Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Digital Dreams
Even though we are a primarily paper-and-ink product, we also recognize the growing importance of the Internet.
We've written often in this space about the future of Vermont's economy and how it is tied to increased high-speed broadband Internet access. However, it is becoming clear that the dream of universal access in Vermont, and other rural areas of the United States, is just that -- a dream.
The digital divide is alive and well. According to a recent analysis by the nonprofit media reform group Free Press, only 35 percent of U.S. homes with less than $50,000 annual income have a high-speed Internet connection.
That's because broadband access is in the hands of the cable and phone company duopoly, which controls access to 98 percent of the U.S. online market. It is why Americans pay more and get less than what is available in the rest of the developed world.
It should be a national embarrassment that the United States ranks 22nd in the world when it comes to affordable high-speed Internet, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. It should be a national embarrassment that the United States has dropped from No. 4 in 2001 to No. 15 in 2007 for broadband penetration.
This imbalance is taking its toll economically. A Brookings Institution study found that nearly 300,000 new American jobs are created for every 1 percent increase in national broadband penetration.
We are falling behind because of a conscious choice made by policymakers on both the state and federal levels -- let the free market work its magic and everything will be fine. It is why the Douglas administration still thinks that $40 million will be enough to make Vermont an "e-state" by 2010.
But there is no free market in telecommunications. The phone and cable companies control the market and vigorously lobby lawmakers at every level of government to force through regulations that protect their market position, close off access to new technology and competitors and increase control over the content that travels over the Internet.
The countries that have moved ahead of the United States in telecommunications have also made a conscious choice -- to enact policies to encourage universal, open access.
For example, Japan in 2000 had the same problems as our nation -- an Internet industry controlled by a handful of gatekeepers that blocked innovation. Japan's response was to create a highly competitive private sector that did away with proprietary networks. Every phone company had to open their residential lines to wholesale access by other companies. The result was broadband access went from 2.2 percent in 2001 to more than 80 percent by 2004 and nearly every resident today.
While Vermonters struggle to get 1 megabit services, other nations are busy building 100 megabit networks that will transport voice, video and other data at speeds unimaginable to current American Internet users. And both Free Press and the OECD found that countries that have universal and open access policies, like Japan's, have nearly twice the levels of broadband penetration than those who do not.
From rural electrification to the construction of the Interstate Highway System, it has taken a combination of bold and creative political leadership and government money to create the public infrastructure needed for economic growth. The need for a fast, affordable and open Internet is clear, but neither Montpelier nor Washington has a plan or the leadership to do it.
While our international competitors have created this infrastructure, our political leaders seem content to leave America as a digital backwater. This is not acceptable. We need a national broadband policy that will erase the digital divide, foster innovation and create a telecommunication network that's second to none.
It will take a combination of business and government, with plenty of public imput, to accomplish this job, particularly in rural areas such as Vermont. The time to begin is now.
©2008 Brattleboro Reformer
17 Comments so far
Show All"From rural electrification to the construction of The Interstate Highway System"- author's comment,
"Government must lead the way and set the limits---or you're not proud of the results" - MY comment.
This is why I have become a shameless LIBERAL, and moreso as I get older. This article and issue is another example.
Health care by corporations is yet another, and a bigger one, where other countries do it better than we do.
The "free market solves all" is a load of crap and you'd think we would have learned so in the Gilded Age. So, realize that Democrats, while not perfect, are the only viable path you have to liberalism in this country, and VOTE FOR THEM. Much has been lost in the mistaken years of Reagan and two Bushes. This is your year for the start of serious turnaround---NOT your year to pine for ole Ralph.
All the MORE reason to vote for Ralph.
Vermont has some more serious problems than the lack of high speed broadband. Other issues that should have a higher priority are the lack of health care, the crisis in dental care, homelessness, the predicted deaths in the up-coming winter due to lack of access to heating oil, poverty, racism, spousal abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, and cronyism in the judicial system - to name just a few. If things don't improve, justice in Vermont will be as rare as a lilac blossom in February.
Make Ralph Obama's Attorney General. Don't make McPain President.
Yo Daniel FUCKING David,
Guess who passed the 1996 Telecom De-Reg bill ? It was the FUCKING Democrats along with the GOP !! To hell with both the Democrats and Republicans. 3rd and/or Independent parties are long overdue !
Wow, I know about this. The choice I have for high speed internet are satellite or DSL by Centurytel the worst phone company in America. The only way that phone service here has been deregulated is in long distance. I am paying for 1.5 Mbs. I have yet to see that speed - most of the time it is much slower.
Yo F-word Johnson:
Who was in charge of both houses of congress in 1996? Oh yeah, the Republicans. Who stopped them? The Greens! --oh, wait, that didn't happen. Umm, Ralph Nader! Oh, umm, not him either. But if we keep hoping and wishing, we can --umm, well, that part's not too clear. But keep wishing and hoping, and help Republicans win!
thanks kitty_TC,
Frederick is pretty far over the edge, as becomes more apparent each time he posts.
kitty_TC
This is getting tiresome. It is just as accurate to say that Gore prevented Nader's chance of winning the 2000 election. In fact if more voters were informed and fewer voters relied on corporate media to tell them whom to vote for Nader might well have won.
Why not have a consumer advocate for president. We've tried corporate advocates for 28 years and how is tha working out?
When we we admit that Nader had nothing at all to do with the Bush "victory" in 2000 and had everything to do with VWI (voting while ignorant).
More Americans should see the rankings mentioned in the article (and numerous others, about education, infant mortality, etc). Maybe it'd teach us a little humility. As it stands we're like the fat lazy rich kid on the soccer team, who has all the best equipment but sucks at it. But no one says anything because his dad's the coach. And the parent's don't complain because the coach is also the mayor. And he got to be mayor because years ago he got lucky and hit the lotto just when the local factory closed up and layed everyone else off. (Yes, that's analogy to our involvement in WW2).
Live in Florida
Voted for Nader in 2000
Did not turn out well. Voting for a third party candidate will only be a viable option when that candidate has a realistic chance of winning. We live in a flawed, economically motivated, democratic republic. Voting for the lesser of evils is a reality.
"Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - Ambrose Bierce
While I agree with Rosemarie above that Vermont, like everyone else, has problems, I would dare to say, as another Vermonter, that there is no where within the United States where I want to, or would live. If you think there is an absence of social safety nets in Vermont, then try living somewhere else in the USA. At least every child under the age of 18 is health care insured in Vermont. I think Rosemarie misses the point when she says, "Vermont has some more serious problems than the lack of high speed broadband." While this is true, having a decent paying telecommuting job (which I have had) goes a long way in making dental and medical care affordable. In my case, it even provided a job with health insurance. As the Brattleboro article suggests, a decent paying telecommuting job is difficult to get using dial-up that ties up a person's phone requiring them to a get another line in order to have voice communications simultaneously. People fail to see that when working on-line that Broadband is not that more expensive than two phone lines one for data and one for voice. Often, Broadband is cheaper. Let's not miss the bigger picture of good paying on-line jobs in our attempts of criticizing other failures of the State. Broadband offers access to telecommuting jobs. Look at the countries in Europe that have mixed capitalist and socialist economies. And look at how Broadband and mobile Internet access contribute to their standards of living.
_
"Voting for a third party candidate will only be a viable option when that candidate has a realistic chance of winning. " No. No. NO. NO! This is simplistic thinking. Winning is not the issue. Look up the impact of Eugene Debs 3rd party run for prez, and that of Norma Thomas. Neither had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but many of their ideas and platforms were adopted by the major parties because the parties needed those people's votes. Why is it so friggin' hard to understand this? As an example, if 15% of the public abandon Obama for Ralph Nader's single payer universal health care and Obama realizes that because of this issue he is going to LOSE, how do you think his position might change? See? This is not rocket science. But it does take critical thinking and breaking the monopolistic two-party strangehold. Run. Ralph. Run!
The Repug website bombers are outnumbering us CD'ers.
Perhaps by calling free thinkers, third party folk, independent progressives, etc., "Republicans" you are dooming your candidate, Obama, to the dustbin of history. Trust me. I was a life-long Democrat with two lifetime union parents, one a shop stewart. I am a member of two unions and my wife also a member of two unions. We are as working class and progressive as any Democrat would like to be, but you Obama-my-party-ites uber Alles, by insulting us for supporting Ralph Nader, are making it easy to hate the Democratic Party. Keep it up. It's good for your Party, isn't it? What is a CD'er by the way? Are you suggesting that Common Dreams is a Democratic Party front group? If that is what you are doing then I agree with you.
timebiter, we will never see a third party candidate have a realistic chance of being offered as a viable option. The two party system is run by people with all the money and they have a real vested interest in keeping a third candidate out.
That will not change unless WE THE PEOPLE step up and voice our opinions and vote en masse for a third party candidate, whether it be Ralph or Cynthia.
Stop waiting for our "leaders" to provide us the option and take it for ourselves.
"When the people lead, the leaders follow". That has always been the case as in woman suffrage, civil rights, getting 18 year olds the right to vote (they can die and kill at that age), ending the Vietnam war, etc. That is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Obama candidacy, the savior aspect of it.
Corruption in every area of the government and big business has lost the American way of life. And things all around have bee corrupt for years. The average citizen in America will have nothing to look forward to but unemployment, lack of affordable medican care, homelessness, and el. And now the corruption of our Constitution. Maybe we would be better off if another country took over because our Congress is a disgrace.