townie ramblings

Full disclosure: I am a strong supporter of restoring net neutrality principles to the Internet and preserving citizen access to modern communication networks in general. To many folks, there are hundreds of reasons why Net Neutrality is an essential principle to uphold. It has become clear, particularly in the last decade, that an open Internet is an ideal framework to nurture innovation, preserve free speech and encourage civic engagement. I think the ACLU did a great job of summing it up when they described the Internet as a “vibrant marketplace of ideas” that “cannot function with corporate censors”.

So you can imagine my surprise when I received an email from Free Press’ savetheinternet.com telling me that my U.S. representative, Congressman Peter Welch, was on the fence regarding his stance on the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (HR 3458). How could this be? It made no sense to me how a Democrat from Vermont could even consider putting big business’ interests ahead of the citizen’s of our state to this degree. So last Monday, when I saw an open invitation via tweet from @vprnet (Vermont Public Radio) to submit questions for Congressman Welch to be asked in the upcoming episode of Vermont Edition, I saw it as a great opportunity. I figured 9 out of 10 questions submitted were going to be related to health care, so why not take the opportunity to change it up a bit and sneak in a question about the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009.

Here was the exact question I emailed to the folks at VPR’s Vermont Edition:

Your spokesperson Paul Heintz is quoted by Seven Days newspaper as saying “Congressman Welch strongly supports net neutrality and believes the Internet should remain open and available to all consumers. At the same time, he wants to ensure the expansion of broadband access to rural areas throughout Vermont,” Could you please expand on why you see these two priorities as being interrelated,  and why, according to Free Press’ savetheinternet.com,  you are currently “undecided” on the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (HR 3458)?

Please listen to Rep. Welch’s response here:
RepWelchNetNeutrality

My interpretation: What Congressman Welch is referring to when he says we need to find ways to “increase the investment” that is “going to allow for the build out of the infrastructure” is that we need to find ways to keep the big telcos happy so they will be inclined to complete the build out of our broadband network to rural areas in the state. The simple truth is large telecommunications corporations oppose Network Neutrality because it limits their ability to play the role of gatekeeper of the network. What some folks might not already know is the battle for Net Neutrality at its core is not about hardware or the actual physical network. It’s about content, and who controls it. More specifically, what Internet users are enabled to produce and consume and for what cost. There are many people who speculate that big telcos are working to impose a tiered pay structure for Internet usage that resembles today’s cable television model.

On this note, it has been suggested that Congressman Welch has received a notable amount of contributions from telecommunications-related PAC’s in the past two years (close to $30,000). That said, I’d like to give Rep. Welch the benefit of the doubt and believe that he remains undecided on net neutrality legislation because he is trying to find a way to marry together the investment for the build out of the network while maintaining the openness of the Internet to all ideas and comers. In all honesty, I admire Rep. Welch’s commitment to public access to the network and bringing rural broadband to the state. This is imperative if we want to whittle away at the digital divide and ensure that we maintain the resources necessary to enable an informed and engaged citizenry.

That said, I think we need to make a stronger effort to ensure that the resources we hope to deliver to all corners of our state remain intact and as rich in accessible and affordable information as ever. I am also fearful that the Congressman’s passive stance on net neutrality puts at risk the most important mechanism for public discourse of the modern era. I’d also like to remind him that both ValleyNet and Burlington Telecom are Vermont owned fiber companies that could undoubtedly benefit from a portion of the stimulus money set aside by federal agencies for building broadband networks. Taking this into consideration might ease his sense of dependency on the big telcos who nearly always fail to put the best interest of the people first.

Politics aside, the citizens of Burlington are on the verge of losing a tremendous resource, capable of offering unrivaled local connectivity, news and information sources of unlimited diversity, and vast opportunity for cultivating civic engagement. Let’s just say if I had the option to trade, I would much rather it be an indoor ice climbing wall that was melting slowly before our eyes. Instead, it is our municipally owned, state-of-the-art, fiber-to-the-home, telecommunications network. A network saturated with potential for both local media consumers and local content creators alike.

At some point very soon (yesterday even) folks in BTV are going to need to ask themselves if they will ever be comfortable treating Burlington Telecom like an adult. This means working to move beyond recent mistakes and allowing the company to get back to business. If not, we need to find the best possible “out” sooner rather than later. If we choose to go this route, I’d like to suggest we at least give a neighborly jingle to the folks at ValleyNet and see if there is any opportunity to reintroduce some of the original BT players. The folks with the vision and know how to match. That said, if we choose to stop dragging our feet in an effort to maintain a one-of-a-kind resource that we are all heavily invested in, we must find a way to let BT operate at a pace advantageous to a healthy business. A business capable of being competitive in a modern telecommunications arena. In essence, we’re going to need to find it in ourselves ASAP, to free BT to a certain degree from the methodical (and often painfully slow) clock ticking on the wall at city council meetings.

Brief note: I’m rarely one to support adding additional layers of process to achieve goals that are reachable if existing players could better coordinate and buckle down a bit. That said, I feel last night’s vote in favor of the formation of the Blue Ribbon Committee is an excellent opportunity to insulate important decision making from surrounding politics and streamline the effort to get BT back into compliance with its CPG.

One thing is for certain (again, politics aside) dragging our feet isn’t going to help in any way whatsoever. In this case, time is money. Both yours and mine. The good news is we’re all invested in something capable of bearing great fruit, if we can work together to enable it to mature.