It's About Access
Via Mobile Pipeline. I know it has nothing to do with the reading, but it's so controversial...
Texas Rep. Pet Sessions has authored the "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005," a bill that would prohibit state and local governments from providing telecommunications or information services that are "substantially similar" to services provided by private companies. In other words, HR 2726 (along with a bunch of other bills being pushed by telecom companies) are trying to make free municipal wireless hot spots illegal.
Now, I happen to take offense to this type of legislation on multiple levels. First of all, while I would agree that "the right to broadband" is neither a defined nor enumerated Constitutional right, I nonetheless believe that the government should provide basic access to the tools that every American needs to make a living wage. These tools not only include public transportation and public libraries, but public access to the Internet. We have a tremendous digital divide in this nation that is only growing wider as Internet technology becomes less about playing games and more about providing people with a technical skill set that will allow them to be productive workers in an Information Age. In talking about the new media, isn't it clear that the Internet provides citizens with a valuable tool for organizing and accessing information about the political process? If the role of websites like the Secretary of State Elections sites and opensecrets.org or tray.com are to maintain transparency of government, then shouldn't we also ensure that average citizens have access to these sites?
I also take offense because my two hometowns--Seattle, WA and Palo Alto, CA--have either established or are in the process of establishing a downtown free wireless zone. Last weekend when I was in Seattle, I had fun driving around town picking up wireless in the car (No, I wasn't driving :-)). Of course, it is slow and unreliable, but that's what public goods are all about! I doubt that the telecom industry would actually be significantly hurt by free wifi zones... customers who want WiFi will PAY for the real service rather than rely on the free service.
3 Comments:
Good post but I disagree on a few points.
1) Providing WiFi isn't closing the digital divide because it isn't providing internet access to those who don't have it, it is providing internet access to those who already have wireless capable devices (who most likely already have a wireless plan).
2) Free WiFi isn't really a basic necessity. When almost every state is cutting back welfare programs and aid to the poor, I think free WiFi sounds like a nice to have, but not a basic necessity.
3) There are still brilliant people out there who don't use computers!
Oh, but this is about rights, isn't it? There is money to be made and this is a special case protection of a corporate activity. These are the new rights, this is the new frontier that we are expanding into. Welcome to the new century.
What rights do corporations deserve? Because they are a hell of a lot more important that any individual in the order of the 21st century.
When it comes to prioritizing, of course welfare programs and aid to the poor take precedence, but I don't think we can downplay the importance of Internet access. Keep in mind that access isn't just for wealthy laptop-carriers, it's also for small businesses that can connect without having to pay for their own in-house connection.
Post a Comment
<< Home