–mainly the republicans, to be blunt–understand just how abysmal an internet that goes the way of television could become.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:56 am
I agree with the idea that the Internet should be a utility, but I don’t think that goes far enough. The ideal situation would be to have free wireless available in homes and businesses (for those who choose it) and in public parks, buildings, and squares. Besides empowering people, this would be good for small businesses as it would allow anyone passing through town to sit down and look up what services are locally available. (This would be especially true if there could be specific local networks set up along with Internet access.)
Currently, however, the only access for people who can’t afford computers is in the libraries, which naturally sets up a conflict over resources, since libraries have so many other responsibilities. I would like to see independent public computing centers set up in a manner similar to, but independent from, libraries.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Senator Kerry,
We all know what the internet was and has become. Too many businesses seem to have their hands in it to keep it slow and out of reach to most people. By most people, I do refer to the lower income people. These are the grassroots of this country and should be getting their fair share.
The cost for access is unbeievably high compared to the cost of hardware and software which is already in place. A part if this is caused by monopolistic holds on public resources. The telephone poles which cable is attached to (as well as phone lines) are public utilities. Since returning to my home town a year ago, the number of internet/cable providers has gone from three to one. This media giant (TW) is gobbling up everyone, and charging whatever they want. I pay $29 for a medium speed internet connection. Dial-up is the cost of a phone line, but those are disappearing wherever cable is run. Our governor (Ohio) has recently signed legislation to force cable companies to provide access across the state.
There is talk of a new internet. This not only needed, but necessary. The type of functionality I have been seeing in thier “wish list” will end most of the spam and phish mongers. At the same time, speeds will increase dramatically. This is probably one of the most important features as we are twentieth in the world in high-speed broadband.
Yes Senator, I support you in bringing change to a system that was not designed to do as much as it does today. I implore you to push our leaders into the future, before it is too late. Please, make the information highway a reality not a side street.
Thank you, one of your supporters.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:11 am
I would like to see a stop to ISPs practice of throttling bandwidth for important technologies such as bit torrent and other P2P applications. They should also stop lying to their customers when they are asked about such practices. Many small business are built around these technologies, and by attempting to limit the flow of bandwidth, they are essentially hurting entrepreneurs in this country. They are not providing the service that their customers are paying good money for. We need to have a choice of using any ISP, so that we aren’t forced to use bad ones that don’t provide the service that we all need and pay for. Let’s open up the internet!
September 26th, 2007 at 2:16 am
I have a small business in rural Washington State on an island with a bridge. All cable stops on the mainland. I have dial-up. It is awful for me. I cannot load my website updates. I have to drive 8 miles to the mainland and use my laptop to update my site at a wireless spot at a local bakery. Therefore, I don’t do them as often as I am supposed to. With dial-up, I wait forever to download orders from the net and respond to customer’s email. I cannot download photos they send me. I wait and wait and waste so much time. Why can’t we have wifi max like they do in some third world countries? I understand their coverage is comparable to cell tower coverage.