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.
Photo by Peter Shanks
The future of the Internet could hinge on a decision by the Federal Communications Commission on how the government can regulate the Internet. For New Mexico, the decision could affect tens of millions of dollars in federal funds earmarked for expanding broadband access. Both Harry Teague and Steve Pearce say the FCC’s proposed regulatory change would be the wrong one, though for different reasons.
“The best approach is the one that gives American consumers the power to determine the success or failure of an Internet service,” Teague told The Independent.
Pearce took a more hands-off approach to the Internet, telling the Independent in an e-mail, ”The success of Internet has come through investment, innovation and entrepreneurship. This attempt to implement so-called ‘net neutrality’ through FCC regulations is in direct opposition to these principles and will potentially hurt broadband expansion and investment in places like Southern New Mexico.”
Some Internet providers want to slow service to some users
Net neutrality refers to the idea that in order to be most useful, the Internet shouldn’t discriminate among users. Some Internet service providers want to be able to decide who gets access to faster Internet and who has to use the slow lane; critics say that isn’t fair.
If you think of the Internet as a highway, right now all users right now can choose to use the slow lane or the fast lane — if they have access to a high-speed Internet connection.
But a battle is playing out in Washington, among congressional candidates like Teague and Pearce, and between regulators and those regulated, over whether consumers will continue to have the freedom to choose to use the fast lane or the slow lane.
The battle comes at a time when more New Mexicans – and Americans — are getting online and states are working to expand access to high-speed Internet thanks to the federal government.
Federal stimulus helps to expand access to high-speed Internet in New Mexico
Congress has dedicated more than $7 billion of the federal stimulus package to expanding access to high-speed Internet across America in hopes of making the nation more competitive in a global economy, supporters say. Advocates also point to potential improvements in how health care is delivered and to other services, like public safety and education, as a result of wiring more of the country.
New Mexico already is seeing some benefits. Earlier this year the Navajo Nation, which straddles three states, including New Mexico, won a $32 million federal grant to expand broadband across its jurisdiction, potentially bringing thousands of people online.
Meanwhile, the New Mexico State Library won $1.5 million to help fund various initiatives, including one that will help pay for training programs at public and tribal libraries meant to increase the skills of citizens using the Internet.
Also the state Department of Information Technology won a $1.8 million federal grant, part of which paid for a grant manager who is working to map areas of the state that are in need of high-speed Internet access.
“He is working to compile information on mapping of the state’s current telecom infrastructure, and that info will be added to other states’ data to create a U.S. map that shows, state by state, where the needs are, for future broadband investment,” Deborah Martinez, spokeswoman for the New Mexico Department of Information Technology, said via e-mail.
FCC wants to regulate Internet delivery service as it does television, radio
How those investments are made, and where, may well be determined by what’s going on in Washington right now, Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge, a Washington D.C.-based public interest group that works to defend citizens’ rights in the emerging digital culture, told The Independent.
He says that the fight has moved on well past net neutrality and into broader questions of what the Federal Communications Commission can regulate.
“This is a whole support system for anything the government wants to do with high speed Internet access,“ Brodsky said in a phone interview. “Including getting it out to rural areas.”
A new discussion over net neutrality, and the broader issue of what the FCC can and cannot regulate, came about after a federal appeals court decision in April that the FCC has no authority over broadband issues, meaning, for example, that Internet service provider Comcast could slow cable customers’ access to BitTorrent, a file sharing service.
The FCC had unsuccessfully argued that it could regulate broadband just as it regulates “common carrier” phone companies and other industries. The court disagreed in a decision that could have far-ranging effects.
For example, the FCC has already had to change its approach on the national broadband plan because of the ruling.
Since then the FCC has looked at a number of options, including reclassifying broadband as a “Title II” telecommunication service, lumping it in with older mediums like TV and radio, over which the FCC has regulatory authority. Currently, Google is a “Title I” information service status, meaning the FCC cannot regulate it, while over-the-air TV is a “Title II” telecom service.
The FCC took a step toward the reclassification plan last week when it voted 3-2 to take public comment on whether or not to reclassify broadband Internet access, with one caveat; proponents of the reclassification process say they would not use the full regulatory power of a “Title II” service.
Brodsky says telephone and broadband don’t have to be regulated any differently.
“What the FCC is talking about regulating is the connection from a user’s house to the Internet, which is a traditional telecommunications service. Nothing wrong with it, nothing different with it,” he said.
“In order for the FCC to say, ‘OK we’re going to convert universal service support from basic telephone service to broadband to high speed Internet access to make sure that everybody can take part in the 21st century economy,’ then we have to have authority over that high speed Internet access in order for it to work,” Brodsky said.
Congress takes issue with FCC’s potential action
The agency’s plans aren’t popular with Teague or Pearce, though.
“The FCC’s proposal would institute net neutrality by subjecting the Internet to regulation designed for land-line telephone service over the past fifty years, instead of developing regulations better suited to Internet technology,” Teague said before the FCC voted last week.
After being contacted by The Independent for this story, Pearce, in a parable of sorts, wrote on his campaign blog about how deregulation can spur innovation.
“When Ma Bell was deregulated, competing companies had tremendous incentive to manufacture new products,” Pearce wrote. “Competition drove the old, stale products out of the market. They were replaced by ever changing, every improving phones. In fact, the cell phone is such an innovative tool that many young couples do not even have home phones anymore.”
