In a major win for the public interest, the Broadband Data Improvement Act passed the Senate (on September 26th) and the House (on September 29th). Due to amendments, it now goes back to the Senate for final approval (should be pro-forma) before it lands on George Bush's desk.

With the United States falling further and further behind a host of other countries, the question on many people's minds (including the folks over at Point-Topic who created this graphic) is, "Why is this happening?":

[Yes, that's the United States, chugging along ever closer to the bottom of the pack. Click here for a full-size image.]

Senator Inouye and Congressman Markey have been pushing for the passage of this bill for quite some time -- resurrecting the idea from congress to congress. The Act, with its explicit purpose "To improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding the availability and quality of broadband services and to promote the deployment of affordable broadband services to all parts of the Nation." has drawn widespread opposition from telcos who've claimed that our current data collection efforts are "good enough." Full text of the Act can be found here.

Among it's mandates, the Broadband Data Improvement Act requires that:

Demographic Information for Unserved Areas- As part of the inquiry required by subsection (b), the Commission shall compile a list of geographical areas that are not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications capability (as defined by section 706(c)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 157nt note)) and to the extent that data from the Census Bureau is available, determine, for each such unserved area
(1) the population;
(2) the population density; and
(3) the average per capita income.

For those of us studying the digital divide, these data will provide much-needed information about the nature of underserved communities. Of course, they could also paint a damning picture of systematic, institutionalized redlining of poor and rural constituencies.

The Act also calls for an in-depth international comparison of broadband service levels, speeds, and pricing. 75 communities in 25 countries, matched "to the extent possible [by] population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile...comparable to the population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile of various communities within the United States" will be assessed.

Even more importantly, the Act requires a "Consumer Survey of Broadband Service Capability" -- in other words, it requires collection of real-world information on what's happening with broadband services in the United states. According to the Act:

For the purpose of evaluating, on a statistically significant basis, the national characteristics of the use of broadband service capability, the Commission shall conduct and make public periodic surveys of consumers in urban, suburban, and rural areas in the large business, small business, and residential consumer markets to determine
(A) the types of technology used to provide the broadband service capability to which consumers subscribe;
(B) the amounts consumers pay per month for such capability;
(C) the actual data transmission speeds of such capability;
(D) the types of applications and services consumers most frequently use in conjunction with such capability;
(E) for consumers who have declined to subscribe to broadband service capability, the reasons given by such consumers for declining such capability;
(F) other sources of broadband service capability which consumers regularly use or on which they rely; and
(G) any other information the Commission deems appropriate for such purpose.

Along with requirements to investigate how best to collect a host of different metrics and a mandate for states to likewise engage in broadband data collection efforts, the Broadband Data Improvement Act represents an important step forward in addressing the broadband market failure gripping the United States. Though the Act's loopholes may yet allow for further obfuscation of critically important data, overall, this Act adds a great deal of momentum to efforts to increase digital inclusion and foster universal, affordable broadband access.

While media conglomerization continues relatively unchecked in the United States, our European allies are looking to actively support local community and alternative media. The latest resolution on the issue from the European Parliament contains some fairly strong language:

Read more...

It was just last year that those of us raising alarms about the massive half-decade market failure in the United States to adequately provision broadband services were facing a misinformation campaign that raw numbers mattered more than percentage rankings. According to this argument, the US broadband market was sound because we had more broadband lines than anyone else.

The misinformation brigade got so much attention (mainly due to incumbents funding a propaganda campaign that "everything is fine here, nothing to see"), that public interest groups had to issue reports systematically refuting the PR are marketing hype. In fact, Free Press issued a point-by-point rebuttal, "'Shooting the Messenger' Myth vs. Reality: U.S. Broadband Policy and International Broadband Rankings" -- and myth #3 was:

The OECD’s reporting is suspect because they don’t emphasize the total number of connections. If they did, they’d see that the United States is No. 1 because we have more lines than any other country in the world.

As Derek Turner, the report's author, rightfully concluded:

The United States is the largest country in the OECD, and the third-largest country in the world. Reporting the total number of connections is meaningless without context. Lines per-capita or lines per household is the proper way to conduct comparisons.

Defenders of the broadband status quo often argue that the penetration data doesn’t matter, because the United States is No. 1 in total number of connections. In his recent speech, Commissioner McDowell said, “The [OECD] study does not emphasize the fact that the United States is simply the largest broadband market in the world with over 58 million subscribers, according to the OECD report – more than twice the number of America’s closest competitor.”

This is true. But it is not a meaningful critique of the comparative performance of nations on a per capita basis. Using this logic, we could say the United States has more unemployed people than any other country in the OECD, including developing economies like Mexico, so therefore the U.S. economy must be in the tank. But when viewed through the sensible per capita lens, which accounts for country population, the United States has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the entire OECD.

The argument that relatively poor U.S. performance is excused by the total number of broadband lines irrespective of population is misleading. Looking from another angle, China now has almost as many broadband connections as the United States and will likely overtake us this year. But China has four times as many people as the United States. Our household adoption rate is nearly four-times higher than China’s. When China overtakes us in the raw number of connections, we will rightly not point to the Chinese as the world leaders in broadband performance.

And here we are, one year later, and the headline last week was, "China Overtakes U.S. In Number Of Broadband Lines." The original critique certainly holds -- raw numbers of broadband lines are not a good indicator of the health of a country's broadband market. But when free market institutes are still touting the health of the US broadband market, I can't help but wonder, how bad does a market have to fail before certain people agree that it isn't doing so well? As with the all-too-obvious comparison with the US financial market (which McCain was touting as fundamentally sound in mid-September), the US broadband market is fundamentally and dangerously problematic.

The end result? Even with a major stimulus, it will take years for the United States to achieve parity (much less pull ahead) of our global competitors. The United States is currently at a competitive disadvantage in a digital economy -- the best thing we can do is to launch a broadband bailout now. Otherwise, we'll be paying far more, and achieving far less, down the road.

Here's a quick 3.5-minute video explaining the airwaves and the current battle over White Space Devices. It was pulled together by Joshua Breitbart and the folks at People's Production House over in New York City. Currently, NYC community organizers have their hands full dealing with the upcoming NYC Council resolution against white space devices (apparently, the City Council has decided that opera for the elite is more important than broadband for the masses).

The video is a great synopsis for non-geeks and folks who are just getting their feet wet in this area. Definitely worth some attention and promotion:

The RIAA has been taking a lot of people to court -- basically, harassing folks in an attempt to curb file-sharing. The $220,000 verdict against Jammy Thomas got a lot of news (and probably worried a lot of folks). However, on appeal (i.e., after a new court not cherry-picked by the RIAA to try the case looked things over), the RIAA lost... again. ZDnet covered the verdict.

At its heart, the verdict reaffirms that simply making a copyrighted work available is not the same as actually distributing the work. In other words, copyright holders actually have to show harm before they can sue the pants off of people. More importantly, it lends yet more weight to the notion that our copyright laws are woefully out of date and that the RIAA has systematically overstepped the legal bounds of its authority under existing copyright law.

Fundamentally, there will need to be a reassessment of copyright and a rebalancing of the rights of copyright holders and the benefits of copyright to the general public. As Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution clearly states:

"The Congress shall have power to...promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

The goal is the promotion of the progress of science and the arts -- not to enrich copyright holders. Clearly, we've strayed from that core mission and Congress should reaffirm its commitment to the original function of copyright.

Nate Anderson over at Ars Technica wrote an in-depth analysis of the current white space debates. It's well worth a read.

White spaces, angry faces: Inside the battle over 'interference'

By Nate Anderson |
Published: September 23, 2008 - 11:30PM CT

High stakes

Every city in the country—even New York City—has a host of unused TV channels. Opening up that fertile field of spectrum to the seeds of innovation is a worthy-sounding goal that everyone can agree to in principle, but when it comes down to making the rules that govern access, and to certifying the devices that can operate, the debate hops on the express train to Nastytown.

Read more...

Happy One Web Day!

With lots of stuff going on around the globe, we're also hosting a shin dig here at New America and will be livecasting the event starting around 10:30am EDT.

More info on One Web Day is available here.

I've been in Atlanta this week at the NATOA Annual conference. I presented yesterday evening on, "Grassroots Wireless: State of the Art Networking" (3.7MB) -- it was a lot of fun.

Dharma Daily organized a big dinner for a bunch of us community broadband advocates -- loads of fantastically delicious Indian food. I ended up down at the end of the table with Chris Mitchell, Jonathan Lawson, and Geoff Daily -- lots of raucous debate of politics, community organizing, and the role of protest in civil society. We ended the night at the top floor bar of the conference hotel -- drinking local brew and jamming out bluegrass with our mandolin and guitar.

Video from the panel I moderated at the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform, "Spectrum 2.0: Using Public Airwaves to Build the Future of the Internet" is now up online. The panelists, Wally Bowen, Christopher Mitchell, Maura Corbett, and Geoffrey Blackwell, were amazing -- providing loads of useful information and personal inspiration. Here's the full 90-minute video:

You can also get more info on the panel and panelists here.

It's taken me quite awhile to get these pictures up, but what a fantastic Basque it was. There's nothing like gathering with friends to cook together and enjoy a few moments of relaxation.

Here's some highlights:

Read more... (and see more pix)