I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
By now you’ve probably read about the federal government’s program to close the digital divide, that chasm that separates those with high-speed Internet from those who don’t.
As part of the gargantuan federal stimulus plan the government has set aside $7.2 billion to at least start the process of closing the divide.
Except on the eve of the deadline for accepting the government money (the deadline is Aug. 20) the biggies in the industry — Verizon, Comcast and AT&T — appear to be sitting on the sidelines, according to the Washington Post.
Here’s an excerpt of the story:
Their reasons are varied. All three say they are flush with cash, enough to upgrade and expand their broadband networks on their own. Some say taking money could draw unwanted scrutiny of business practices and compensation, as seen with automakers and banks that have taken government bailouts. And privately, some companies are griping about conditions attached to the money, including a net-neutrality rule that they say would prevent them from managing traffic on their networks in the way they want.
“We are concerned that some new mandates seem to go well beyond current laws and [Federal Communications Commission] rules, and may lead to the kind of continuing uncertainty and delay that is antithetical to the president’s primary goals of economic stimulus and job creation,” said Walter B. McCormick Jr., president of USTelecom, a trade group that represents telecoms including AT&T and Verizon.
In case you want to know what net neutrality is all about, here’s a link to a story the Independent’s Marjorie Childress wrote last year. It’s a good explainer. Basically, net neutrality is the idea that everyone is treated the same on the Internet, that large corporations with lots of money don’t get a faster lane on the Internet — meaning they can stream video, audio, etc. at a much faster pace – than Joe Q. Citizen, who doesn’t have a lot of cash to throw around as leverage.
It’s interesting that the concept comes up in the Washington Post story repeatedly. The author of the story at one point quotes Walter B. McCormick Jr., president of USTelecom, a trade group that represents telecoms including AT&T and Verizon.
McCormick said net-neutrality conditions on the grants are fuzzy and may give network operators pause before investing in long and expensive projects that could end up in a tangle of technical and legal hang-ups over how the firms oversee their networks.
“Clearly, it’s causing potential applicants to reflect upon the uncertainties,” McCormick said.
Meanwhile, some consumer advocates see a certain cynicism in the big companies’ very vocal, public opposition to the stimulus funds.
From the story:
Some public advocates and analysts say the carriers never had a compelling reason to seek the grants.
“They weren’t going to apply,” said Ben Scott, head of policy at public advocacy group Free Press. “They are using this as an opportunity to grandstand against net neutrality.”
Rebecca Arbogast, head of tech-policy research at Stifel Nicolaus, notes that the biggest carriers would be less inclined to deploy networks in rural areas because there is not enough demand to justify the ongoing financial investments. She said the companies should have expected stronger net-neutrality conditions because it was mandated by Congress in the stimulus act.
“With a few exceptions, the net-neutrality provisions were not a great departure from what I think was already out there and is consistent with the path that most recognize we were already headed down,” Arbogast said.
The Washington Post story ends on a somewhat optimistic note, saying that bringing high-speed Internet to those most generally who lack it — folks in rural and urban core areas — can be accomplished without the biggies getting involved.
Again from the story:
“I think if the big carriers want to participate and play by the rules, great. If not, I’m not that concerned,” said Mark Seifert, a senior adviser for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which is overseeing grants for the Commerce Department.
