Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Broadband Roadmap
In a Saturday morning YouTube address, President-elect Barack Obama gave the nation a first glimpse at his administration's stimulus plan - and connecting everyone to the Internet was a main route on his roadmap to economic recovery.
"Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they'll get that chance when I'm President," he said. "Because that's how we'll strengthen America's competitiveness in the world."
That closing the digital divide ranks so highly on Obama's economic agenda might come as a surprise to some.
| Obama: "Every child should have a chance to get online" |
And it is not merely a matter of national pride. Getting more people connected is an issue with life-or-death consequences. Just 24 hours before Obama's speech, the U.S. Labor Department released figures showing an alarming unemployment rate of 6.7 percent. More than 533,000 jobs were lost November alone -- the worst job loss in 34 years.
The Internet could prove to be our path to economic salvation. A 2007 study by the Brookings Institution and MIT found that a one-digit increase in U.S. per-capita broadband penetration equates to an additional American 300,000 jobs. If our broadband penetration were as high as a country like Denmark, for example, we could expect more than 3 million additional jobs in America.
Making Good
In making this pledge to connect everyone, Obama has bravely stepped into an Internet void left by his predecessor. Over the past eight years, the United States has fallen from fourth to 15th in the world in terms of high-speed Internet adoption. More than 40 percent of American homes are not connected to high-speed Internet services.
The Bush administration has been in the habit of making high-minded promises about the Internet while delivering massive handouts to the cable and phone giants who seem more interested in padding profits than building out connections to those who need them most.
In his Saturday address, Obama promised to install computers in classrooms and extend high-speed Internet to underserved areas. These goals echo those expressed by candidate Obama on the trail in 2008 and on his transition Web site www.change.gov.
President Bush made a similar sounding pledge in 2004 without delivering. The challenge for Obama -- and all of us -- is to dig into the details and really get the work done.
Lighting the Way
At Free Press, we have some ideas. Our policy shop just released a guide to media reform for the new administration and Congress, which can help forge a path to a better Internet.
The document calls upon the next Federal Communications Commission to set new speed standards for broadband; collect meaningful data on deployment; transition the Universal Service Fund toward digital infrastructure; and open networks to stimulate broadband competition.
Reforming the ways we allocate spectrum for Internet use is also a centerpiece. New ideas about sharing vacant airwaves and prying open existing networks are a top job. With more Americans using cell phones than the Internet, we need to make sure that our evolving mobile experience includes an open Internet as much as possible.
The Free Press document urges the new administration to lay the groundwork in Congress for new telecommunications law that recognizes the growing convergence of communications platforms.
"The existing statutes were designed for a bygone era -- when different services and technologies had different regulatory frameworks," it states. "Now we are in the era ... where virtually all media and communications move on the same digital networks. The law must catch up with technology and the market."
Internet for Everyone
Obama seems to get it more than his predecessor, and his screen-side chat strikes a hopeful note.
Sadly, there is still a huge mass of Americans who couldn't get online to hear it.
On the same day of Obama's YouTube pledge, InternetforEveryone.org -- a broad-based initiative to connect every American to a fast, open and affordable Internet -- had its first interactive town hall meeting to address this problem.
Hundreds gathered in Los Angeles to discuss ways to close the digital divide. This discussion will be combined with feedback from upcoming town hall meetings and delivered to the Obama administration and Congress as a tangible plan of action.
Obama is going to need to listen to those beyond the Beltway to best build a better Internet for everyone.
His pledge gives us the chance to have a long overdue public conversation about what the future of the Internet should look like. This is where the rubber meets the road on the information superhighway -- and it's Obama's best chance to deliver on his promises of change for millions.
- Posted in
12 Comments so far
Show AllWhile internet access has relative value to those who can afford its advantages, in a world beholden to a global economy, it will do nothing better than perpetrate the means for mass control of consumption and thought. This article is written by someone who has everything to gain from promoting such propaganda, and sounds more like a plan to "gather the geese" for slaughter more than a plan to help people achieve sustainability in their communities. More computers = greater environmental devastation, less contact with the real world and real people, and less time spent addressing the very threats that centralized communications have abetted in the ravaging of the planet for economic gain. It will do no more to save the Earth from a species run amok than has the internal combustion engine, and all this blather about economic development is a distraction from what humanity really needs to achieve: a down-sizing of its population and its expectations of wealth and economic prosperity. The only prosperity that will mean much at all in a few years is ecological health. Shills who continue to promote economic growth under the guise of social welfare or individual benefit are charlatans and deceivers, and continue to lead astray the flock for the prosperity of but a few.
Sioux
SAND FLEA: Exceptionally wise points, well stated. (I had the same feeling about this article. Seems the more people focus on-line, the less humanity we see in our nation's global policies. The military uses the Internet or related computer technology to simulate war strategies, and lots of young people shoot human beings down as if they are just playing another cyber game. SICKENING.)
I'm not sure that the internet is just another form of "centralized communication". The real value of the internet is its de-centralized aspect. Education can do a lot to "save the Earth from a species run amok" and information is necessary for education.
I agree with all your other points...
LB Speck
Sorry disagree with you folks. Not broadband (incorrect term) but high speed internet is a communication device for bringing the community together. In rural Maine would you have a person drive for 20 miles to shop? Or shop on line? Would you have an older person use an ambulance every time their hearth rhythm changes or hook up a heart monitor at home and email hospital and video conference with their doctor? More news came out of Mumbai via twitter than the coverage of the news media. During protests to get our country back texting to website coordinates actions and avoids tazer shock or bully clubs up your butt.
As a small business in Maine we export world wide and try to compete globally. We are on dial up and compete in this race on one leg the other hobbled by lack of connectivity. Give us a chance.
In a southern state bringing internet to rural areas jumped college bound kids from less than 25% to over 63%. #1 standings in teenage pregnancy as a state jumped to 18th in 5 years. What's not to like?
Yes people do not get out or off their computers and butts but this is not the fault of the technology.
The internet brought great benefits to corporations, businesses and individuals, enabling them to greatly streamline interactions. It's just another tool. The question is who will use it to whos benefit? Are the benefits to corporations passed on to benefit the society? No. We've seen corporate profits and CEO pay rise while wages for everyone else stagnates. We want tools. But more specifically, we want tools used for the public benefit, rather than for private benefit at public expense. So we have to say in regard to the internet the same in regard to everything else: YES for public benefit. NO for private benefit. YES to public interests. NO to private interests.
The entire point is to provide Internet access to everyone, not just those who can afford to buy a broadband connection from Comcast.
The Internet is just a tool, it does not inherently solve any problems. What it does do is provide a mechanism for spreading information and ideas, it also allows people to work remotely without driving their infernal combustion engine.
Economic welfare is the most important thing in the world if your stomach is empty.
If you are a smug well-fed idealist with no exposure to the real world it is easy to make arrogant, judgmental proclamations that are perfect constructions of logic from your narrow perspective.
I applaud the Obama plan to build a digital infrastructure, it will be good for the country. The more information intelligent people have the better they can make the right decisions at the ballot box or the grocery store.
Can I get a free phone, free electricity and free cable too? How about a free gym membership?
I don't know about free anything, Internet access should be considered a utility like water or sewer, that is provided at a reduced cost because it is a part of the social infrastructure.
Why would you applaude the goo that oozes from the elite establishment (decrees from the O'Bama construct) while criticizing idealists who succeed at feeding themselves? How can we contribute to the people's defense against the elites' class war aggression against us if we cannot first define our ideals, and then develop the independent means to feed ourselves and achieve our higher objectives? Maybe you own stock in some Friedmanite capitalist racket on a mission to corner the food market? Then you would prefer the people remain ignorant and dependent on the capitalist racket, ehh, since you want a healthy return on your investment. Or maybe you tried and failed to feed yourself and are currently on the general mills corn flakes bandwagon to avoid starvation. If so, we progressives would like to help you off that wagon. You can learn to feed yourself. Our goal is economic/political independence for all people worldwide.
I sincerley hope this works. I don't have access to high speed internet. I am in a rural area and the cable company says there are not enough homes to make it worth while to bring cable. We have Dish Network but the only high speed is satelite and I have seen that is not very fast although it would be faster than what we have. The satelite company I called told me they couldn't install it here because there is not enough room on the satelite. Does that make sense? We are so far away from a phone company hub or whatever they call it that we are lucky to get a 28.8 connection. Usually it is 24. It takes a very long time for my email to display. some web pages are not accessable because it takes too long to load and it times out. We are not that far out. We are 1-1/2 miles fromt the airport in Tyler Texas.
A lot of folks are connected to the Internet alright but what difference does it make when we come across sites that are all too often exclusive such as most conservative sites and blogs? Moreover, I have noticed that even the Left has become all too exclusive. As a matter of fact, sometime ago, Sioux Rose, jclientelle, myself and some others tried to explain why banning users regardless of their extreme views wasn't a good idea even when there were out of control users calling for a ban on that user. All too often, I often notice that even relatively moderate liberals such as Thomas More are often attacked unreasonably when in fact he's trying to make some sense. Furthermore, I notice that exclusiveness and divisions are no different even with the Internet. The Internet may bring some people and ideas on board but in the long run, I don't see much in the coming. And before giving too much credit to youtube for Obama's victory, let's not forget that all this existed even before 2004 and yet the conservatives proved that they can win. Don't think conservatives will just sit there. They'll find a way to pretend unity and then try to divide us and if progressive and/or liberal sites or blogs censor or even ban outright, then the conservatives will win and maybe even sooner than expected. Another thing to consider is people go to internet sites usually to come across what they want to see or hear. For example, nobody's going to care that Pakistan refuses to allow India to extradite the terrorists from Pakistan even as Pakistan will actually let them go "free". Why neither the conservative nor liberal/progressive sites even bother showing outrage is beyond me.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Pointless for nations to keep trying to compete, worse to grow. Time to stop growing -- limits to growth is why we're here now. Being on the Internet is not as nice as raking leaves outside.