Reaction to the New York City Council's kowtowing to the National Association of Broadcasters has already begun. In my own conversations with council members and staff, they've discussed openly that the New York City Council does not actually understand the technologies they're writing resolutions about. It's a pretty sad day for the Council -- this proceeding, which began as a Notice of Inquiry in 2002 has been dragging on for over half-a-decade because of the successful delay tactics of the National Association of Broadcasters.

The New York City Council has made it abundantly clear that they would rather weigh in supporting fear-mongering rather than support the immediate development of technologies that will dramatically lower the costs of communications for the millions of residents they purport to serve. This is particularly egregious since the heart of the resolution was written by corporate lobbyists and has remained remarkably unchanged throughout the entire so-called "due diligence" work that the Council claimed they were doing.

White space technologies have been pending before the FCC for years and years and years. At a time when the United States is falling further and further behind a growing list of other countries, one need look no further than the New York City Council's call for further stagnation to understand why.

City Council tries to halt new technology that could close the digital divide. Community advocates react.

For Immediate Release

Contact:

Kristofer Ríos (212-334-7433)

October 23, 2008

New York – Advocates for closing the digital divide condemned a City Council resolution urging the Federal Communications Commission to delay a decision concerning the unused part of the airwaves known as "white spaces." The FCC has announced its intention to issue a ruling at a November 4 meeting.

The Council's Committee on Technology in Government passed Resolution No. 1613 at a special meeting this morning. The full Council is expected to approve it this afternoon.

In passing the resolution, the Council rejected calls from technologists, good government groups, immigrant rights organizations, and community media to endorse the new technology. Instead, the resolution repeats the request from the National Association of Broadcasters that the FCC delay its decision. Because of anticipated turnover at the FCC with a new administration, any delay at this point would extend an already-four-year-long review for up to a year or more.

"The City Council is playing politics with our technological future. They would rather cut and paste a NAB press release than close the digital divide," Joshua Breitbart, Policy Director for People's Production House, said.

Proponents of white space technology argue that it would pave the way for cheaper, faster wireless connections to the Internet, allowing many people to afford an Internet connection for the first time. A recent study commissioned by the City's Economic Development Corporation found that only 46.4 percent of New York households have high speed Internet access, well below the national average. Low income residents are even further behind, with barely a quarter having broadband at home. Wireless access over the white spaces would be especially helpful in rural areas, where many people lack even the option of purchasing a broadband connection.

Opponents claim the devices could interfere with other wireless signals, such as television broadcasts or wireless microphone transmissions. FCC engineers recently determined that white space devices can detect and avoid other signals, which will prevent interference.

The FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology conducted 18 months of lab and field testing of white spaces prototypes, including a test at a Broadway show where wireless microphones are routinely used. Broadway producers, while not technically licensed to use wireless microphones, have relied on them for years and fear having to adjust their practices. On October 15, the FCC's engineers concluded that "the burden of 'proof of concept' has been met."

The engineering results are part of an FCC review dating back to early 2004. All told, the various stakeholders have filed nearly 30,000 comments in the proceeding. Maximum Service Television and wireless microphone manufacturer Shure, both of which testified before City Council in support of the resolution, have filed 104 and 67 comments with the FCC respectively.

"We're hopeful that the FCC will ignore the New York City Council's sop to the broadcasters and base its decision on sound engineering and the public interest," Breitbart said.

***

People's Production House is a national media justice organization based in New York City. It provides young people, immigrants, and low-wage workers with a comprehensive education for the information age, combining media production, media literacy and media policy.

I couldn't make this up if I tried. The full McCain quote in its full context is available here.

During his Saddleback Church presentation, McCain was asked how he would balance privacy rights with security issues. Here's part of the transcript:

11 THE POINT IS WE
12 HAVE NOW HAD TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES OVER THE LAST 20 OR 30
13 YEARS IN COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE REMARKABLE. IT'S A
14 REMARKABLE ABILITY THAT OUR ENEMIES HAVE TO COMMUNICATE SO
15 WE HAVE TO KEEP UP WITH THAT CAPABILITY. I MEAN, THERE IS
16 TOO MANY WAYS AND -- THROUGH CYBERSPACE AND THROUGH OTHER
17 WAYS -- THAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE
18 ANOTHER. SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO STEP UP OUR
19 CAPABILITIES TO MONITOR THOSE.

Some will certainly say that McCain's statements are just about our enemies having too many ways to communicate. Ponder that spin for a moment -- how do you limit the abilities of your enemies to communicate without detrimentally impacting your non-enemies? Put into a different context, McCain's quote is exactly what repressive regimes around the globe have stated throughout history. It's a statement with woeful historical and contemporary precedent.

An interesting thing has been happening -- people are actually reading McCain's technology plan. The reviews are coming in (and they're not pretty).

Here's a synopsis (click on the author's names to read the full analysis):

"[McCain's Tech Plan] reads like some crotchety technophobe knocked over the bumper sticker wrack at an Ayn Rand Reading Revival and tried to rearrange them so it made a policy." -- Harold Feld

"Seriously, this is approaching Chuck Norris-level aggrandizement. How delusional does this guy have to be to imagine himself the hero of every situation he's in, to the point that he has to frame himself as a white knight on regulating packet shaping over the internet? I'm actually kind of impressed. Here are the rest of the sub-headings. They are of course not about technology, they are about John McCain." -- Matt Stoller

"The McCain worldview scares the hell out of me. Technology is complicated -- and the solutions we need are fairly complex -- they require an in depth understanding of the problem if you're going to formulate a solution. And McCain clearly doesn't understand some of the core problems... I'm still waiting for McCain to release a real technology plan -- one that helps consumers and addresses the problems we're facing instead of protecting corporations and ignoring technology market failings." -- Sascha Meinrath

"McCain has delivered his tech policy. And it’s clear: This election will determine whether America willfully becomes a third-world participant in the online economy and culture." -- David Weinberger

"In summary, the McCain plan says, "What's good for AT&T and Comcast and Cisco and the RIAA is good for America." It's about their Internet, nor ours." -- David Isenberg

"We have already had 16 months of no policy in the technology realm and an admitted lack of knowledge by the candidate himself. Now the campaign can’t even get the basics straight on something they absolutely should know — the candidate’s own record." -- Peter Swire

"McCain declines to put net neutrality into law. Indeed, he declines to guarantee all Americans the right to obtain the information they want, communicate to everyone they want, send non-obscene and lawful information to anyone they want, over the Internet. Why? What's the hold-up? Why not assure this paradigm?" -- Reed Hundt

"We see that millions of Americans are using the Internet to help each other out, and to improve the way government works. The Obama technology plan encourages civic engagement and openness. Unfortunately, the McCain plan adopts the Bush/Cheney approach, which promotes privileges for big companies at the expense of democracy." -- Craig Newmark

"Where Obama has specifics and new ideas, McCain has old ideas and positions that would be taken for granted in any Administration other than the one now ending. The reason is that McCain has a problem: he’s out of step with the real world." -- Kevin Werbach

"McCain fails to understand that net neutrality only regulates the internet in the same way the First Amendment to the US Constitution regulates speech!! There are many different kinds of regulation, and this is one that protects the rights of individuals and an entire public good from being victimized by giant corporations." -- Jon Bartholomew

"The policy statement starts by addressing McCain's economic policies, which emphasize perpetuation of Bush's low tax on capital gains and reduction of the corporate tax rate...The fact that tax cuts landed at the top of the list reflects the prominent role that the Republican take on fiscal conservatism will play in McCain's policy decisions." -- Ryan Paul/Ars Technica

"The computing-challenged McCain, who said that he needs his wife to cut on the computer and check email for him ("I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all the assistance that I can get."), has released his technology "policy". It sounds like another handout to corporations and a screw you to the rest of us." -- Pam Spaulding

"McCain’s tech policy is one big giveaway to big corporations, an incoherent, muddled mess that does nothing to address the challenges America faces in vaulting our technological development into the 21st Century. Not only is he against net neutrality, he barely addresses things like wireless spectrum, broadband development, copyright law reform–and when he does, it’s invariably in favor of the big business interests to which his campaign is utterly beholden." -- Martin Bosworth

"It’s been widely reported that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is a self-admitted 'illiterate' when it comes to computers. But some have suggested that he could still put forward sound technology policy because he surrounds himself with tech-savvy advisers, such as former Hewlett-Packard chairman and CEO Carly Fiorina and former eBay president and CEO Meg Whitman. But it’s unclear how much he is listening to them. Yesterday, McCain finally released his technology platform. (Until this time, 'technology' was not even listed in the Issues section of his campaign website.) His plan supposedly focuses on innovation, but in reality, it often repeats McCain’s previous non-innovative positions, such as his opposition to net neutrality. -- Amanda/Think Progress

"In outlining his policy, McCain reiterated his opposition to net neutrality, a hot-button issue for many bloggers and technology advocates...

John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices.

He also believes that if you put the internet in neutral, it'll stall." -- Mary Phillips-Sandy/Comedy Central

I've finished reading through McCain's Technology Plan -- it's a quick read, about 50% as large as Obama's Technology Plan but with even less actual content. One telecommunications expert told me, "The fact that it's so thin and fluffy speaks for itself."

That said, there were some good points in McCain's plan (e.g., supporting research and development, increasing H1-B Visas, tax breaks for R&D, supporting national broadband buildout, increasing government transparency, reforming the patent system) -- of course they were all points that were already in Obama's plan, released last fall. In fact, the parallels are fairly substantial (to a point).

But it's in the discrepancies where the two candidates are thrown into stark relief...

Network Neutrality

Obama's says: "A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

McCain's says: "John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like 'net-neutrality,' but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices."

Diversity of Media Ownership

Obama's says: "Barack Obama believes that providing opportunities for minority-owned businesses to own radio and television stations is fundamental to creating the diverse media environment that federal law requires and the country deserves and demands. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum."

McCain's says: [Nothing -- there's nothing about diversity or media ownership in his technology plan.]

Lowering the Corporate Tax Rate

Obama's says: [Specific tax breaks for R&D and broadband buildouts, but no cross the board tax cut for major corporations.]

McCain's says: "John McCain will lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent."

General Worldview Towards Technology

Obama's says: "Obama is also opening up the campaign and giving average Americans a chance to offer opinions and information on important policy issues and Americans have responded: over 15,000 policy ideas have been submitted through the web site."

McCain's says: "Offering simple common sense solutions to real problems is at the core of the McCain’s innovation agenda."

A lot of McCain's plan looks good (a lot of it also looks identical to Obama's plan), but it's this last one -- this McCain worldview that scares the hell out of me. Technology is complicated -- and the solutions we need are fairly complex -- they require an in depth understanding of the problem if you're going to formulate a solution. And McCain clearly doesn't understand some of the core problems.

Take competition, for example. McCain's tech plan states, "Competition has been a great strength for America — offering opportunity, low prices, and increased choice for our citizens. Markets work best when there is robust competition. Competition means that any new devices invented cost less because there are more choices. This ensures more Americans can afford to be part of the digital economy." Yet, when it comes to things like broadband services, the US is paying more for services and has fewer service options than a growing host of other countries. If you can't identify the problem of lack of competition in the first place, how can you possibly solve the problem. Platitudes about competition aren't going to cut it.

A technology plan has to address the massive market conglomerization that's been happening in technology -- from Microsoft to Google, Apple to AT&T. McCain's plan completely sidesteps this issue -- Obama's plan addresses it head-on:

"An Obama administration will look carefully at key industries to ensure that the benefits of competition are fully realized by consumers. Obama will strengthen the antitrust authorities’ competition advocacy programs to ensure that special interests do not use regulation to insulate themselves from the competitive process. Obama will also strengthen competition advocacy in the international community as well as domestically. He will take steps to ensure that antitrust law is not used as a tool to interfere with robust competition or undermine efficiency to the detriment of U.S. consumers and businesses. He will do so by improving the administration of those laws in the U.S. and by working with foreign governments to change unsound competition laws and to avoid needless duplication and conflict in multinational enforcement of those laws. In short, an Obama administration will take seriously its responsibility to enforce the antitrust laws so that all Americans benefit from a growing and healthy competitive free-market economy."

However you come down on these issues, I'd love to hear more about your take on the McCain and Obama plans (either on blog or off). Personally, I'm still waiting for McCain to release a real technology plan -- one that helps consumers and addresses the problems we're facing instead of protecting corporations and ignoring technology market failings.

When McCain states, "

Hopefully, it will be out soon. I look forward to reading it over and seeing what he plans to do to support 21st century technology development. In particular, I'm hoping he's put together a concrete strategy for spreading broadband connectivity in the United States. Thus far, George Bush has completely punted on this issue, which has caused the US to fall behind a growing list of other countries... stay tuned!

I've just been reading about the new 2009 budget numbers. George Bush is asking for $515,000,000,000+ in government spending for the Pentagon. It occurred to me as I was thinking about this gargantuan number, how come we're constantly hearing about the tiny amounts being proposed for broadband, yet huge numbers like these barely raise an eyebrow.

So I thought I'd break down the numbers to drive home my point. Assuming 300,000,000 Americans, every man, woman and child will be paying a bit over $1,700 to support the Pentagon's budget. Which ends up being about three times as much as people pay for their broadband at home... but wait, people buy broadband for their household -- so I needed to find out how many households there are in the US. According to 2004 census numbers, there's a bit under 115 million households -- so once one makes the adjustment, the per household Pentagon allotment hefts in at roughly $4,500 for the year.

As we ponder where our money is going this next year, remember, broadband isn't really the big ticket item, it's not even close. Recent estimates have claimed that $150 billion (a bit under 30% of the proposed Pentagon budget) would provide universal fiber broadband connectivity to every household in the United States.

What is Network Neutrality? Ask a dozen people and you're sure to get a dozen different answers. Driven by recent attempts to undermine the freedom of the Internet, it's a question that more and more people are asking. My colleague, Victor Pickard, and I are in the midst of drafting up a piece on just this issue. Something that goes beyond the wishy-washy and strike at the heart of what it means to have a participatory, democratic commons.

Meanwhile, here's what the folks at Annenberg have thought up on this issue:

Read more...