March 2010

[Commentary] There is some hope that comprehensive broadband build-out in rural areas could provide rural places with the infrastructure they need to provide the jobs that would give those young people a way to stay. But broadband build-out alone will not solve the employment woes of rural areas.

As long as there continues to be a marked gap between the education levels of urban and rural citizens, we cannot expect highly-skilled, well-paying telework jobs to transfer to rural areas of their own accord. There is the possibility, however, that rural broadband build-out could facilitate not only the infrastructure needed to bring telework positions to rural communities, but also provide the means for rural residents to enroll in distance learning courses that will help them to become more competitive in the national and global marketplace. Why distance learning? Historically, rural communities have sought to close the rural/urban education gap by sending their most promising young students to far-away colleges and universities for post-secondary instruction.

On the face of it, this is a seemingly sound plan. However, this strategy has a few crucial shortcomings.

A coalition of media justice and public interest organizations sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski yesterday, calling on the agency to make increased diversity in the media and broadband communications landscape a top priority. The groups issued the following joint statement:

"Historically marginalized communities still face countless barriers to their own members' provision and ownership of communications services. The Communications Act instructs the Commission to examine these barriers and take steps to eliminate them. This Commission has taken strides in this area, yet much work remains to be done to address persistent and growing digital divides. We urge the Commission to implement better data-gathering practices regarding the ownership of media outlets by minorities and women, and to examine diversity in pending proceedings at the Commission. For instance, we ask that extensive studies be conducted regarding the potential impact of the proposed merger between Comcast and NBC Universal on the diversity of voices in ownership and programming."

The signatories to the letter include Afro-Netizen; Alliance for Community Media; Benton Foundation; Professor Angela Campbell of Georgetown Law; the Center for Media Justice; the Center for Rural Strategies; Free Press; Main Street Project; Media Access Project; Media Alliance; Mountain Area Information Network; the National Alliance for Media Arts & Culture; the National Association of Hispanic Journalists; the National Federation of Community Broadcasters; Public Knowledge; Reclaim the Media; Texas Media Empowerment Project; United Church of Christ Office of Communication, Inc.; and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Experts say the broadband speeds consumers experience at home are typically 10 percent to 20 percent below the limit that they pay for.

"With broadband, we have allowed ourselves to get into the equivalent of a legitimized con game," says Craig Settles, an industry consultant based in Oakland, Calif. "All of the advertised speeds are speeds that you can't be sure you would get on an average day. It is a theoretical ceiling, if you will, and baseline."

In other words, that 6 megabit DSL connection that you just bought has a potential maximum of 6 megabits. But it's almost certain that you're going to be 10 percent or 20 percent below that limit. Fortunately, there are Web sites like Speedtest.net that you can use to analyze your Internet connection.

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the First Amendment protects demands for personal information from government contract workers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The case asks whether the Constitution protects a "right of informational privacy."

The Supreme Court mentioned such a right in a 1977 decision, and has seldom mentioned it since. A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction halting the background checks while the suit goes forward, and the full appeals court refused to rehear the case in June. The 9th Circuit's chief judge, Alex Kozinski, highlighted the legal issue when he dissented from the decision not to rehear the case. "Is there a constitutional right to informational privacy? Thirty-two terms ago, the Supreme Court hinted that there might be and has never said another word about it," Judge Kozinski wrote. "With no Supreme Court guidance except this opaque fragment, the courts of appeals have been left to develop the contours of this free-floating privacy guarantee on their own. It's a bit like building a dinosaur from a jawbone or a skull fragment, and the result looks more like a turducken. We have a grab bag of cases on specific issues, but no theory as to what this right (if it exists) is all about."