January 07, 2010 07:34 PM UTC

America's Great Socialist Past

•  
• by: JO

For almost four centuries, technology has been the great non-ideological driver of Western history, starting with the steam engine. In two key areas, transportation and communications, American economic history, at least since the mid-19th century, has been written as a partnership between government and privately-financed technological expansion. Examples include the building of transcontinental railroads (government giveaways of public lands and providing armed guards–U.S. Cavalry–for European settlers partnered with privately financed building of railroads); the telephone network (government approval of a monopoly, AT&T, in exchange for strict regulation); and radio and television (government regulation of bandwidth to enable privately owned broadcasters to operate in parallel).

Now we are in the midst of a new revolution of equal or greater magnitude–digital communication of everything, including the substitution of communication for transportation–but where, oh where, is the guiding hand of government to represent what’s best for the society if not for individual entrepreneurs? This is an issue close to anyone reading this post–within arm’s length if you’re using a laptop–yet one seldom discussed in any forum.

I’m referring, of course, to the Internet, and in particular the issues surrounding its transmission. Chances are that many users of ColoradoPols.com subscribe to Comcast in order to receive the   Internet. Some of you may also receive broadcast video signals from Comcast, or some other cable TV provider, and as described in today’s NYT, “In a Clash Over Cable, Consumers Lose.” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01… )

Of course, broadcast television is yesterday’s technology. It makes much more sense for all video to be retrieved, and many “broadcast” channels–notably those of PBS, among many others–can already be viewed this way. Does it make sense for a handful of private cable companies, operating with monopolies granted long before the Internet emerged as the new communications technology, to single-handedly control the terms and conditions of Internet delivery? Should a company that depends on subscriber fees to finance broadcast video also be allowed to restrict the number bits downloaded by an Internet subscriber? Should one company be allowed to set the cost of having Internet access in the homes of school children whose education will increasingly be delivered, and dependent upon, digital transmissions? Is this not like saying “public libraries” should be privatized, with prohibitive (to some) fees to check out books?

Presently, Comcast is battling the FCC in court in a dispute over its right to limit the volume of downloads for its standard monthly fee. This case clearly illustrates the principle involved: Comcast’s determination to protect its broadcast video revenues from Internet downloads (notably, of movies) by focusing on a marginal portion of that business.

My question is: should an issue as central to the advance of digital technology be decided in court? The United States, where the Internet was invented with the help of the government (DARPA), has already fallen far behind other countries (notably Japan and Korea) in terms of average transmission speed via broadband. Surely it is in our national interest to retake the lead in a technology that will have such a key impact on so many aspects of our lives in a reduced-carbon future. (One example: widespread substitution of video conferencing for personal visits, thereby eliminating the need for a substantial amount of energy spent on business travel in particular, both local and long-distance).

Where, I wonder, are our elected representatives on this issue? Where is the proposed legislation to establish clear guidelines to (a) insist that providers upgrade transmission of broadband to speeds about 3 or 4 times today’s average; (b) limit fees for access to a level affordable by most households, and by any household with a student under age 18; (c) separate the delivery medium (i.e. coaxial cable and the servers behind it) from the content medium. This last is of particular relevance with the acquisition of NBC network television by the country’s largest cable company, Comcast.  

I’ve carried on about this previously, and on at least one occasion heard back from Jared Polis, who I suspect has a particular expertise and knowledge of the issues involved, acknowledging the issue. But I haven’t seen news of proposed legislation to advance the next generation of intrastructure expansion.