A Clash of Principles in Philly

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Date: December 6, 2004 6:50:32 PM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] A Clash of Principles in Philly
Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com

A Clash of Principles in Philly

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

Dec 6, 2004
By:  Robert Poe
America's Network Enews
<http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/ 
articleDetail.jsp?id=136801>

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

The words "idealistic" and "industry" don't often appear side by side 
in a sentence. But in reality, the telecommunications industry is one 
whose products almost universally benefit people ‹ unlike, say, the 
donut industry. That fact sheds light on the recent dispute between 
Philadelphia and Verizon over the city's plan to offer public Wi-Fi 
service, casting it as a clash of two historically contrasting 
principles, each aimed at improving people's lives by helping them 
communicate better. We can expect more such clashes in the future.

The dispute revolved around a proposed Pennsylvania state law, two 
years in the making, that would prohibit government entities at any 
level from offering public broadband services without first giving 
private providers the chance to do so. Verizon and other carriers 
backed the law, which also provided funding to boost broadband Internet 
access for institutions like libraries and schools in the state.

Philadelphia realized that the law could allow Verizon, which offers 
EV-DO high-speed wireless data service over its cellular network, as 
well as DSL, to veto the city's plan to provide a city-wide public 
Wi-Fi service. So it raised such a ruckus that Governor Ed Rendell held 
off on signing the bill into law until Verizon signed an agreement 
promising not to block the city's plan. Verizon signed just before the 
end of the legislative year, and so did Rendell.

The principle behind the law was the same one that sparked the 
communications revolution of the past several decades. It calls for 
leaving it to private companies to compete to provide communications 
services to the public. The tidal wave of deregulation and 
privatization of monopoly and government-owned telecom carriers it 
inspired has transformed telecommunications. It has brought everything 
from mobile phones that feel nearly weightless to global voice and data 
services that, compared to their past prices, seem nearly free. The 
results are hard to argue with.

Philadelphia's plan, though, represented an equally important 
principle: a government's responsibility to make sure its citizens can 
communicate in the ways they need to in order to get by and get ahead. 
And the fact that the city, like many others, decided to offer 
high-speed Internet access as a public service shows the extent to 
which the Internet has become a basic necessity of life, almost like 
the telephone itself.

But while well-established procedures and systems of 
cross-subsidization ensure that everyone can have a telephone, even 
where it won't turn the provider a profit, nothing ensures that 
individuals can have access to the Internet. And that is a big problem 
for low-income citizens. According to Christopher Baum, a Gartner 
analyst, while 60% of all U.S. homes have Internet access, less than a 
quarter of homes with incomes under $15,000 do.  As a result, "I think 
the best approach is to realize that there are people companies aren't 
going to serve, and that there has to be some kind of formula to make 
sure those people get served," he says.

[snip]

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/