[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
'The Digital Divide Is a Choice, and It Can Be Ended' Janine Jackson ([link removed])



Janine Jackson interviewed EFF's Ernesto Falcon about Internet for All for the March 19, 2021, episode ([link removed]) of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

[link removed]
Michael Powell (FCC)

Michael Powell


Janine Jackson: In 2001, then–FCC chair Michael Powell responded ([link removed]) to a question about the “digital divide,” the term used to describe people of color, poor and rural communities’ relative lack of technological access: “You know, I think there's a Mercedes divide. I'd like to have one. I can't afford one.”

For those who had problems with this statement, beyond its obvious falseness ([link removed]) , Powell complained that he was taken out of context. He wasn't. He led up to the quip by saying that the phrase “digital divide” is

dangerous in the sense that it suggests that the minute a new and innovative technology is introduced in the market, there is a divide unless it is equitably distributed among every part of society. And that is just an unreal understanding of an American capitalistic system.

And he followed it with:

I'm not meaning to be completely flip about this. I think it's an important social issue. But it shouldn't be used to justify the notion of, essentially, the socialization of deployment of the infrastructure.

The idea that access to useful computer communication technology is a market luxury, to which the poor ought not aspire, rather than a basic requirement for participation in the economy, was offensive in 2001; also ahistorical, as it conveniently ignores that the internet was developed by the government in the first place.

But if that was clear then, it should be crystalline 20 years later, as we see working from home and remote learning pose tremendous challenges for those who have and can afford high-speed internet in their home. What about those people, those communities, who can't? Are they just off the page?

There's legislation ([link removed]) aimed at recognizing that broadband access is as basic as water or electricity, but you might not have heard about the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act ([link removed]) from major news media.

We're joined now by Ernesto Falcon, senior legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation ([link removed]) . He joins us now by phone from the Bay Area. Welcome to CounterSpin, Ernesto Falcon.

Ernesto Falcon: Thank you for having me.

JJ: So when I looked up AAIA ([link removed]) , Google said “Are you sure you don't mean Asia and broadband?” It's not just media not covering a kind of wonky or tech issue. We have been reading stories ([link removed]) about kids who have to go to fast food parking lots to do their homework. I mean, media are talking about the problem, so I guess I don't quite get the relative lack of attention to an attempted response.

But tell us about the AAIA, introduced ([link removed]) by James Clyburn and Amy Klobuchar. What would it do? And why do you think it's needed?

EF: I think sometimes when we talk about the digital divide, we tend to think it's like a game of perpetual catch-up, and we'll never get there. And I think, to your quote, in 2001, that's kind of the understanding of the infrastructure and the technology at that time. You fast-forward to today, it is pretty clear there is one unifying medium, one type of infrastructure that is unifying all the technologies—so that if you build out this one infrastructure, you will have access to the whole range of 21st century technologies for decades—and that's fiber optic ([link removed]) .

The AAIA, the Accessible, Affordable Internet Act, essentially creates a federal program at the size and scale of our electrification effort from the '20s and '30s, where we simply just said, “It’s just unconscionable to have anyone not connected to the electrical grid.” It says it's unconscionable to have someone not connected to 21st century infrastructure, and spends the requisite dollar amount—it’s around $90 billion ([link removed]) , which is what you would need for a nationwide solution for all corners of the country, with almost no exception.

And if you build fiber optics, you enable things like high-speed wireless; you enable things like the SpaceX’s Starlink ([link removed]) , the orbit satellites; you enable gigabit internet connections at homes and businesses—all of those things come through the exact same infrastructure. And it's just important for the policy in this space—where we're deciding how to spend infrastructure dollars, like we build the roads and whatnot—to basically go head forth in that.
EFF: The FCC and States Must Ban Digital Redlining

EFF (1/11/21 ([link removed]) )

And that kind of actually puts America in a place where we're on the same pace with Europe and China, both areas of the world that have adopted, essentially, a fiber standard for their infrastructure, and are pushing it to all people—China being way ahead ([link removed]) of everyone at this point. And if we don't play catch-up now—so that in five years, it'll be a wash, and we'll be caught up, essentially—we will see some pretty massive differences about internet access globally, as well as here at home, where your high-income users have cheap, fast internet, areas where you have free, fast internet, and your low-income rural will have really expensive, old wires, that are delivering really slow speeds at really high prices.

JJ: Yeah, you have written and described that as “digital redlining ([link removed]) ,” which seems apt.

I think, as we think of looking forward, though, we keep stumbling over this thing, at least US corporate news media do, keep presenting this conflict... I would describe, lazily, the standard corporate media frame as, “There’s social justice that some of us might want, but that's versus the rigors of market capitalism, which, push come to shove, we all really agree are best.” And this gets thrown up again and again. And so, not for nothing, but there's not—and I don't even want to concede it—but there's not a conflict with profit-making here, necessarily, is there, when we talk about fiber?
Ernesto Falcon

Ernesto Falcon: "There has to be a public-sector version of access in lots of parts of this country, particularly rural markets, simply because you cannot build this infrastructure with purely a for-profit mindset."

EF: No, not at all, for I would say more than two-thirds of the country. You could do it commercially, in a commercially feasible way, so long as the financing is made available to build, and there's players that are willing to build. And I think there's actually lots of local businesses that are willing to take on that challenge.

But what the Accessible, Affordable Internet Act does is it embraces all the models. And the model that this country desperately needs to really bolster is the public model of broadband, meaning local cooperatives, school districts, local governments. There has to be a public-sector version of access in lots of parts of this country, particularly rural markets, simply because you cannot build this infrastructure with purely a for-profit mindset. You have to look at it as, “What is the thing that would develop our local economy?” It benefits lots of other for-profit entities, right? All the local businesses, agriculture, retail, you name it.

But the government has to start looking at this like the roads, and allowing commerce to flow over those roads. And if we don't build the roads, right, the internet infrastructure road, if you will, you actually stifle private-sector activity. And so there's a real partnership to be had between government and people of all walks of life. And it really is the public model of broadband that is underutilized in this country.

But this bill, not only does it make the money available to make that a possibility in lots of places, but it also, what the word is, preempts ([link removed]) states that have banned local governments from building their own infrastructure. All those states that have done that did that at the behest of the cable lobby ([link removed]) , who basically argued, “Oh, if you let the public sector invest in this infrastructure, it'll drive out private investment.”

And that's an absurd argument, because we're in 2021 now. If the private sector has not invested today, at this point, they're never coming. So it's just a dynamic where I think when they made those arguments 15 years ago, you could believe it, because these new networks were just starting; you had Google building fiber networks, all sorts of activity, starting around 2005. But we're in 2021. If they haven't built out that 21st century infrastructure, and at most it takes maybe five years to get to where you want to go, they're not coming. And it's time to really start embracing local models to solve our own problems.

JJ: Let me just ask you, finally: It sounds as though it's very much a question of who's at the table as decisions are made. Is there change to be fought for there? Because I hear these ideas, but if no one's in the room except industry when things are being decided, then that's part of the problem. So where do you see changes being made, maybe to the decision making process here, that could be helpful?

EF: So I think as a first matter, we need a federal program, right? And we need states to have their own programs that bolster public models, along with local-private. I mean, local-private is very different than your big national players. Your AT&T, Comcast and Verizons of the world really do neglect these communities, versus someone who lives in the township themselves; they are more willing to work with people to figure out how to get everyone connected; they’re just motivated to, simply because they live among you.

I think the first step for people is to make sure they contact ([link removed]) their congressperson and their senator, to tell them to support James Clyburn’s Accessible, Affordable Internet Act, because we have to get that out through the Congress.

And the danger here is, we are talking about a program that will connect everyone to a 21st century infrastructure; who’s going to be the opposition? It's going to be the companies who have built the 20th century infrastructure, right, the slow, expensive stuff, by today's standards, who absolutely do not want to be replaced; they will do everything they can to prevent progress here. And we have to just keep every legislator in line and in support of a forward-thinking infrastructure plan, because there's lots of ways you could spend money that don't make progress. And I suspect the industry, primarily led by the cable industry, will do everything they can to curtail, or hinder, or inhibit real progress in the space.

The digital divide is a choice, and it can be ended with concrete forward-thinking programs of this size and focus and scale. But that's up to us, through channeling through our representation, our representatives, to hear people's voice.

JJ: We've been speaking with Ernesto Falcon, senior legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation ([link removed]) . You can find their work online at EFF.org ([link removed]) . Ernesto Falcon, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

EF: Thank you for having me.


Read more ([link removed])

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .