- From Campaigning to Governance, Part 2: transparency
- Daily Digest: Can Republicans Learn to Stop Worrying and Embrace the 'Net?
- Debating the Future of Obama's Movement at ObamaCTO
- The Big Number: Half a Billion
- Messages for the President-Elect, a Thousand Words at a Time
- Daily Digest: If Obama and the Netroots Were in a Relationship on Facebook...
- Marshall Ganz on the Future of the Obama Movement
- Could a "Craigslist for Service" Actually Work?
- Daily Digest: From the Ashes, a Blogging Class Emerges...
- Obama Campaign Testing the Waters for an Ongoing Grassroots Movement [Updated]
By Joshua Levy, 05/30/2007 - 3:24pm
Now that the FCC has announced it will be auctioning off the 700 megahertz part of the wireless spectrum -- it will go unused once broadcast TV stations make a complete switch to digital in 2009 -- its use has become a political and commercial hot button. Internet activists have gone on the offensive to try to convince the FCC of the public importance of the newly-freed spectrum, and to be fair when assigning it, and today they've made a key ally in John Edwards.
As this petition and a statement from the Ad Hoc Public Interest Spectrum Coalition make clear, the new chunk of the spectrum is perfect for wireless communication; it's strong, it can go through walls, and it can go far and wide, which means it could be used to cheaply connect many more people to the Internet by bypassing expensive wired broadband installations.
The fear is that the major broadband players, Verizon and AT&T, will be awarded the spectrum without giving other, smaller players a chance to bid. That would give these telecoms, who have already expressed an interest in making the Internet less free by proposing to charge users additional fees for high-traffic sites, too much power over this much-needed public resource.
The Ad Hoc group's mission is to ensure that these public airwaves (yes, they are public!) are used for the public good, and not to aid the bottom line of the big telecoms.
Now John Edwards has joined in the call, releasing a statement today. “In recent years, the Internet has grown to touch everything and transform much of what it touches. It's not the answer to everything, but it can powerfully accelerate the best of America. It improves our democracy by making quiet voices loud, improves our economy by making small markets big, and improves opportunity by making unlikely dreams possible.” Edwards wants smaller business and wholesalers to have access to at least half the spectrum to guarantee that rural and underserved areas benefit from it. It's amazing that so many businesses and schools in rural areas around the country must still rely on dial-up because Verizon or AT&T simply don't find it profitable to build out broadband networks there.
It's great to see Edwards on the forefront of this issue, and we hope more candidates wake up to this important moment. They could help reverse a dangerous trend toward corporate ownership of what should be a public good.
If you feel the same, sign the petition.
more from Joshua Levy's blog | login or register to post comments
Recent blog posts
Recent comments
- The tipping point where voting applications break down
10 hours 6 min ago - I remember that
12 hours 8 min ago - "you can transfer a list, but you can't transfer people ..."
1 day 14 min ago - Great analysis
1 day 1 hour ago - V2V: volunteer to Volunteer
1 day 3 hours ago - trying to figure it out
1 day 9 hours ago - Both in the...
1 day 19 hours ago - thank you
1 day 20 hours ago - Good comment by Matt Damon
1 day 21 hours ago - Light-weight volunteer organizing can work
2 days 4 hours ago

print
email
delicious
digg
technorati
GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
It sounds good in theory that the "public good" should own things, but if you look at the history of GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP of property, government ownership raises costs for everyone and makes markets less efficient. It sounds good in theory that the government should "regulate the airwaves" and "regulate the internet" using feel-good terms such as "net-neutrality" but the government should NEVER regulate the internet! And never tax it! And the same goes with the spectrum. It sounds great in theory that "rural and underserved areas" need to benefit. But the converse of that is that you are forcing "metro and 'overserved'" areas to SUFFER at the hands of bureaucrats like John Edwards. The free markets should decide these things.
Imagine if the government got involved in the regulation and licensing of computer equipment. Quality would suffer, price would go up (look at the health care industry), and computer speed would remain flat or at most go up much less than the current speed-doubling time of 18 months.
Vote Ron Paul 2008. Let freedom reign.
Avery J. Knapp Jr., M.D.