Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditCo-written by Sam Graham-Felsen.
As corporate telecommunications giants accelerate their efforts to create a two-tiered Internet, one of our greatest tools for democracy and equality is under assault. America already lags far behind other industrialized nations in Net access--paying "two to three times as much for slower and poorer quality service than countries like South Korea or Japan"--and if big telecom succeeds, the Internet may be slower and more costly than ever.
Fortunatrely, media rights activists are fighting--and winning--battles to ensure that more, not fewer, are given access to the web. One of the major fronts in the fight to equalize Internet access has been the effort to provide universal wireless service, and cities across the nation are rapidly embracing WiFi-for-all initiatives.
In 2004, Philadelphia became the first major city in the US to launch a universal, affordable wireless Internet service, creating a massive "wireless mesh network" which will reach 135 miles throughout the city. Philly's plan, which is slated to be available in 2007, will cost around $20 per month and about half as much for low-income residents--far below the market rate for high-speed Internet access.
San Francisco already has a community wireless program in the works, and several other major cities, including Chicago and Boston have created task forces for universal Wi-Fi plans. Meanwhile, smaller towns and cities like Urbana, Illinois, are also passing "magnificent pro-wireless resolutions," according to Sascha Meinrath of the media reform advocacy organization Free Press.
Of course, big telecom lobbyists are fighting tooth and nail to eliminate these programs, and have already helped to create laws in 14 states making it illegal for cities to build their own wireless grids. Louisiana is one of these states, and in New Orleans--where free Wi-Fi access was made available in the wake of Katrina--big telecom is trying to shut down this critical source of communication for desperately needy residents.
"Whether you look at broadband penetration rates, service speeds, or basic costs of broadband provision, the US is pretty stagnant compared with the rest of the industrialized world," says Meinrath, and community wireless initiatives "have the potential to address" many of these problems. (Meinrath warns that some of the municipal models, like San Francisco, are in danger of becoming "usurped by the same corporations that created such exorbitantly priced, substandard telecommunications services in the first place.")
To engage in the fight for fair and universal wireless access, check out Free Press, and urge your Senators to co-sponsor the Community Broadband Act, which would enable states and cities to legally build community wireless grids. In an age of deceit and misinformation, we need a robust, accessible, and affordable Internet more than ever.
Sam Graham-Felsen, a freelance journalist and documentary filmmaker, contributes to The Nation's new blog, The Notion, and co-writes Sweet Victories with Katrina vanden Heuvel.
Nation Event Note
The Nation is visiting Yale University on Wednesday, April 26, 2006. Click here for details on a free public event, sponsored by the Roosevelt Institute, featuring Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
We have seen the example of what happens when mass media falls into the hands of fewer and more homogeneous hands. We saw that in the run up to the Iraq war, when the US mainstream failed miserably to even suggest that there were good reasons to question the steer manure from the Bush junta. People who were getting their news from The New York Times or CNN were as badly misinformed as those who got theirs from Rush Limbaugh or FoxNews.
We cannot allow this to happen to the Internet. Keep corporate hands off of it.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/17/2006 @ 4:35pm
JackRabbit,
The MSM continues to fail us with respect to the Bush Administration's planning for bombing/attacking Iran.
Today, Randi Rhodes is doing an excellent show on Operation Divine Strake and Iran.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/17/2006 @ 4:54pm
To Oraibi:
In my opinion, the MSM is doing better now, but that's not saying much. We know that Bush is threatening to use tactical nukes in a strike against Iran.
Nothing could have been worse, however, than the MSM's compliancy with the Bush regime prior to the invasion of Iraq. One had to go to the foreign press and to alternative media to find any hint that something was very wrong with the Bushies' case for war.
Given that, whenever our conservative and right wing friends who post here still speak of the librul media, I just laugh.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/17/2006 @ 5:08pm
Of course, big telecom lobbyists are fighting tooth and nail to eliminate these programs, and have already helped to create laws in 14 states making it illegal for cities to build their own wireless grids.
Hmmm, where are all the right-wingers who usually demand free markets and competition? I don't hear a peep from them right now. Are the proud capitalists afraid of a little competition from city governments?
The same crowd that tells us government should be small because it is incompetent now suddenly trembles in fear from competing with government, so much so that they seek to make it illegal.
More hypocrites exposed!!! I love it....
All you "free-market" lovers out there, I am calling you out! Run in fear of supposedly incompetent government kicking your tails in the internet market. Hahahahahahaha.....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/17/2006 @ 5:16pm
The following excerpt from the NY Times provides further evidence as to why greater, non-telecom internet access should be provided.
A former AT&T employee has come forward with documents suggesting that there may be a lot more domestic spying going on than President Bush has admitted. The AT&T documents suggest that telephone companies may be helping the government engage in wholesale interception of telephone calls, e-mail messages and Web surfing. If AT&T is violating its customers' privacy rights, it should come clean, and stop immediately.
ATT and Domestic Spying
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/17/2006 @ 5:33pm
Correct link: ATT and Domestic Spying [tinyurl.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/17/2006 @ 5:35pm
JackRabbit,
Perhaps you are correct in your assessment of the MSM; but they are only improving because the owners of the MSM are seeing the handwriting on political walls (aka the 2006 mid-term elections).
Bush and the Republicans are in trouble and the MSM owners recognize they may have to deal with a Democratic-controlled Congress.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/17/2006 @ 5:38pm
"big telecom is trying to shut down this critical source of communication for desperately needy residents."
Right...
I'm sure the aforementioned big telecom companies are locked in marathon meetings right now; all them them vying to be the broadband provider of choice for people who can't afford computers.
Posted by tkacg at 04/17/2006 @ 7:01pm
TKACG:
Just wait. They'll be offerring computers next, claiming that it's yet another "right."
Posted by usc1 at 04/17/2006 @ 8:22pm
Zero
Along that line, I saw where the oil industry was honoring one of their own today (on the historic $70/barrel day) of a man who earned on average $100/minute 24-7, for YEARS...as they have the highest profits of any business on the planet...I guess he musta been worth it!
Orai
That is just scarier than shit man! So Big Brother IS watching!
USC & TKAG
Keep up the cheerleading boyz. If we don't vote the numb-nuts, liberty-snatching wing-nuts out, ya'lls toe to the party line might just earn you guys a better class of brown shirt one day!
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/17/2006 @ 8:42pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/17/2006 @ 8:42pm
Cheerleading? For what? More free stuff for everyone? And by "free" I mean "paid for with my tax $".
Just how many "desperately needy residents" will benefit from free WiFi? I can't recall the last homeless guy I saw carrying a Dell.
At the end of the day I don't really have an issue with cities offering WiFi... more with KVH's lame assertion about big telecom setting out to squash the desperately needy.
Posted by tkacg at 04/17/2006 @ 9:10pm
TKAG
Would you then buy the assertion that TelComm industries are wanting to quash "free access" as a concept (regardless of who it services) because it appears that's what is happening...just like oil and credit industries got free reign to write self-serving energy and bankruptcy policy , I expect we will soon see TelComm industries working w/Dubya et al to write policy that serves mainly themselves...
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/17/2006 @ 10:26pm
Kudos to Katrina for acknowledging the need for alternative news sources in this age of disinformation. TvNewsLIES.org is beginning its fourth year on the Internet, as a profit-free site dedicated to countering media deception and complicity in the downfall of this nation.
Please help us celebrate this significant anniversary by visiting our vast site and signing up for our FREE daily newsletter. Our editorials have been linked globally, and we hope you come an read them for yourselves.
TvNewsLIES.org [tvnewslies.org]
Posted by Reg at 04/17/2006 @ 11:15pm
Be wary of the Trojan horse of "community wifi". The telecoms plan to pigback increased surveilance and intrusive advertising on this as a condition of use. There is no free lunch, or unmonitored internet access.
Posted by NOYB at 04/18/2006 @ 01:38am
Posted by NOYB 04/18/2006 @ 01:38am
Noted. But the longer we can keep the big telecoms' hands out of wifi, the better the odds that Americans can learn about how they're being kept ignorant and fucked out of their country.
Posted by drhammer at 04/18/2006 @ 07:06am
Nice first post Zero! What are Bill Gates' and Steve Jobs' opinions on this matter, since a distinction should be made between the "investor" and the "creating" classes, IMO.
Posted by lewwelge at 04/18/2006 @ 07:07am
To the "don't touch my tax dollar" crowd:
This wireless fantasy land, where wireless is as much a public utility as water and electricity, has become irresistible to hundreds of cities. Earlier this month, Philadelphia chose EarthLink to build and manage a wireless network spanning the entire city. Cost to taxpayers? $0. The deal requires EarthLink to put together the network on its own dime--an estimated $10 million to $15 million--and share future revenues with the city. To recoup its investment, EarthLink will charge users $20 a month (half that to low-income households).
Yep, you read that right. $0 is the cost to taxpayers. [slate.com]
And the San Francisco Chronicle [sfgate.com] has an article as well (San Fran hopes to use Philly as a model for their own project):
Under the plan, EarthLink will sell its service for $20 a month to most households and $10 a month to low-income households...
Wireless Philadelphia will receive a portion of EarthLink's revenue to help fund programs to overcome digital-divide issues and promote economic development.
Looks to be a win, win situation to me.
Posted by thejman at 04/18/2006 @ 08:05am
Sorry, the SF Chronicle article is here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f= /c/a/2005/10/05/BUG3AF2GJ41. DTL
Posted by thejman at 04/18/2006 @ 08:07am
Be sure to delete the space between "=" & "/c/a..."
Posted by thejman at 04/18/2006 @ 08:07am
Explain to me why I would be paying more for the same service that others get. I thought businesses weren't allowed to do that.
Posted by usc1 at 04/18/2006 @ 08:35am
Sure, we'll probably wind up bombin Iran and starting World War III - but Philly will have cheap wi-fi! VICTORY!!! WHOOT! Vote for Hillary in '08! WHOOT!
Posted by AlanSmithee at 04/18/2006 @ 08:44am
"Sure, we'll probably wind up bombin Iran and starting World War III - but Philly will have cheap wi-fi!"
How about this:
Increased access to the internet makes the populace better informed, therefore fraudulent, illegal wars of choice become harder for a secretive, corrupt government to prosecute.
Posted by drhammer at 04/18/2006 @ 08:54am
The only people who see a downside to a more informed citizenry are the ones who think nothing of scaring and distracting us while selling our country out from underneath us, and making us all targets in their next holy war.
Posted by drhammer at 04/18/2006 @ 09:04am
Why stop with WiFi?....I mean, don't those desperately needy need....expanded basic cable?
How else will they see Ms vanden Heuval on "Hardball", if they only have basic cable and no MSNBC?
Plus, they'll need free newspapers and ....
Hey....FREE copies of "The Nation", too......right???
Posted by Mask at 04/18/2006 @ 09:12am
Why stop with WiFi?....I mean, don't those desperately needy need....expanded basic cable?
Because the internet is a tool that will show you whatever you want to see, not whatever MSNBC or any other channel has pre-programmed into their schedule (besides, how many learning programs do you really see on cable channels?). There will now be a wealth of information at the fingertips of kids who otherwise wouldn't have had the same advantage/privilige of being able to use the internet as a study tool in the comfort of their own homes and not have to worry about late nights at the library (convenient for both the students & the parents that have to drive them there).
Will it be used for BS chatting & game playing? Absolutely. Will parents need to monitor their childrens' internet usage & make an effort to protect them from some of the dangers present on the internet? No doubt. But this is no reason to squash such a great program.
So I have to ask, WTF is everyone's problem?! The city recruited Earthlink to set up the network at zero, let me say that again zero cost to the taxpayers.
I can't say that I entirely agree with the implementation of the plan. I don't think that Earthlink should have exclusive control of the network the way it seems that they will (Kinda like the way Comcast has a monolopy here in New Jersey on cable TV access. The technology is outdated & the service sucks). I think that any ISP that wants to provide service should be able to, thereby increasing competition & innovation. But, this is a good start.
Posted by thejman at 04/18/2006 @ 09:50am
Will it be used for BS chatting & game playing? Absolutely. Will parents need to monitor their childrens' internet usage & make an effort to protect them from some of the dangers present on the internet? No doubt. But this is no reason to squash such a great program.
Posted by THEJMAN 04/18/2006 @ 09:50am | ignore this person
So if 95 out of 100 times the kids are using that FREE WiFi, they're downloadng the latest MP3 from Gorillaz...or playing "Everquest-II"....or looking at pictures of "Selina Suxx".....but the other 5 times they're learning about "green solutions to pest control" from "www.insectfriendly.org"....
fair trade-off for the tax dollar?
Posted by Mask at 04/18/2006 @ 10:17am
Plus, they'll need free newspapers and ....
Not really. There are plenty of free news sources as well as free educational sources. They won't be able to read the New York Times, but they will have access to the Associated Press & Reuters as well as a plethora of independent publications (wait, now I see why this is such a big problem, hahaha). They will also have free access to the wonderful wikimedia foundation [wikimedia.org]. There is also plenty of free software available to under the GNU GPL [gnu.org] free software license that is of little or no cost & just as good if not better than some of the overpriced stuff from the likes of Microsoft (ie: OpenOffice.org from Sun Microsystems instead of Microsoft Office & GNU/Linux instead of Windows).
Free resources are there, people just need to be made aware of them.
Posted by thejman at 04/18/2006 @ 10:21am
fair trade-off for the tax dollar?
What tax dollar?
Posted by thejman at 04/18/2006 @ 10:22am
So if 95 out of 100 times the kids are using that FREE WiFi
What free WiFi?
Posted by thejman at 04/18/2006 @ 10:23am
DRHAMMAER<
"The only people who see a downside to a more informed citizenry are the ones who think nothing of scaring and distracting us while selling our country out from underneath us, and making us all targets in their next holy war."
I agree if, as I hope you mean, Iran? With all their "let's erase Israel while we wait for the 12th Iman and we are destined to destroy the US(infadel) and rule the world" lunacy. But, most here think the biggest problem in the world is Bush and that he is a bigger threat than the Iranian madman..kind of like the same attitude taken by an English PM, peace in our time..
Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2006 @ 10:26am
Explain to me why I would be paying more for the same service that others get. I thought businesses weren't allowed to do that.
Posted by USC1 04/18/2006 @ 08:35am | ignore this person
It probably won't be exactly the same service. Usually the more you pay the more bandwidth you get. The more bandwidth, the faster the internet connection (think 56K dial-up compared with 6Mbps cable). So those paying $10 per month will probably end up w/a slower connection, than those paying $20, which is very commonplace.
Posted by thejman at 04/18/2006 @ 10:28am
I should state that I could be wrong w/my above post (@ 10:28). Again, I was just stating common industry practice.
Posted by thejman at 04/18/2006 @ 10:33am
If John Maasch is referring to Neville Chamberlin when he makes his comparisons between an English Prime Minister and the people who are currently leading the so-called "war on terror", he needs to find a better example. This is not the Second World War, and the people who are leading the United States, for all their fantasises to the contrary, hold in common with Winston Churchill only his stupidity as regards the future of the non-white world. Churchill's tactical flexibility in other arenas is a talent quite alien to him. They understand only the eurocentric and aggressive sides of his outlook.
Posted by OyaSon at 04/18/2006 @ 11:39am
OYason,
The people during the time of Neville could have said the same thing as you..this is not FIRST WORLD WAR..they also could have said, the Hilter issue is not a war on terror...or was it.
It can be turned into WW3 by the IRANIANS very easily....and historry will repeat itself at the expense of the innocents...my children while you all here celebrate the "impeachment party" over Bush..while the world slowly burns around you, and you cut the fire department off at the knees..
Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2006 @ 12:16pm
"Media Rights" huh? Man, thats a new one. Katrina must have two rights lists with her: The original 10 from the Constitution, which she doesn't look at too often, and the 3,427 extra rights, which grow daily and correspond to each new socialistic idea she comes up with.
chip
Chip
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/18/2006 @ 12:51pm
It can be turned into WW3 by the IRANIANS very easily....and historry will repeat itself at the expense of the innocents...my children while you all here celebrate the "impeachment party" over Bush..while the world slowly burns around you, and you cut the fire department off at the knees..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/18/2006 @ 12:16am | ignore this person
maasch, can u please explain to me what u meant by this paragraph?
Posted by loveloki at 04/18/2006 @ 1:23pm
Fear is what it is, Loveloki, and Chip, we socialists like it here, in my opinion.
Posted by lewwelge at 04/18/2006 @ 1:38pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/17/2006 @ 10:26pm
Sure; I'll buy that, but why wouldn't they?
Posted by tkacg at 04/18/2006 @ 1:51pm
Here he comes again, Mr. My Tax Dollars and his inevitable complaint that government agencies do more than give mammoth handouts to the rich and big business while invading backwards countries to control their natural resources.
Posted by ZERO 04/18/2006 @ 12:38am
Clever post, Zero - will you please remind me of any posts I've made complaining about government agencies doing more than give mammoth handouts to the rich and big business while invading backwards countries to control their natural resources?
Posted by tkacg at 04/18/2006 @ 1:54pm