Why Aren’t Internet Issues Important to Most Americans ?

As the 2008 campaigns begin in earnest, there are a bewildering number of so-called “media and internet issues” that have been relegated to the WONK file. That’s what I call the margins of the national consciousness overseen by mainstream media that get little, if any, attention from the general public because the issues are deemed too technical or complicated to capture in short articles or 20 second sound bites. Here’s a partial list, in no particular order of importance, along with a brief synopsis of the issues:

· Internet Tax: Consumers could pay higher taxes for better (faster) services

· Network Neutrality: Should internet providers be able to charge more for heavier use?

· Minority Ownership: Rules that limit media ownership by racial minorities

· WiFi Access: Cities are debating the feasibility of providing free or low cost wireless access

· Domestic Spying: Government pressure on media to reveal user data to fight terrorism

· International Internet Censorship: Should American companies help spy on foreign users?

· Media-Internet Coverage of the War on Terrorism: Do government rules limit coverage?

· Broadband Rollout: Why are almost 50% of Americans still using dial-up?

Why should we care about these issues? That may seem like a redundant question to most people who read this blog, but it is extremely important to consider their relevance to mainstream voters and political candidates as the presidential election looms on the horizon. Like it or not, there is not only a division between blue states and red states. There is also a division in the understanding of consumer technologies among people who are otherwise interested in the future of this country.

Perhaps that division is somehow preordained. In other words, we are not meant to understand how the internet works, or how large corporations are trying to control it, or how government is trying to manipulate it for its own ends. (I’m making an effort here to ensure that doesn’t happen.) Maybe the issues are complicated by the way various sides toss around minute details and technical terms that make most people’s eyes glaze over. It may also be that the proponents or critics have not attempted to relate internet issues to core values that Americans will be debating during the election, values such as freedom from censorship, the rights of a free press, equal taxation, equal access to resources, and the limits of government during peace and war.

All this leads to a modest proposal to those who think they understand what’s going on with the internet and media in general. Essentially, we need to do a better job of relating the debates over “technical” issues to values that make real sense in the context in which the internet and media reside, 21st Century America. For example:

On September 20th 2007 Wired.com ran a story entitled: “U.S. Airport Screeners Are Watching What You Read”. The title suggests Orwellian consequences, while the article questions the reasonableness of association by the selection of reading materials and racial profiling for the sake of terrorist identification. Like many people, I took this story as another example of government gone wild. What next? My choice of clothing, or the way I comb my hair, or whether or not I wear sunglasses in the security line? But as I thought about the article, I began to think about how much we are giving up for the promise of feeling safer, literally our freedom to choose what we read and our right not to be racially profiled. So the question might legitimately be posed: In the Post 9/11 era, do I have the right to decide how to think and who to be? Too extreme a conclusion to reach? Maybe, and maybe not? But the very fact that I now have to question whether I still have these fundamental rights suggests how much our perception of freedom has eroded.

Here’s another example. Why should a traditional “red state” voter care about an internet tax, wi-fi in cities, or how extensive broadband networks are rolled out? Three instances come to mind:

Internet Tax: As internet use becomes more widespread, a goal of all media companies, the costs of building more infrastructure will have to be paid by either commercial providers or government. Taxing internet use moves the burden onto government, i.e. consumers. Conclusion: should we pay twice: once through taxes to bring fiber optic networks to our door, and again for the service through subscriptions? As more small businesses come on-line, a trend that doesn't favor conservative or liberal, access to fast broadband services will become more important. Which groups will pay for it has yet to be decided.

Wi-Fi in Cities: The recent building boom in large American cities, despite the sub-prime meltdown, is driving young, middle age, and senior workers back to urban cores. Many already use computers, wireless phones, and other handheld devices, and expect to be able to use them in their new lofts and condos. The large telephone and cable companies, however, have been unwilling to deploy wireless internet access in some city centers because it cannot be confined to single subscriptions, leaving Wi-Fi by defaut to small business hotspots, airline terminals, and train stations. City governments have taken notice and attempted to fill the void, but have been unable to develop business models that provide free or low cost access. An observation: I would not be surprised to find conservative or liberal business owners showing a little old fashion American ingenuity to set up their own Wi-Fi hotspots if it increases customer foot traffic. There are, in fact, a large number of “community Wi-Fi” groups doing just that, with and without big media’s knowledge.

Broadband Rollout: Who would deny small town Americans the right to watch NASCAR 24/7 or download the latest Rascal Flats album? But that is exactly the result if AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner continue cherry picking the country with their deployment of internet networks. Population centers of less than 1million may remain in “dial-up country” for years to come unless these companies change their policies and ramp up their infrastructure investments. The imposition of a tax on internet users will not be well received in the rural south or mid-west, particularly if it is perceived to affect both consumers and local businesses that will come to rely more and more on fast, reliable broadband access.

The internet is, therefore, becoming more relevant and important to all Americans, especially if we take the time to expose the real issues underlying the debates it has generated. The question now is how to get candidates in both parties to recognize the core values that are now under attack. That will be a topic for another discussion.

Copyright © 2007 R.E. Xavier