How Can We Connect America?
We’ll hear from advocates for greater broadband penetration, and two FCC commissioners will be there, as well. You can watch the hearing live at http://sbc.senate.gov.
Speak Out About Universal Access
And, in addition to watching, please put in the comments section below your own thoughts, recommendations, and plans to improve broadband penetration.
You spoke loudly about the need for new competition as the FCC considered spectrum policy. And you had great success. So let’s keep your contributions flowing as we try to get a better Internet in this country. What are your ideas for helping the small businesses and all Americans get faster Internet access?
As activists on this issue, I know you don’t have to hear the statistics: more than 60 percent of the country does not subscribe to broadband service — many because they don’t have access to broadband Internet service or simply can’t afford it.
Even in my home state of Massachusetts, a nationwide leader in technological innovation, broadband still has only reached about 46 percent of the public — and that’s the fourth-best rate in the country! It’s almost hard to wrap your head around the fact that 7 years into this century, more Americans than not have either no Internet access at all or are still stuck on dial-up.
It seems like so long ago that the buzzword was the “information super-highway,” but much of America is still bouncing down a country lane. That is just unacceptable.
Restoring America as a Broadband Leader
America’s Internet speeds lag badly behind universal standards. The birthplace of the personal computer and the Internet now has far worse broadband penetration than Europe and Japan.
Without national broadband access, we’re throwing sand in the gears of our economy, placing a technological ceiling of job growth, innovation and economic production. Small businesses — the backbone of our economy — won’t be able to fairly compete.
The problem is especially bad in rural areas, and those are some of the areas most in need of economic development in this country. Some experts estimate that universal broadband would add $500 billion to our economy and create 1.2 million jobs.
We need to make universal deployment a national priority to keep America hooked into the increasingly fast global economy, but we can’t get that deployment without competition in the broad-band market.
Let’s Start the Conversation Here and Now
We need a national broadband strategy with a strong federal regulatory framework to encourage competition; companies won’t get there on their own. Competition spurs innovation, enhances service and reduces prices.
And while we’re at it, we need to make efficient and widely available use of the spectrum, a valuable public asset. Much of our spectrum is underutilized, shelved and hoarded by selfish incumbents. Revisions to our spectrum policy must break open the locked portions of our spectrum to maximize that national resource.
From drafting “white spaces” legislation to supporting fair spectrum policy, I’ve advanced and supported a list of measures designed to correct these market failures and increase broadband access.
It’s way past time for the country to get serious about this. President Bush has promised national broadband by 2007, and we are inexcusably, tremendously, scandalously short of that goal. Previous generations put a toaster in every home and a car in every driveway as signs of economic progress.
To stay competitive, we should strive to do the same with nationwide broadband. Our economy, our businesses and our families are counting on us to deliver.
So, remember to put your recommendations in the comments below, and I’ll try to circle back after the hearing with another post about what I learned at the hearing and from all of you.
On Wednesday, September 26, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., the United States Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship that Senator Kerry chairs will hold a public hearing entitled, “Improving Internet Access to Help Small Business Compete in a Global Economy.” You can watch the hearing live over the internet at http://sbc.senate.gov.
10 Comments
New comments for this entry are closed.
Universal access makes sense for the US for sure. However, this plan has to be kept in the context of global issues. Why do we want universal access? So that the US can connect...for what purpose?
To connect to people everywhere in the world, to build small businesses everywhere, especially in the developing world where poverty can be rooted out, to build relationships with the rest of the world at the grass roots level and repair the US image abroad,
and generally to build the global social network.
We need to promote universal access in the US as part of a bigger plan to addressthe lack of any internet access in the developing world and the opportunity to create virtual marketplaces where we can all participate.
Nearly one million people now work at home as eBay sellers as their sole source of income. Universal access will give people everywhere the same opportunity as those of us who get to choose among FIOS, Cable, DSL, dialup without batting an eye.
The virtual bar association I helped organize is working on projects along these lines. Creating a virtual market for African women living in impoverished conditions not only roots out poverty there, it also creates opportunity here for people to do business with the emerging civil society in Africa. That’s a win-win for the world.
I don’t know how it would fit in, but there is a great organization, a foundation, who’s mission it is to get computers to children in the Third World. It’s called One Laptop Per Child (OLPC). Perhaps you have heard of it. Can this effort overseas be duplicated here?
Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal - a couple days ago - that describes an effort by OLPC to not only Third World children, but to American kids as well. It’s a creative idea.
(I hope the link works - I can be technology deficient at times)
The link didn’t come through in your post, BlueWashington, but I saw the NYT article also and I agree with you that the OLPC project has implications that also relate it to what Jeff Aresty was talking about in his comment above. The technology involved is innovative—the sub-$200 laptops have high-resolution screens, built-in cameras, flash-based memory storage, peer-to-peer technology so the laptops can communicate wirelessly with one another without a heavy investment in hardwired infrastructure, and they can be operated without access to electricity because they have hand-cranked generators built into each one. The machines run on free, open source software with a startling simple, intuitive, yet still quite powerful UI and software setup. All things considered, they’re pretty darn impressive devices. And as the non-profit, idealistic consortium that created them continues to propagate the OLPC system to children in less-advantaged countries, the irony will be that someone in a reomote area of, say, Kenya may well have better access to broadband connectivity than someone in a remote are of, say, Kansas. By the way, here’s the link to that NYC article, too—it’s a good read and it’s a great way to introduce the technology to Americans at home as well as to students abroad.
Thank you Senator. Your post touches on most of the points that are high on my list. I think safeguarding competition is very important - we don’t want a repeat of what has happened in radio and tv, with massive corporations taking over large swaths of the market and creating high barriers to entry for smaller, local, and non-profit players.
One aspect that I am interested in is how improved information delivery can improve municipal/community services, not just emergency services but also such things as routing of public transit or providing real-time information to transit customers, or consumers of other government services. If serious initiatives are implemented to improve community services this way, the infrastructure improvements will also serve small businesses and individuals. I am wondering if there is any potential for political leverage for more universal broadband access, if it is used to enhance community services in this way.
Thank you for your efforts.
There are some good comments on this dailykos diary as well:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/25/232412/049
I’m sorry I had to miss the hearing, Senator - I was on public transit with no internet access the whole time, haha - but I have to say, the title made me very happy, as insufficient access to the internet and inability to afford health insurance seem to be the biggest hurdles facing small business owners. In some ways, the broadband situation is even more frustrating, because it’s a service that just isn’t always offered to people who can afford it. In the area where I live in work, just outside the Silicon Valley, this problem really only seems to affect small biz owners in predominantly non-white neighborhoods (where cable tv, curiously, is readily available, but no cable internet.) So my question is: will matters of technological justice be a legislative priority as we try to increase connectivity? And thanks for the hearing; I can’t wait to find a rerun or some video so I can see what happened!
The last thing I want taxes spent on is “broadband for everyone!” Access for businesses to remain competitive is important, but why does everyone need broadband at home? I have free dial-up, which allows me to shop, pay the bills, send e-mails, etc. and it’s my choice (I have access to wonderful Comcast or Verizon if I want it). Are we going to spend more taxes so we can remove the so called terrible “digital divide” so people can watch more movies, read, & shop on-line? Head to the library!
We can’t feed everyone in this country, but we’ll spend money so everyone can e-mail each other.
In the discussion of how best to provide universal high-speed internet access to all Americans, it is crucial to examine the comparative risks and benefits of hard-wired technology such as fiber optic, cable and DSL and those of wireless technologies.
For more than a decade there has been no US federal health agency with the budget, personnel, or mandate from Congress to study long-term, chronic exposure to low-intensity antenna RF radiation. We do not know if the current FCC RF radiation exposure guidelines are adequate to protect children, workers, or the general public from antenna site RF radiation exposure. The same questions are unanswered for exposure to Wi-FI systmes that are pervasive in schools and workplaces. As a result, the American public is unprotected.
The impact of long-term exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation generated by antennas sited in very close proximity to homes, workplaces and schools is one of the most significant gaps in research. No wireless device, be it a cell phone, a pager, a device with wireless internet connectivity, or any receiver of television or radio broadcasts, operates by itself. All such devices require antenna sites for their operation. Because biological effects that correlate to increases in RF exposure have been found in populations exposed to antenna radiation at levels 100 times lower than the FCC limits, it is critical to determine if these biological effects can cause harm. (See: Burch JB et al, “Radio frequency nonionizing radiation in a community exposed to radio and television broadcasting.” Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005. Feb;114(2):248-53; and Reif, John S. et al, “Human Responses to Residential RF Exposure.” August 23, 2005.) There is a great need for research to identify the links between low-intensity RF radiation exposures and the biological effects that have been demonstrated in epidemiology studies.
From broadcast antenna RF radiation exposure:
• Adult and childhood leukemia
• Elevated incidence of brain cancer
• Infertility
• Altered immune function, i.e., increase in number of T-cell lymphocytes
• Neurological and developmental impairment
From mobile phone antenna RF radiation exposure:
• Headache
• Dizziness
• Depressive symptoms
• Tremors
• Sleep disturbance
• Fatigue
• Irritability
• Loss of memory
• Appetite
• Nausea
• Visual disturbances
The levels and characteristics of RF radiation present in workplaces and residential neighborhoods now and into the future need to be quantified and monitored. It is impossible to make wise choices or practice sound science without ascertaining facts as to the amount of actual RF exposure. Imagine climatologists predicting future weather without ever examining temperature readings over time.
There is no federal research program in place to quantify the current RF radiation levels present in workplaces and residential neighborhoods across the country. The last time a comprehensive study was done on the amount of general population RF radiation exposure was over 20 years ago. The general population’s exposure to RF levels and the types of RF are rapidly increasing. Because broadcast and wireless devices can be and are used in every aspect of daily living, people are now exposed, many chronically or continuously, to non-thermal levels of RF radiation in the workplace, at schools, in daycare centers, in hospitals, in automobiles, in transportation facilities, and in their homes.
The research needs to examine what actually happens when people other than 6 feet tall hypothetical men (not on medications, not elderly, etc) are exposed to RF. The FCC RF limits are based on the false assumption that what RF does to the body of a man applies equally to children, women, people on medications, etc. In the United States, in the standards set by both the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) and the NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement) and adopted by the FCC, the human exposure model is an adult male of average height and weight. Short-term acute exposures are extrapolated downward to set standards for long-term low-intensity exposures. The standards do not take women, pregnant women, or children into consideration – all of whom absorb radiation differently than this “average” male model. Neither do they consider the elderly or the infirm who are more susceptible to adverse exposures.
Simply put, “Can anyone be harmed by RF below the levels required to heat a 6 ft. tall man? ” There is substantial scientific evidence that biological changes take place at levels far below this. (See PowerPoint presentation of Theodore Litovitz, PhD, “Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields,” prepared for a 2001 Congressional staff briefing found at: http://www.emrpolicy.org/files/litovitz_files/frame.htm
See also - BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)at http://www.bioinitiative.org
The 14 gaps in research identified by the U.S. Federal Agencies who comprise the Radiofrequency Interagency work Group (RFIAWG) and conveyed to the IEEE RF standards setting subcommittee must be addressed. See the attached June 17, 1999 letter from the scientific experts at the US federal health agencies identifying 14 specific issues in the current US RF safety policy that, “we believe need to be addressed to provide a strong and credible rationale to support RF exposure guidelines.” To date these issues have not been addressed in any federal research program. They constitute a comprehensive list of gaps and needs in RF radiation research:
• Biological basis for local SAR [Specific Absorption Rate] limit
• Selection of an adverse effect level
Selection criteria that could be considered in determining unacceptable/adverse effects include:
a) adverse effects on bodily functions/systems
b) minimal physiological consequences
c) measurable physiological effects, but no known consequences
• Acute and chronic exposures
• One tier vs. two tier guidelines
• Controlled vs. uncontrolled (applicability of two IEEE exposure tiers)
• Uncertainty factors
• Intensity or frequency modulated (pulsed or frequency modulated) RF radiation
• Time averaging
• Lack of peak (or ceiling) limits for induced and contact current
• Criteria for preventing hazards caused by transient discharges
• Limits for [continuous] exposure at microwave frequencies
• [Definition of] Replication/Validation
• Important Health Effects Literature Areas:
1) long term, low level exposure studies (because of their importance to environmental and chronic occupational RFR exposure);
2) neurological/behavioral effects (because of their importance in defining the adverse effect level in existing RFR guidelines); and
3) micronucleus assay studies (because of their relevance to carcinogenesis).
• Compatibility of RFR guidelines
In the United States the gaps in the research on potential adverse health effects from RF radiation have led directly to a federal regulatory void in protecting the general public from this ever-increasing environmental exposure. The research needs that remain unaddressed have hampered the development of responsible public policy at a time when the public’s exposure has become ubiquitous and, in many cases, continuous.
The US RF safety guidelines do not directly address chronic or continuous low-intensity exposures.
The US model, and all of the research it is drawn from, is based solely on the thermal effects RF radiation can create. It has been known for decades that microwaves, at sufficient power output, can create heating as in a microwave oven. The current US model presumes that nothing adverse other than heating occurs. Therefore, if heating does not occur, no other adverse biological effect does either. But for decades a range of adverse non-thermal effects have been noted as well – at levels significantly lower than the current US standard.
Epidemiology studies point out the need for further studies of the population groups in residential areas that are in proximity to broadcast and personal wireless antenna sites as well as workers whose occupations require them to be exposed to RF radiation in the workplace.
Given the proliferation of all manner of consumer electronic devices, high-definition television and radio, and the buildout of the antenna infrastructure required for these technologies to operate, millions in the general population will be exposed chronically and repeatedly to nonthermal levels of RF radiation throughout their entire lifetimes. The gaps in this area of RF radiation research are enormous, as are the public health implications of ignoring these exposures.
There is currently no US federal health agency with the budget, personnel, or mandate from Congress to protect children, workers, or the general public from antenna site RF radiation exposure. As a result, the American public is unprotected.
Thank you, Senator Kerry!
Please continue your efforts to make the internet available and affordable for all citizens. Without this powerful tool, democracy will suffer, and the “haves” will continue to rule the airwaves and subsequently the future of America. The internet gives EVERYONE a voice, and will be THE place people can go for REAL news in the future. You have always been the tireless worker for the “little guy”, taking the hits, often going it alone, but always making headway. We’re with you!
As an Ebay store owner, I think giant companies like Ebay and Amazon need to be the leaders in this debate. They are the ones who will be affected if small time business people like myself get squeezed out by I-net special interests. The current situation with the I-net is similar to what happened to small business’s in the 90s by the Walmarts and the Home Depots. We should learn from the past to help steer the future. We must continue to discover new technologies that replace old. This way, by the time the greedy corporates have squeezed us out, there will be a new option to keep them in competition (and who knows what that will be). When Napster came out, it put the CD Monopolies back into competition, and pretty much erased them as well. We need to continue that kind of thinking for the Internet to keep the dark powers on their feet. Change is inevitable.