Broadband to their neighborhoods
I'm opening this thread on both blogs to address an effort under way to permanently ban communities from creating their own communications infrastructures. You should expect comments from fellow readers shortly with more details. Our friends in Scottsburg can tell you all about it.
To prepare for it, just read this: Yet another state bought
And go here to let your legislators know how you feel about the idea:
http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/legislator/search/
FYI, here are the local members of the General Assembly and the state Senate
House 70 - Paul J. Robertson (Depauw)
House 71 - James L. Bottorff (Jeffersonville)
House 72 - William C. Cochran (New Albany)
House 66 - Terry Goodin (Crothersville)
House 73 - Dennie Oxley (English)
Senate 45 - James Lewis
Senate 46 - Connie Sipes
Senate 47 - Richard D. Young
The state Web site makes it tough to just e-mail a lawmaker, but they do provide a form so they can filter incoming e-mails. I, for one, would like to know how our lawmakers stand on this issue.
To prepare for it, just read this: Yet another state bought
And go here to let your legislators know how you feel about the idea:
http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/legislator/search/
FYI, here are the local members of the General Assembly and the state Senate
House 70 - Paul J. Robertson (Depauw)
House 71 - James L. Bottorff (Jeffersonville)
House 72 - William C. Cochran (New Albany)
House 66 - Terry Goodin (Crothersville)
House 73 - Dennie Oxley (English)
Senate 45 - James Lewis
Senate 46 - Connie Sipes
Senate 47 - Richard D. Young
The state Web site makes it tough to just e-mail a lawmaker, but they do provide a form so they can filter incoming e-mails. I, for one, would like to know how our lawmakers stand on this issue.
posted by All4Word at 7:33 PM
2 Comments:
As Randy has made you aware, the Indiana House is currently considering House Bill No. 1148.
http://www.ai.org/legislative/bills/2005/IN/IN1148.1.html
This bill would effectively ban Indiana municipalities from creating their own broadband networks.
It is my belief that this bill will harm, if not all together end, what may be the best and sometimes only viable chance that many Indiana communities have to further economic, educational, and democratic goals. What follows is an attempt to explain why this bill matters.
As the internet has taken hold in our society, its power as a tool of connection, education, and organization has become inarguably apparent to even the most techno phobic in our society. This blog and its increasing status as a community center for the sharing of ideas amongst otherwise disconnected citizens is a wonderful example.
The development of information and communication technologies - ICTs - has not come without costs, however. One of the most prevalent of those costs is the realization of the Digital Divide - the separation of those with access to ICTs and those without. Simply put, the advantages created by ICT access are not shared by the alarmingly large number of people who don't have that access, effectively making it even more difficult for the have-nots to succeed. The supposed reasons for this divide are numerous and include nearly every measurable socio-economic indicator such as income level, race and geographic location.
While great strides have been made to close that divide and the availability of dial-up internet access has increased dramatically, we've learned that access alone does not provide a level playing field. Recent studies have shown that the type of access is often a much more important factor in determining the advantages of ICT access than commonly believed. Since high-speed broadband users typically accomplish four more tasks online than dial-up users in the same amount of time (sevens tasks for broadband users as compared to three for dial-up), the divide is again increasing due to large geographic gaps in broadband service as currently provided by private sector telecommunications companies.
This is unfortunate and dangerous. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, projects that employment in digital media will grow at a rate of 30% or more by the year 2010—making it one of the fastest growing fields in the U.S. Local occupational outlook research conducted by KentuckianaWorks confirms that the highest local job growth will occur in areas related to information technology. A 2002 Brookings Institution study of the Greater Louisville area also strongly recommends that the area focus its efforts on attracting information-based industry to the region and suggests that area academic institutions must be able to supply these industries with highly skilled, technologically savvy graduates. None of this will be possible without the ICT infrastructure necessary to support this development - namely universally available high-speed internet access.
Participation in government, too, is affected by high-speed access. As eWeek columnist Rob Fixmer wrote in March of 2002, "Motivated by cost savings, environmental concerns and increased productivity, governments, from city halls to Congress and the White House, are relocating records, services and operations to cyberspace. Eventually, anyone who is limited to dial-up access will become a second-class citizen, an issue that will never be fully resolved until we all have fiber to our homes or wireless connectivity as ubiquitous as the air."
Fixmer goes further to suggest that "The basic problem is that we have yet to divorce service from infrastructure. The former is unquestionably a vital free-market bazaar, and it should remain so. But the latter is a community franchise. We would never consider allowing private companies to determine who gets sewers or roads because those infrastructures are clearly essential to everyone's well-being. Yet we seem content to let telephone and cable companies decide who gets high-speed access—and thus full participation in government, society and the economy."
And that's it in a nutshell. Internet access, particularly high-speed access, is still viewed as a luxury. It's not. It's a part of the infrastructure necessary for local development no different than any other municipally controlled resource. Roads allow us to get to jobs, school, and city hall. High-speed internet access allows us to work, learn, and perform our civic duties.
What House Bill no. 1148 proposes to do is to make it more difficult, if not impossible, for local municipalities to make the informed decision of investing in their own infrastructure without expressed permission from a multi-national corporation. Should a community decide to violate the resulting law, the bill provides legal standing for the corporation to collect damages - i.e. more tax dollars - from the community.
While the bill doesn't propose an outright ban, the legal standing granted to the private businesses in question could easily tie up the community's resources in court costs and legal fees, eventually costing the tax payers more than the broadband network itself.
Businesses that provide essential telecommunications services operate as a part of a public trust. They are allowed the privilege of operating what is still essentially a monopoly with no mandate for specific services in return for providing for the needs of a community. Should those businesses refuse to provide for those needs in a cost-effective, universally accessible manner, we must reconsider our willingness to continue the privilege. If Verizon doesn't like competition from Scottsburg, perhaps we should see how they like it from other major telcos, especially when any change of service is subject to the same type of public hearing that this bill would thrust upon municipalities.
Please contact your respective lawmakers and instruct them to vote against this bill. Your community's ability to make decisions locally and fully develop its potential is at stake.
Food for thought:
According to the Institute On Money In State Politics, a national nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tracks such things, telephone utilities, cable companies, and telecommunication services companies donated $363,416 to Indiana state politcal campaigns in 2002. The 2004 numbers are only 65% complete, but the same industries already account for $152,950 in contributions.
Interestingly enough, the sponsors of the bill, Jack Lutz(R), Erich Koch(R) and Ed Mahern(D), all received contributions from those industries.
Lutz and Koch received contributions from SBC and AT&T. Mahern got support from Sprint.
These numbers only reflect direct campaign contributions. They do not account for any of the money spent on lobbying efforts.
Post a Comment
<< Home