America Needs To Stop Pretending The Broadband 'Digital Divide' Isn't The Direct Result Of Corruption

from the we-didn't-get-here-by-accident dept

Last week, a tweeted photo of two kids huddled on the ground outside of a Taco Bell -- just to gain access to a reliable internet connection -- made the rounds on social media. The two found themselves on the wrong side of the "digital divide," forced to sit in the dirt just to get online, just 45 minutes from the immensely wealthy technology capital of the United States:

America's broadband access and affordability issues have long been a problem. But they're taking on greater urgency in the COVID-19 era, with millions of Americans being forced to learn, teach, work, and socialize from home. In that climate, it didn't take long for the photo to garner attention and public sympathy, resulting in outlets like CNN reporting that the local school district wound up giving the family a mobile hotspot so they could actually do homework at home:

"The district gave the family a hotspot so the students could access classroom instructions from their home, according to Gebin...In a statement, a spokesperson for Taco Bell Corp. told CNN that "the photo of two young girls outside of a Salinas, CA Taco Bell is a tough reminder of basic inequalities facing our communities."

While a kind gesture, the episode is fairly representative of our relationship to the digital divide and America's patchy, expensive broadband networks. As in, we've let telecom giants dictate state and federal policy for 30 years, resulting in geographic monopolies where the primary objective is maintaining the status quo (high prices, little competition, zero real accountability for market failure). Then, in the rare instance where the problem can hold our attention for more than thirty seconds, we throw a band aid on the byproduct of this corruption and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done.

Granted CNN, like so many major news outlets, covers this problem in a way that implies that expensive, mediocre, patchy broadband networks are just some thing that magically happened, and not the obvious byproduct of state and federal corruption. The kind of corruption that usually involves companies like AT&T burying competition crushing language in unrelated ordinances, literally writing state laws banning creative local community broadband alternatives, or convincing the FCC to effectively self-immolate upon request, gutting not only the agency's authority over telecom, but most meaningful consumer protections.

American broadband doesn't suck because America is big, or because we haven't thrown enough money at the problem (giants like AT&T have received countless billions in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors, usually in exchange for bupkis). American broadband sucks because giant monopolies literally write state and federal telecom law, and have completely corrupted the legislative process from the town level on up.

It takes thirty seconds watching state and federal legislatures before it becomes clear that the majority of our lawmakers have prioritized Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T campaign contributions above anything even vaguely resembling the public interest. It's simply undeniable, and it should be the bedrock upon which all U.S. broadband policy conversations and news coverage is built upon. Fail to acknowledge this reality and you're allowing the problem to perpetuate. There's an entire cottage industry of telecom-linked think tankers, economists, and consultants whose mortgage payments depend on pretending American broadband isn't a monopolized mess. It's hard to look at coverage from the likes of CNN and not come away realizing how effective they've been at shaping the discourse.

Despite its reputation as a haven for "the socialisms," California is certainly no exception to this corruption (just ask the EFF). Several recent legislative proposals have been pushed to help lessen the digital divide, including expanding fiber networks, funding "middle-mile" broadband projects, and boosting the standard speed of what's considered broadband in California from a pathetic 6 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up -- to 25 Mbps in both directions. But more than a few consumer advocates have been complaining to me that the broadband speed bill was never even allowed to come to a vote despite widespread support. Why? AT&T didn't like it:

"Senate bill 1130, authored by senator Lena Gonzalez (D – Los Angeles), would have raised the bar to symmetrical 25 Mbps down/25 Mbps up speeds. The California senate approved it in June, but it died in the assembly as democratic leaders refused to allow a full floor vote on it.

Had they done so, SB 1130 would have easily won the majority needed to pass. That wasn’t acceptable to assembly speaker Anthony Rendon (D- Los Angeles). Backed up by majority floor leader Ian Calderon (D- Los Angeles), Rendon pulled the bill, caving in to pressure – and loads of money – from AT&T and a solid line of cable companies, including Comcast and Charter Communications. Frontier Communications was against it too, but the relative pittance it directly puts in legislative pockets – $61,000 over the years versus $7.4 million from AT&T alone – doesn’t buy much influence. AT&T’s indirect payoffs to Californian democrats and republicans are more than five times that."

This isn't some one-off. Unless beneficial telecom legislation can somehow garner massive public attention (difficult to do since telecom wonkery doesn't generate ad impressions), it's trivially easy for a giant like AT&T to covertly kill pretty much any legislation that even remotely challenges the status quo, attempts something new, or opens the door to more serious competition. As such it's not particularly surprising that AT&T-owned CNN examines the lack of broadband as a heart-warming fable -- without explaining to its readers/viewers why U.S. broadband has been mired in mediocrity for the better part of a generation.

42 million Americans lack broadband, nearly double the FCC's official, rose-colored-glasses estimates. Another 83 million or so live under a monopoly, ensuring they see terrible customer service, high prices, and little effort to seriously improve. Millions more live under duopolies where their only choice is either Comcast or a phone company that hasn't updated its DSL lines since 2002. It's the result of corruption. It's the end result of a wholesale failure in ethical governance. Ignoring this reality, denying this reality, or painting this American failure as just quirky happenstance -- ensures we'll never set about truly fixing it.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: broadband, california, competition, corruption, digital divide, fcc


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    arp2 (profile), 4 Sep 2020 @ 6:58am

    Public Option

    It would have helped with ACA and it can help here. If states and municipalities could set up public networks, I'm sure you'd see rapid improvement from telcos in those markets. We'd also need subsidies to be fixed bid or not to exceed. Deliver X service to Y communities for Z price. If you don't you need to return part or all of the money.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2020 @ 8:57am

      Re: Public Option

      Except public options are one of the targets of telco corruption. They've been fighting tooth and nail to get those utilities dismantled or prohibit new construction.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ECA (profile), 4 Sep 2020 @ 2:16pm

      Re: Public Option

      I would love to see.
      Google, Run into an area, and Finish up the systems, and Charge the corps for the access they they have installed. Like the Old cell towers, when you went from 1 system to another and ended up in ROAMING areas.
      Or Charge it to the gov./state. Even make a DEAL with the gov. or state to finish these areas. Then demand that the Corps rent/buy out the sections and NOT raise prices, as they have been PAID TO DO IT, 2-3 times.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2020 @ 7:05am

    If you don't you need to return part or all of the money.

    How about, and this is just a modest proposal, set up the subsidy for a fixed period, and only pay the money at the end of the period for tasks that were actually accomplished (as agreed by both sides. Lawsuits invalidate the subsidiary altogether.)

    Giving out the money ahead of time ... imposes irresistible temptation to the low-minded.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Sharur, 4 Sep 2020 @ 8:19am

      Re:

      Or part now, part on completion, to allow smaller players to compete. Or perhaps loans, with the interest for the scheduled time added into the completion payment.

      Otherwise, Verizon or AT&T can afford to wait two years (or whatever) for the project to complete to get paid, but smaller players can't.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    rkhalloran (profile), 4 Sep 2020 @ 8:02am

    competition ftw

    My city was one of the candidates for Google Fiber before that disintegrated. Big noise from City Hall about how modern this made us etc etc. Strangely enough :-), about four months later, AT&T drops a postcard in my mailbox that they've run fiber through my neighborhood and would I like gig service for what I was paying Comcast for 75/10 internet? Can't complain about the service TBH, but I frankly would have preferred Google coming in and being able to tell Comcast *AND* the Deathstar to pound sand...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2020 @ 9:01am

      Re: competition ftw

      For the past decade I have lived in a city that has all 4 major ISPs and it's always amazing to me how good I have it compared to complaints I hear from other people. I pay $60/mo for 1000/1000 fiber because they KNOW that if I'm ever unsatisfied with their service I have MANY options to choose from.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    JaredTheGeek, 4 Sep 2020 @ 8:47am

    My Hometown

    I grew up in Salinas. Its a lower income agricultural area just a stones throw from Monterey, Pebble Beach, and Carmel. Lots of working class people that do a lot of manual labor. The kind of people that get ignored. Its the kind of area where the city can't afford to put up municipal broadband and not a big enough area for Google to care to install fiber everywhere.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2020 @ 8:59am

    For the past decade I have lived in a city that has all 4 major ISPs and it's always amazing to me how good I have it compared to complaints I hear from other people. I pay $60/mo for fiber and they know that if I'm ever unsatisfied with their service I have MANY options to choose from.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2020 @ 9:47am

    until the majority of the politicians we have are actually replaced and or held to account, nothing will change. this is enhanced by the fact that our leader is as bad, if not worse than the politicians already mentioned!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2020 @ 10:14pm

    Unfortunately this won't change until local governments stop accepting Richard Bennett blowjobs as a form of payment.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    nasch (profile), 7 Sep 2020 @ 6:36am

    John Oliver

    Sounds like it's time for John Oliver to do a story about his business daddy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.