DIGITAL DIVIDE
Report Disputes Bush Approach to Bridging 'Digital Divide'
Computer Lab Brings Tech Access to Low-Income Neighborhood
INTERNET
ACLU Warns of Threat to Online Free Speech From Cable Monopolies
Groups Vow Renewed Cable ISP Open-Access Fight
Is This Lights Out For The Internet?
DIGITAL DIVIDE
REPORT DISPUTES BUSH APPROACH TO BRIDGING 'DIGITAL DIVIDE'
Earlier this year, after announcing that the "digital divide" was narrowing,
the Bush administration proposed eliminating two major federal programs that
were intended to help bridge the divide. Today a coalition of civil rights
and policy groups (including the Benton Foundation) released a study that
re-examines data used by the Commerce Department. According to "Bringing a
Nation Online: The Importance of Federal Leadership," while some of the gap
between those who had access to computer and Internet technology and those
who did not is narrowing, "significant divides still exist between high and
low income households, among different racial groups, between Northern and
Southern states, and rural and urban households." While about 80 percent of
those earning more than $75,000 a year use the Internet at home, the report
said, only 25 percent of people in households with less than $15,000 in
annual income do so. Phil Shapiro, a technology access advocate in
Washington who works with many community computing centers, argued that
progress in bridging the digital divide would be lost if government
financing ended. "If you water a plant and then decide to stop watering it,"
Mr. Shapiro said, "the result is the same as if you never watered it in the
first place."
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: John Schwartz]
(http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/11/politics/11DIGI.html?ex=1027382537&ei=1&e
n=620a3c605b42e3e0)
(requires registration)
COMPUTER LAB BRINGS TECH ACCESS TO LOW-INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD
The Gardner Community Center, located in one of San Jose's low-income
neighborhoods, has a new computer lab. Microsoft and the city's parks
department and redevelopment agency made the venture possible. Open five
days a week, the lab is a place for students to come and do homework, senior
citizens to use e-mail and job-seekers can take classes to improve their
computer skills. Tony Torres, the center's director, comments on the irony
of the community's situation: "Look outside my window. The Adobe 1 and 2
buildings are right there. To the right is the Willow Glen area. But this is
a lower-income area. You talk about the digital divide? We're living it."
Torres hopes that the new computer lab will help the community reap the
technology benefits that wealthier communities take for granted.
[SOURCE: Mercury News, AUTHOR: Kate Folmar]
(http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/local/3638961.htm)
INTERNET
GROUPS VOW RENEWED CABLE ISP OPEN-ACCESS FIGHT
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Consumer Federation of America
(CFA) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) have joined forces to call
for tighter regulation of cable Internet service providers. The group fears
that cable companies could easily restrict access to online content if they
are allowed to dominate most of the high-speed Internet market. In response,
National Cable & Telecommuniations Association spokesman Marc Smith said
that "The ACLU offers no evidence whatsoever to show that the provision by
cable operators of high-speed access to the Internet is somehow stifling
development of, or access to, any content on the Internet. All of the
Internet's content is a simple mouse click away for cable modem users." The
ACLU is concerned that restrictions are possible because cable networks,
unlike phone networks, were built by competitive companies operating without
government support. Cable companies have not been held to the same
open-access requirements placed on phone companies.
[SOURCE: The Washington Post, AUTHOR: David McGuire]
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50363-2002Jul10.html)
ACLU WARNS OF THREAT TO ONLINE FREEE SPEECH FROM CABLE MONOPOLIES
Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued twin reports
examining the technical and policy sides of the Internet cable monopoly
issue. Barry Steinhardt, director of ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program,
cautions that "Many people don't realize that if current policies continue,
a handful of big monopolies will gain power over information flowing through
the Internet. Freedom of speech doesn't mean much if the forums where that
speech takes place are not free." At issue is the push to convert consumers
from dial-up Internet connections to broadband connections. While dial-up
Internet access provides open and equal access to all, cable is a medium
with far greater centralized control. The danger, according to the ACLU, is
that the Internet may come under private control if current policy is not
redefined.
[SOURCE: Center for Digital Democracy]
(http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/ACLUCableReport.html)
See also:
NO COMPETITION: HOW MONOPOLY CONTROL OF THE BROADBAND Internet THREATENS
FREE SPEECH
[SOURCE: American Civil Liberties Union]
(http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/broadband.html)
(Requires Adobe Acrobat PDF Reader)
IS THIS LIGHTS OUT FOR THE INTERNET?
In the wake of the dramatic collapse of some of the companies controlling
huge sections of the Internet, author Richard Wray pauses to ask what sort
of long term effects we should expect. The biggest fear is that the "global
informtaion superhighway [will] resemble the M6 motorway at rush hour on a
Friday night - traffic crawling at a snail's pace with nothing able to get
either on or off." Industry experts, however, say that this scenario is not
likely. The Internet is very resilient: most ISPs have connections with
multiple communications networks and all network operators have built more
network than they need. In other words, there is a capacity glut easily
tapped into if needed. The complex and fluid nature of Internet architecture
is the very thing that has allowed it to survive major changes. Wray points
out that, in practice, "the greatest threat to the smooth operation of the
Internet is more likely to come from too many people trying to log on to one
specific site."
[SOURCE: The Guardian, AUTHOR: Richard Wray]
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4458665,00.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------