Change or Cha-Ching
Change has come to America. Well, sort of.
On "K" Street - home to Washington's most powerful corporate lobbyists - it's business as usual.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the scrum of lobbyists gathering around President Obama's economic stimulus package. Hearings started yesterday in the House Appropriations Committee and they're already lining the halls outside chambers.
Without a strong public interest voice at the table, lobbyists could steer billions in taxpayer dollars toward a corporate welfare boondoggle. This lost opportunity would be felt most acutely in our efforts to close America's gaping digital divide.
Obama has set aside $6 billion for broadband deployment and has been outspoken about the Internet's role in jump starting our "21st century economy," allowing small rural businesses to compete in global markets and giving every child a chance to access fast and open Internet technology.
For Ashea Williams, a special education teacher at Washington D.C.'s Arts and Technology Academy, it's a change that couldn't come soon enough for her young students. "A lot of our students do not have Internet access," she said last week. "So a lot of the activities that we do here at school they cannot expand upon at home. So the learning ends here."
If done right - by building an open and affordable network with plentiful service options -- Obama's economic stimulus plan could close the digital divide for many of Williams' students, and also for those living in rural America.
(Click here to read the rest)
Comments
There is also the point that a majority of the world's net-traffic passes though America. That many of the major social networks are based in America and thus subject to America's laws.
Should we, the rest of the world, be de facto subject to American corporate censorship and the whims of American politicians who impose moral restrictions to win a few votes ?
I say no.
The internet has famously been said to treat censorship as damage, and route around it. America risks being isolated and Balkanized if it supports censorship or restriction of the free-flow of information and violates net neutrality.
The ones who take the time to check out how to use the Internet to communicate see life in a different perspective. I see the people who have signed up for this seminar and from their demographics, I'm realizing a new dynamic in the community.cobro
I am hosting a social media seminar in rural Appomattox Virginia this upcoming weekend. Not surprisingly, more attendees have signed up from nearby Lynchburg than from Appomattox. Although Appomattox is a bedroom community to Lynchburg, it is in a separate county and is autonomous. Still Appomattox did not receive broadband capabilities until 2008, and many people cannot afford the services.
On the other hand, re: openness, I find it interesting that not one politician from this area has signed up for the seminar, nor do they use social media. What I would like to see is community-building via Internet so people can chime in on local news and contribute to local community issues via a problem-solving platform. When politicians and business leaders don't use the Internet for this capability, how can we expect their constituents to contribute? They are building a new Website, but it's the old paradigm - top down information.
Access to Internet and social media tools contributes to a digital divide that can play out in real life...and it's not just who has access and who doesn't have access (local library has access for free use). The ones who take the time to check out how to use the Internet to communicate see life in a different perspective. I see the people who have signed up for this seminar and from their demographics, I'm realizing a new dynamic in the community. While I don't believe that social media should contribute to an "us vs. them" mentality, I also see that social media via Internet can change communities...and it may well change them from the grassroots level.
The telco incumbents and lobbyist's who work from them are trying to protect their bankrupt business 'cost' models, which wouldn't even exist if we actually supported the full on, innovative dynamics of truely free markets. The US pays a dear prices for this shortsightedness. There is no magic to supplying high bandwidth to everyone at a reasonable and sustainable cost model. The incumbents models are completely flawed based on the economics of 'scarcity' of bandwidth, rather than 'abundance. In combination with newly appointed FCC management and a more progressive view towards opening up the spectrum, let's hope we see the leadership in the White House break the stranglehold of the Corporatocracy which in stealing the future of, and bankrupting American competitiveness. It is no wonder the USA Math and Science scores continues to fall and fall, further behind of countries.
I have very nice high-speed access right now, BUT I pay dearly for it... like $63 per month. I have no other high-speed choices in my city. It's a monopoly play by this provider. They have systemactically interferred with plans to wire the city with hi-speed wireless. They have also decided to go to pricing tiers for users that have heavy needs such as Netflix. Since they are also a cable provider, I see this as a direct play to get you to pay more for internet that can provide TV programming.
My greatest hope will be a competitor, at least for price. Quality should be a given, as well as speed. The technology exists. So what's the problem ??
I can get stupidly fast internet in Denmark for about $20 per month. But I don't live there. I live in a city pushing a million people and I'm stuck with one overpriced provider. Something is nuts about this.
Post new comment