We have Big Media to thank for saving Americans from themselves. Just as the notion of affordable broadband for all was beginning to take hold in towns and cities across the country, the patriots at Verizon, Qwest, Comcast, Bell South and SBC Communications have created legislation that will stop the creeping socialism of broadband community Internet before it invades our… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (33)Page 1 of 1 pagesGee...you mean we don’t live in a democracy??!?!
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Apr 18, 2005 at 8:34 AM I find it incredible that the employees of these companies,i.e. Verizon, Qwest, TimeWarner, don’t speak up in outrage against this. I believe we’re talking tens of thousands of people here, and their own employers are sticking them with higher user fees.
Posted by Randy on Apr 18, 2005 at 9:42 AM Is internet access really a “21st century right”?
Is TV? Cable? Having a computer? A car? A second car? Eating out twice a week? What are our rights? And as technology advances, what do we think they will become?
The problem with the US (and most of the developed world, for that matter) is consumerism. The constant need to have the next thing. We would all be better off learning to live with less, rather than forcing our consumer desires to be subsidized by the government, expecially inefficently.
So, for those who cannot afford internet access (and the computer!) why not just use library internet connections?
Posted by Tammy on Apr 18, 2005 at 12:16 PM Gee, used to be the airwaves were the PUBLIC’S property...you know...public domain...remember that concept...oh I forgot we’re in the hands of the capitalists now. Corporate profit and all that “good for America” stuff. How so 1970s of me.
My bad. Carry on.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Apr 18, 2005 at 1:23 PM Tammy,You’re missing the point.It isn’t a matter of the technology,it’s a matter of accessing the information,period.The internet has turned into what it is because it’s free and available to all.now,corporations want to control,and subsequently restrict that.
Regarding the idea we have to live with less,many of us do.I would love to be able to
have a computer at home rather than using one at work or at a library.I don’t have cable,and eat out maybe once a month,and don’t have a second car.All this with a teaching position.
The right goes insane when they are told what they can have,like tax money,especially when that money goes to the poor.When Crater said they would have to make do with less,republicans gave us Reagan and eight years of hog-fest.Yet,under your thin veil of social Darwinism,you’re telling us we are wrong to want more out of life?How about switching on you TV and taking a look at the nonstop propaganda that tells us to want more,controlled by right-wing corporate interests,I might add.By the way,libraries are subsidized by the government,at least they will be until corporations privatize and expurgate them.
Posted by wwoods on Apr 19, 2005 at 8:03 AM At issue here is huge corporations using their financial influence to get laws passed limiting that same “free-enterprise” system they claim to be a part of. It is not the government’s purpose to guarantee a profit to corporate America. Market forces should be driving costs down, not up.
Posted by Randy on Apr 19, 2005 at 8:43 AM Is internet access really a “21st century right”?
Only if we make it that. We have the opportunity to wrestle the tools of the Digital Age away from the private sector, but we don’t have to. So far, most folks are like Tammy, assume New Age devices such as Internet and cars are “consumer” products that are not part of the productive forces.
Tammy reveals her ingnorance of WI-FI and utilities in general. Utilities, such as water and street lighting are EXTREMELY efficient!! The more people use street lighting, the less it costs and the more it improves lives. Tammy, when was the last time you complained of your inefficient sewer pipes because they weren’t accepting your waste?
We can pass this historical moment by, but I’m not going to. I am shaping the 21st century to meet human needs - and accessing the vast humanity that is the Internet can become a human need soon.
Tammy thinks access to clean water, uncontaminated food, and healthcare are human needs. They became one because we took the opportunity to make them that!
Posted by Donna Conroy on Apr 19, 2005 at 10:12 AM This looks like another side of what’s been the problem all along. Corporations have all but taken over our democracy and the people more and more have no say. It begs the question already with a patent (untrue) answer of who handles services like this better, private business or government? Its been drilled into our heads since Reagan that the free market capitalists can make things better and cheaper, but have our phone bills become more affordable after deregulating the phone industry? Here in Montana we get greedy electricity bills to replace what was an affordable State Utility Industry a few years ago. Californians may have some insight into whether or not private industry can provide utility services at a better cost and with more efficiency than the State. I think we’ve been mislead into collectively believing in the same corporate forces who are turning around and screwing us while at the same time turning America into Hitler’s plan B. This issue is handy in that it provides the people of America with a battle to fight and win in the slow return to sensible government that doesn’t strip itself of responsibility for its people so it can be owned by greedy rich corporations that are not out to make the world better for anybody but themselves.
Posted by Davol White on Apr 19, 2005 at 10:47 AM This situation is typical of the mentality that says that government is obsolete and that business can run the country. Of course they can, and citizens become little profit streams to fill the corporate coffers. While government by and for the enrichment of corporate interests is great for the bottom line, our country suffers and falls further behind less enlightened countries, where government still serves the public interest.
Posted by Tom Baker on Apr 19, 2005 at 11:54 AM What did Eisenhower warn about the military-industrial complex...and was his only error in his ability to underestimate the problem?
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Apr 19, 2005 at 1:39 PM Those who are so paranoid about creeping socialism usually fail to acknowledge that our country already has quite a bit of socialism and that those services which are provided are highly valued. The fact that demagogues and xenophobes and corporate toadies can conflate socialism with communism (for just the past, oh, sixty years or so) is a testament to the ignorance of the populace and the unscrupulousness of the corporate shills (including countless politicians).
Those who profess such a concern for the free market and who abhor giving everything to people should remember that even if wireless access were cheap (or free), people would still have to buy their computers to use it. Unless, of course, you get a free one like France was doing with the minitel system way back about fifteen years ago (don’t know where that program is now). At the time I had moved to France and when I went in to sign up for phone service they gave me a little computer instead of a phone book. No charge! Besides allowing me to look up numbers all over Europe, you could shop on it as well. And this was fourteen years ago, when the majority of Americans hadn’t even heard of the internet. When I told my French friends that the States had nothing even close to that, they were incredulous. Surely the Americans must be on the cutting edge of such things.
Guess again!
Posted by President Lindsay on Apr 19, 2005 at 2:14 PM Why do we tolerate this?
Democracy is for humans only. That means corporations should have no First Amendment protections. Without First Amendment protection a
corporation would not be permitted to dictate legislation. Without First Amendment protections corporations could be prevented from providing any material goods or services to politicians.There is no such thing as a benign corporation.
Verizon, Qwest, Comcast, Bell South and SBC are doing what comes naturally. They cannot help themselves.
So kill ‘em all. Define them out of their predatory existence.
Posted by torell on Apr 19, 2005 at 3:21 PM Personally I think Tammy is right on. Donna should check her spelling before she calls someone else “ignorant”. I think as a country there are other, more important problems we face. Public wi-fi is not one of them. Our utilities are efficient? I doubt that. Not near as efficient as they can and should be. Burning coal to produce electricity doesn’t seem a viable means. Anyone remember the blackout in the north east? Yeah, high quality infrastructure there boy! I think we should improve things we already have...especially with today’s terrorism. And then you talk about about food and health care being “human needs”...well, yeah, and I pay for it. And if you don’t pay for it, somehow I think my tax dollars have you covered.
This was an interesting article. Personally though this is a waste of time. If you can’t afford things, do without or get an extra job to pay for it. How is making Philly a “hot spot” going to REALLY improve EVERYONE’s life there? Ever price the cost of a wireless network card? What good does wi-fi do if you can’t afford a laptop? Are tax payers supposed to supply that for these people? As if listening to someone else’s cell phone conversation in a restaurant isn’t enough. Now you want me to hear someone pounding away on a keyboard everywhere I go? If a wi-fi connection is so essential to someone, I have a good idea they have the means to afford it…
And on a final note, every article and post on this website reverts back to the same things...corporate greed and nefarious politicians...two biproducts of so called democracy...whether you like it or not.
Posted by Brett on Apr 19, 2005 at 3:41 PM Oh, and the above doesn’t even cover the network security concerns I’d have over something like this! I might install a wireless network in my home or office, but I would NOT trust public hot spots for my connection. Would you?
Posted by Brett on Apr 19, 2005 at 3:45 PM Obviously, Brett and I did not read the same article. Hardly anything benefits EVERYONE (capitalized for Brett’s benefit). Just a couple of things. Where did you get the idea a laptop was required for wireless? And wireless cards can be purchased for as low as $14. Brett, glibness is not a substitute for intelligence. Run for political office - you appear to have at least one necessary qualification. Did you notice every word is spelled correctly?
Posted by Herm Hohansen on Apr 19, 2005 at 5:51 PM Brett - corporate greed and nefarious politicians are not the product of our “so-called democracy” (right about that part). They’re the product of avaricious assholes that care only about the bottom line. And we CAN shut their asses down.
Posted by Tony on Apr 19, 2005 at 8:00 PM i live in philly, and i don’t really know if this is a great idea or not. access is expected to cost approx. $20 per month, which while certainly better than what i currently pay for cable, is a far cry from free (or paid by my taxes) as it was originally advertised. again, this may be better or worse for the user, but i don’t really have access to all the numbers. the point is that if a community wants to give it a try, they should in no way be prevented from doing so by corporate influence at a higher level of government. if a community decides that it doesn’t want to take the risk of this turning into a technological boondoggle, then that community doesn’t have to. they have the option to continue to depend on corporate providers. yay - choice!
Posted by hobomike on Apr 20, 2005 at 6:09 AM Herm, if I appear glib to you, then perhaps it is because I’m just not feeling this whole issue. It shouldn’t be an issue...it seems stupid to me and maybe that forces me to be insincere on the subject. There are more important things out there to be addressed. Things that could benefit more people or at least benefit the ones that need it the most. I thought this was a liberal website...maybe it is run by a bunch of yuppies too concerned about not getting to punch their clown while they drive around in their Lexus.
Why would you want a wireless card for a PC? Are you going to lug that thing around with you? The whole idea of wi-fi seems to me to be mobility. With wireless you don’t get the same speed...so why use it unless it is for a mobile device? And if you spend $14 dollars for a wireless card, I’m sure that is exactly what you are getting.
Look, I can totally understand the need for some wireless networks and hot spots in public places for commuters and the like. But why an entire city? Why government run? And if you are bitching about the cost, don’t buy into it and find another means.
What I’m saying is there are more important things. Things we have now that need upgraded.
Posted by Brett on Apr 20, 2005 at 12:05 PM Public Wi-Fi is NOT a basic right or necessity on the level of other public utilities. HOWEVER, it is also not the sole domain of the corporate telecom entities. While creating vast public networks does not need to be a priority, it most certainly should be an option for those cities or small communities which choose to adopt such an idea. The biggest point in the argument, I believe, is that there should NOT be laws created by or influenced by the corporations that would restrict the ability to create public networks, should the citizenry support their creation.
Posted by Jason on Apr 20, 2005 at 2:18 PM A few points. The internet MAKES govt more efficient therefore saving taxpayers money, once the initial investment is put in. Having local or state information posted , minutes from meetings, announcements, means people dont have to call or even burn gas driving wherever to get this information. It makes it easier for people to find jobs, allows them to be more involved in local govt issues by giving them much easier access to information, etc. as for speed , in response to Bretts assertion that wireless is slower, normal ethernet was 10 Mbps, while the standard now is 100 Mbps. These speeds apply across the hardwired network, but in internet connection from a cable company is at most 4Mbps around here. the cheaper wireless b standard is 5.5-11 Mbps, still faster than the internet connection, so totally irrelevant. the wireless g standard is up to 54Mbps. i am submitting this over wireless b as we speak, and am limited by the speed of my cable connection, not the wireless network in my home. Further, these pro-free market companies, and CATO also, are being hypocritics. Efficient free markets require consumers or whoever else to have information! markets are very inefficient when all the actors involved do not have the required information, i.e. prices, etc. This itself is a field of economic study, the impact of information efficiency on markets.
Posted by cdub on Apr 20, 2005 at 2:58 PM One point that we may be overlooking:
This is a revenue source for local governments. Allowing local governments to provide this service puts govenment in direct competition with the private sector. I think this is a good thing, both for residents and for government. The private sector never wants to compete with a larger, more capable organization. In addition, the private sector usually wants to starve government from revenue. So there are broader, more philsophical and political issues at play here.
Posted by Donna Conroy on Apr 20, 2005 at 4:26 PM Brett and Tammy are ignoring the clear advantages and willfully or not are in complete denial over the greater efficiencies of government run utilities, public utilities, and the gross inefficiencies of the private utilities system. Enron is a case in point, where they create a “market failure” by gaming the system in their favor. Social Security is so efficient that less than 5% goes to overhead, while the various Wall Street plans and private retirement systems drain 30-40 percent as management fees, overhead, and so on. Free or inexpensive metered wi-fi serves the public good and democratizes access to information much as libraries did in past centuries.
Posted by bigfoot on Apr 20, 2005 at 6:26 PM “Gee, used to be the airwaves were the PUBLIC’S property...you know...public domain...remember that concept...oh I forgot we’re in the hands of the capitalists now. Corporate profit and all that “good for America” stuff. How so 1970s of me.
My bad. Carry on.”
Haven’t you heard, Bush is converting the US into an “ownership society.” That means everything will be privately owned. And that means everything is for sale. The entire US, converted into a giant whorehouse.
As for private utilities, worked out great for California didn’t it.
Posted by Lefty on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:14 AM Seems corporate America can legislate corporate government to do whatever it wants done. Wonder which corporations we’ll have to choose from next “election”.
Posted by theloneous on Apr 21, 2005 at 1:56 PM I haven’t read all of the responses in detail but here is a thought: the “internet” was developed (in part) by the U.S. military, which basically means through U.S. tax dollars. Has anyone addressed corporate welfare here? Can anyone provide me with data on how much money was invested by the U.S. government(including Defense Departments)or state governments in developing the internet compared to the private sector? In addition,corporate control of the internet will likely result in the end of one of the only democratic means of sharing information we still have-this is a serious matter unless you prefer facism over democracy.
Posted by Emily on Apr 21, 2005 at 11:19 PM Unless more of us wake up, and soon, it won’t matter what we prefer. It’s clear the fascists prefer fascism over democracy!
The merger of [corporate] media and the government is the best, most blatant example of creeping fascism (corporatism).
That’s why no one has ever even hear of this or this, or even wondered why no one’s ever questioned it…
Sadly, democracies slide into fascism, but they never slide back out.
Posted by blimp pilot on Apr 22, 2005 at 7:38 PM Gee, Brett. You missed Tammy’s errant spelling, griped about someone else’s, THEN proceeded to spell BYPRODUCTS or BY-PRODUCTS incorrectly. That one guy was right, you’ve got political ability. In the sense that you have selective memory. DOOSHBAGG.
Posted by orchaostrator on Apr 23, 2005 at 12:20 AM There’s something hinted at in these comments, and I’d like to solidify it a bit. To do so, I frequently use this little riddle:
My dad was one of the original investors in Internet technology. Question: Do you know how he he was lucky enough to get in on the ground floor?
Answer: He came back from WWII, got a job, and started paying income taxes.
The NSF sold off the Internet in the ‘80s, after the essential infrastruture (mainly protocols) was established. Can we now say that the private sector has done adequate R&D;investment and deployment to the point where the filching back of public sector bandwidth is an act of bad faith against the private sector model? What I’m saying is that the public sector developed the Internet, then gave it away to private interests. Well, that was a while ago; the private sector has done significant research and enhancements to the throughput of the system, though better packet handling technologies and ever-increasing bandwidth media. While the private interests did this in the shadows of the seminal public research (and pitifully few people are aware of that; thanks to creeps like the PR hyenas hired by Gates during the mSoft anti-trust suits), what we have to ask is whether the private sector has gotten properly out of that shadow yet; if they actually has large enough investments in infrastructure that attempts to “socialize” these assets is a perhaps a bit...confiscatory at this stage in the game. To use the parlance of the ‘60s era revolutionaries, “we’re not ‘confiscating’ this; we’re ‘liberating’ it, comrade!”
Before you give the kneejerk response that these private interests can be depended upon to screw the public, just a reminder that an honest, unbiased analysis of the situation may, in fact, reveal that they once again show themselves to be *quite* dependable in that regard. If that’s so, then I have no problem with gov’t overview to curb outright abuses; something you have with “privately” managed utilities of all kinds.
Posted by Ron Zajac on Apr 24, 2005 at 12:48 AM Addressing one of the posts above: the electrical blackout occurred BECAUSE of the neglect, by corporate interests, of the infrastructure, which followed upon the “deregulation” of utilities. This was a corporate cause, not one of “public utilities”.
Better access to unlimited, uncensored, uncorporatized worldwide information should be considered as a needed and valuable public asset, not a corporate asset. There is no need for the profit margin to suck profits out of the information first before we get to it.
Even WITH such public access to broadband, I would still have an account, with webpage, through Zianet.com for which I would continue then, to be paying a monthly fee to a private enterprise. Others would still have their hotmail and yahoo, etc., accounts, some of them the freebies, some with more storage and other bennies through paid accounts. It would be a matter of choice. Free choice.
Remember when the phone co. used to charge more for more than one phone in the house? Did it cost THEM anything for anyone to have more than one phone? (NO!) Once phones were freely and commonly available for public purchase (like computers are.....), instead of obtaining them from the phone co., this extra, unneccessary, unearned profit could no longer be sustained. (In the 50’s and 60’s, only ‘more affluent’ households had more than one phone-- it was like a status symbol!) It was ‘thought’ that only Ma Bell could produce ‘good enough’ telephones!
The access itself should be provided as a public utility, the corporations should only profit by convincing people they can provide added “valuable” services that would be worth a monthly fee. With better (faster) public access freely available, so would be the corporate access to profiting from the public more freely available, in each way that corporate interests convince the public that the services they can add to the internet experience are worth the fees that they will charge.
With faster public access, the webpages that the corporates can build will load better and faster.....! They will, though, have to compete with ‘ordinary’ folks who can ALSO build webpages. (They must think THIS to be terribly unfair!)
If one had no access to a grocery store, one would have to pay someone, in addition to the cost of the groceries, to deliver them. The charge would be MORE than the cost of the gas to drive oneself there; it would include the gas, time and wage of the delivery person, plus some profit for the service provided… This would mean that the groceries would COST MORE than if one could simply go get them oneself. The delivery person does NOT improve the quality of the groceries, can in fact smash the bread, PLUS, one is not apt to buy those ‘on impulse’ things one WOULD have been likely to pick up while walking the aisles, or standing in the checkout lane. The grocery store chains profit much more with free access to their stores than they would if people could not freely get TO the stores and walk the aisles. They have enticements sticking out all over the aisles that get people to buy more than they would have thought to buy if they hadn’t had the free access that enables one to walk the aisles with a grocery cart. Corporations profit from the internet likewise, they do not need to profit otherwise by insisting on extra, unearned profits for the access. At LEAST, with grocery delivery one is paying for something besides totally unnecessary and UNEARNED profit, and one can choose delivery, OR go to the store oneself!
Posted by G Achin on Apr 29, 2005 at 12:52 AM Love the debate! This is the opposite of passively watching corporate-sponsored TV programs with government press releases passing for news.
One tiny point: Can you imagine how little time you would have in your day if everyone had to go to a library for internet service? Can you imagine the additions libraries would have to build in order to house all the people waiting in line, who might otherwise block sidewalks and streets?
Posted by Diana Morley on Apr 30, 2005 at 12:18 PM There is a clear advantage to providing broadband service for everyone - mainly keeping up with technology. A child raised with a computer used daily by everyone in the family is going to view computers far differently than one who isn’t.
I think we are already witnessing a great divide when it comes to informational access. After all, a half of the country still thinks 9/11 has something to do with Irag and the other half ... well, they just got to watch them cheat.
Posted by aikanae on May 1, 2005 at 9:44 PM Useful topic
Thanks
I have found two interesting sources http://fileshunt.com and http://filesfinds.com and would like to give the benefit of my experience to you.
Posted by Natasha on Jun 2, 2008 at 8:51 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Timothy Karr
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
