informant38
.

-
...But of these sophisms and elenchs of merchandise I skill not...
Milton, Areopagitica

Except he had found the
standing sea-rock that even this last
Temptation breaks on; quieter than death but lovelier; peace
that quiets the desire even of praising it.

Jeffers, Meditation On Saviors


-

4.11.02

Sometimes you have to settle for what's available, not what's best, because otherwise you won't get anything at all.

That's the basic argument in favor of giving vast deregulatory freedom to some of America's telecommunications giants. Unless they can control who has access to their lines and at what price, say the cable and regional phone companies, they won't deploy the high-speed data access that the nation wants and needs.

In a move as craven as any we've seen lately, the technology industry seems to have signed onto this corporate extortion. Since broadband deployment is so crucial to the future of the tech companies, they're willing to jump into bed with anyone who'll make it happen sooner than later -- and the heck with the public interest.

And despite opposition from telecom competitors who fear being frozen out and do-gooders who understand the consequences, official Washington is leaning toward decisions that could make today's media concentration seem modest.

I say we should hold out for what's best, not what's expedient.

What's best? We could embark on a crash program, funded by taxpayers, to bring broadband to every home and business in America. Maybe it should be a build-out of networks using fiber and wireless technologies. Maybe it should be subsidies that allow end users to buy what they want, spurring industry innovation along the way.

This is a national security issue, if we understand it correctly. Broadband everywhere isn't just about vast new economic opportunities. By decentralizing the workforce, we are increasing our collective safety, too.
The danger of letting the telecom monopolists control the information that moves on their lines should be equally obvious. In an Information Age, giving such power to businesses with a history of abusing it seems bizarre.

At the very least, we must have laws -- and yes, that means hard-nosed regulation and enforcement -- ensuring that the cable and phone companies cannot discriminate against any content. For example, SBC Communications, which has a business partnership with Yahoo to provide DSL service, shouldn't be allowed to give customers slower access, or no access at all, to another portal site.

What would we lose by calling the telecom giants' bluff? Maybe a couple of years of rapid broadband deployment, though what they're deploying now -- DSL and cable modem connections -- runs at such a slow speed that it can only be called broadband if you stretch the definition. In South Korea and other places where deployment is going strong, speeds are much faster and prices much lower.

There's another party at this table, by the way. Local governments can and should be building their own fiber networks, as some already have done. Unsurprisingly, the phone companies have been lobbying state legislatures to forbid this practice. We need a federal law that explicitly allows municipalities to bypass the monopolists.

Blog Archive