August 2013

[Commentary] Pew released survey results showing that the percentage of Americans with home “high speed broadband” connections has ticked up from 66 to 70 percent since April 2012. Pew calls this a “small but statistically significant rise.” The news of an overall rise in “high-speed broadband” adoption will likely be trumpeted by America’s giant communications companies and policymakers as the bright spot: “We’re not doing so badly!” But before we start celebrating, it’s a good idea to look closely at the results.

For starters, Pew’s results demonstrate that the Digital Divide is persistent, with close correlations between socioeconomic status and home Internet access. The report is also a reminder that policymakers use the words “high-speed broadband” to include everything other than dialup access, which is far too broad a definition. It’s telling that at least 83 percent of people with smartphones also have a high-speed Internet access connection at home — because of data caps and high-volume data like HD video, these technologies complement, and don’t replace, one another. If these services were affordable, everyone would have both. But the marketplace for high-capacity (200 GB per month), high-download speed (100 Mbps per month) wired connections is increasingly dominated by a series of local cable monopolies that can charge whatever they want. Bottom line: As a result of consolidation and deregulation, many Americans pay too much for Internet access services that are second-class — because they aren’t fiber to the home — and not enough Americans can afford service. According to the report, almost 90 percent of college graduates have high-speed Internet access at home, as do households earning more than $75,000. Compare that to only 37 percent of those who have not completed high school — as well as 54 percent of households with income less than $30,000 — that have such access. Pew points out that many blacks and Latinos have smartphones — bringing their “high-speed broadband” adoption numbers almost equal to whites – if smartphone access is included in “broadband.”

[Susan Crawford is currently a professor at the Cardozo School of Law and an adjunct professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University]

Gannett, owner of 82 daily newspapers and 23 television stations, confirmed that some of its local papers have cut staff.

"Some of our community publishing sites are making cuts to align their business plans with local market conditions," company spokesman Jeremy Gaines said. The layoffs, totaling about a couple of hundred jobs, were revealed at many of the company's local newspapers over the last 30 days. Jobs were cut both in newsrooms and business operations. Gannett also publishes USA TODAY, which has not been affected by the layoffs.

US District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan said that she plans to require Apple to hire an external monitor, something the company considers unnecessary.

Judge Cote suggested a final injunction would be narrower than what the US Department of Justice has been seeking, and would not restrict Apple's agreements with suppliers of other types of content such as movies, music and TV shows. "I want this injunction to rest as lightly as possible on how Apple runs its business," Judge Cote said at a court hearing. Poised to issue an injunction soon, she said a monitor would be necessary, after Apple had failed to show it learned its lesson from its "blatant" violations of antitrust law. The monitor, she said, would likely be installed to review Apple's internal antitrust compliance program and procedures and recommend changes, and also required annual antitrust training for employees in Apple's e-books and content businesses. Apple had vigorously contested hiring a monitor, saying in court papers it would be "extremely costly and burdensome."

[Commentary] The Internet policy prescription outlined by the Clinton Administration has been working. Unlike so many points of debate today, Democrats and Republicans have continued this concept that continues to provide the right prescriptions today.

The Progressive Policy Institute and economist Ev Erlich, former Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration, outline an agenda that would return broadband policy to its progressive roots by: "(F)inishing the job of creating a truly national high-speed network, using the remarkable capabilities of broadband to improve education, health care, government, and other social sectors, creating the terms on which more connectivity can be created (for example, liberating spectrum), and protecting the individual right to privacy using both legal means and market forces." What do all of these policies have in common? They will deliver real benefits to Americans in both urban to rural America. Expanding broadband availability and improving adoption rates should be at the heart of any progressive broadband policy agenda.

Ehrlich also advises progressives to keep their eye on the ball and not let debates over divisive issues like "net neutrality" distract from more important goals, as this issue "does nothing to address the leading obstacles to a ubiquitous broadband Internet: Indifference and the absence of computers."

[Eva Clayton is a former member of Congress who represented eastern North Carolina (1992-2003), and former Assistant Director General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization]