A 21st Century New Deal Idea
Submitted by CarolinaDem77 on Sat, 05/20/2006 - 9:50am
http://carolinademline.blogspot.com
When becoming President in 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood the importance of re-building America's infrastructure so that economic growth would be made possible. The programs made sense, people needed work, and America needed new buildings, bridges, etc. This overhaul of America's infrastructure paved the way for the economic expansion America saw after World War II and allowed the United States to become the leader of the industiralized world.
In 1933, a major infrastrucure improvement was to deliver electric power to rural areas of our country. President Roosevelt made this goal a major part of his New Deal package of reforms and created the Rural Electric Authority. This agency was responsible for bringing electric power to farms and small cities across America, allowing these areas to grow economically as well.
Today, our economy is based on knowledge. The power of one's intellectual capacity will determine their position in the information aged economy. To ensure that all Americans have equal access to knowledge, Democrats should offer a New Deal Idea for the 21st Century. I believe it is time that Democrats back a nation-wide effort to provide wireless internet in every city, town, village, and rural area in the United States.
Many cities are already providing this service to their ctizens, but without a major push from the federal government, this idea will not become reality. I have included a link below to a story intoday's Raleigh News and Observer. The City of Chapel Hill is pursuing this idea and it sparked this web-post.
I first thought of this idea about three years ago while working on the Edwards campaign. I have made it part of a platform development I am working on for the North Carolina Young Democrats Education Caucus and look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Have a great Saturday and "Lets Go Canes!!!"
- CarolinaDem77's blog
- 464 reads
I like this a lot
I was skimming the first chapter of Thomas Friedman's new book last night, and he says we're in the third stage of globalization. The first stage lasted from about 1400 to 1800, and involved the struggle of nations in relation to one another for global position. The second stage lasted from about 1800 to 2000, and was the era of multi-national corporations reaching beyond national boundaries to reshape the global economy. Friedman says the third stage involves the freedom of individuals from both national and corporate boundaries, at least as far as their ability to participate in the global positioning of informationa nd resources. I've heard crazier ideas.
But getting to the point: this vision doesn't mean much to someone without broadband. They're just left out.
I'm glad you brought this issue up...
I can't remember where I saw it last and it certainly wasn't associated with the Edwards campaign, but I've seen this idea somewhere. It isn't that I don't think wireless internet provided by my government would be just wonderful, this simply isn't what I look for my government to do. I'm worried more about what the government can do to help those outside my reach - those people who not only don't have access to broadband, but those who don't have access to computers. We are so far away from taking care of what I consider the real problems of our society that I can't begin to think about my government providing me with wireless internet. Maybe I'm just too practical or I'm not thinking outside of the box or thinking ahead of the curve or any of those other cliches.
I want my government to take care of the hungry, the sick and the impoverished....then it can worry about my internet access. As part of the platform? I think at this stage it would be very misguided.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
SD, it sounds like you're
SD, it sounds like you're thinking of broadband and wireless as a luxury, and very recently they were. But the internet moves on, and Americans need to be on it. As we are increasingly asked to compete in a global market, people who can't affort to play can't win. Jobs and training using the internet are going to be (if they aren't already) a huge part of the economy, and providing the means to access them is like building roads for people to use getting to work and the store.
As for computers, we are (I think) moving past the point where home users have to keep up with new (expensive) processor speeds and memory technology to have a workable machine. I mean, how many teraflops does it take to teleconference, word process, and blog? That means that fully functional desktop machines are getting cheaper. They're just a few hundred dollars at Best Buy, and charity orgs are providing $100 linux boxes in the third world. There's no reason why a government that connects its people to the internet can't make sure that cheap computers are available.
I stand by what I say
and I didn't say it wasn't a great idea....it would be misguided and read as "elitist" to include it as part of a platform.
I don't think of broadband or wireless as a luxury. I think that there is a huge portion of the population that still does. When you can't feed your family, broadband is a luxury. When you're deciding between food and your medication, broadband is a luxury. When you are working temp jobs or are un- or underemployed, broadband is a luxury.
Broadband is a necessity to me. I don't really remember a time we didn't have it, though we certainly had access to the web before we had roadrunner. The fact is, those who do not have access to the internet or a personal computer don't care about competing in a global market and those who do can afford to pay for their own broadband.
I want my government, with my party at the helm, to take care of those who truly need help. Right now, I don't belong in that category and I will happily pay for my own access to the global market so that others have a chance to eat, afford medication and sleep safe at night in a warm bed.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
But DQ, I think you're making my point!
It isn't a luxury for you—it's a necessity—but much of the population can't even think about availing themselves of that necessity while paying for food, shelter, etc. You write "I want my government, with my party at the helm, to take care of those who truly need help. Right now, I don't belong in that category...." But civil broadband wouldn't be for you or me. We would use it, sure, but we'd have it with or without government support. It's for the people who can't afford it.
You say "I'll happily pay for my own access..." You still would, through your taxes. In a progressive tax environment, you and I and the rest of us who are getting by would be buying broadband for ourselves and for those who couldn't afford it on their own.
And as for elitism, I understand that you're not calling the idea elitist. And as for those who would attack the idea as elitist, what they have going against them is that it's the exact opposite of elitist. That's a war of words that we could win.
One other thought (and maybe those who have been paying attention to the experiments in Chapel Hill and Carrboro can pitch in here), but I can't imagine that our taxes would go up by more than what I pay per year for broadband. A civil broadband program wouldn't have to come at the expense of other programs, and it might even free up some income.
Just because we're both 40-something wombed ones
doesn't mean we're interchangeable. I'm the one with the furry children.
As for broadband, I just lived for 10 years in places that could only get 26K dial-up (and at 56K prices) and i felt underprivileged. I just couldn't even look at most websites. I'm not sure how this program would help rural areas but with access to information becoming so crucial I'm tending to come down on Lance's side.
“All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.” So enjoy the Drama.
Dammit!
This is the second time I've done that. I need to stop using "SD" and "DQ," for one thing. I fully understand that the third time this happens I'll have to turn in my password and walk the earth blogless for the rest of my days.
It's just that you're both so damn wonderful!
The fact remains....
There has been no plan proposed that successfully addresses basic needs and internet access doesn't come close to standing on the same platform as food, shelter and healthcare.
Until these basic needs are met then "wireless for all" will be viewed as an elitist bauble.
Oh, and quite frankly, government-sponsored wireless should never be approved without another necessary part of preparing for a global market - education. Until we make learning a second language a compulsary part of our education, we will never be prepared for a global market and no amount of free wireless access is going to change that.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
Eating an Elephant
I don't disagree that the things you've listed are important, and I wouldn't put internet at the top of the list. But I don't understand why it has to be "nothing in category X until category Y is all fixed up." It still seems to me that this is something we can do now, and I don't see why it has to detract from efforts to provide access to education and other necessities.
Um....because money doesn't grow on trees.
There are choices in life and when the means are limited you can parse the money so that it has little impact in any area, but you do a little bit of a lot of things...or you can concentrate the money so that you do a few things very well.
I guess I'm just ready for our country to stop doing things half ass...as my father would say.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
Fair enough
I was kind of hoping some Carrboro types would jump in. My very strong suspicion is that they do it for much less than the $30-40 per household that you'd buy broadband for on the market. If that's true, then it doesn't have to be a question of money.
I suspect that we also disagree on the fundamental question of whether being on the internet provides opportunities for the working poor that offset the cost.
No, we may not disagree on that
but to say that providing wireless is going to automatically bring a huge portion of the population to the global community is simply not correct. First they need to own computers or have easier access. Then they need to know how to use them. Then they need an understanding of the global community. Do you think a 43 year old woman with barely a high school education who has been working 2-3 jobs, is on food stamps, has to leave children on their own while she works, can't take the youngest to the doctor because she doesn't have insurance.....do you really think that she's going to benefit from internet access? Who is going to buy her a computer, because she can barely put food on the table as it is? Other than the age of the woman, I'm not describing just a handful of people.
My children went to a high poverty school. It wasn't supposed to be, but CMS decided to bus over 600 students from public housing and low income areas to the school. These children come to school hungry, sleep-deprived and stressed out. They talk about hearing gun shots and teased the kids whose moms are prostitutes. Many of them live in extended family arrangements with a grandmother, aunt or uncle. They share beds with siblings, cousins and friends - if they have a bed. Many of them have undiagnosed learning disabilities and it takes a huge effort to get these children taken care of. Parents and grandparents don't have phones and the children lose the notes sent home in their backpacks. In a city the size of Charlotte, this is thousands of children. Internet access is the least of their concerns.
All this being said, there are families that fall into the above group that will see children graduate from high school and might be able to scrape enough together to buy a computer during their school years. Would this family benefit? Absolutely. Is this small benefit enough to justify the cost? More than likely, because there will be other families just like them.
What really started my lecture series (sorry about that) is the way this idea was delivered. We aren't the only people who read this site. Here we've been trying to help find the message for the Democratic Party in some of our discussions and what the casual observer would take from this post is: Our party platform is going to be internet in every household.
Is that the message you want out there?
The Democratic Party needs to stand for something. Maybe what it once stood for is good enough. That isn't what ran us out of power. I would much rather be known as the old-school liberal who wants to feed, shelter and clothe the needy, protect the elderly and educate our children for a better tomorrow; than the progressive who wants to give free internet access so everyone with a computer has a chance to meet and greet in the global community.
There I go again, dissing the idea. It isn't that it is a bad idea. It's that it doesn't accomplish the goal of entering or competing in the global market. It's weak standing on its own. Maybe it needs to be part of a comprehensive package with the end result being equal access to the global community and an equal opportunity for success as well. In it we need to address the fact that segments of society don't have equal access to computers or education. Maybe we start a volunteer organization called Global Education for Every Kid (G.E.E.K. - sorry...it just came out) Seriously, there are existing organizations that would probably have volunteers who can go to community centers and the schools and teach parents and students how to use the internet. Some of this already exists in schools and at the luckier of the community centers. Many churches and some community centers now have computer labs. If they didn't have to pay for internet access they might be able to afford a few more computers and that gives more people an opportunity to access the internet. We might not be able to provide everyone with a computer, but we can promote the groups that do provide this service.
We need to address this in our education. My oldest goes to an international school. In the IB program they address how our country interacts in the global community. They don't just study countries/governments/current events. They learn about cause and effect in the global community. They are learning the good and the bad about the impact of our foreign policies and I'm amazed at Katie's understanding of the world at the age of 12. She has an "expert country" - The Democratic Republic of the Congo. She has a news wire that she checks daily to see what's happening in her expert country and the countries surrounding it. It hasn't been pretty. However, she's had to learn what impact our country has on the events - whether we are doing anything to help or hurt and why. This goes far beyond learning "current events" and if we are serious about preparing our children for the global market this should be our approach to education. This certainly doesn't happen without internet access.
Foreign languages. When it comes to truly communicating with others we rank as a third world country in my book. It is embarrassing to me that so many people from other countries speak English and we barely speak it properly ourselves. We need to do more than simply offer classes in foreign language. We need to require the fluency of a second language. This one won't go over well and will be extremely expensive because it will require the overhaul of elementary education to include some immersion classes. The great news is that it's been proven that learning a second language is as beneficial to the young brain as learning music, so the requirement will have a huge payout in the long run.
You don't need to speak a second language to enter the global communtiy on the web? Well, that's just a half-assed approach now isn't it? Requiring the learning of a second language prepares our children to move beyond the internet and truly enter the global community.
Maybe this is that fresh idea we need to add to our very noble "old school" platform. But it needs to be packaged properly. We then become the party that is not only going to feed, shelter and clothe the needy, protect the elderly and educate our children for a better tomorrow, but we are the party that will promote global understanding and provide equal opportunities in the global markets through education, training and access.
Lance, I understand that I haven't told you anything you might not have already known. If you weren't aware of poverty, equal access (which you addressed with your first comment) and educational issues you would be a Republican. I'm so grateful that you aren't, because as someone almost 20 years your senior I am happy to know that when a nurse is wiping drool from my chin, someone like you will be providing the ideas for our leaders or leading the way yourself. Maybe the only point I made that you might not have been aware of is that we shouldn't leave a bald idea like "government sponsored internet" out there for the wingnuts to rip to shreds, especially if we're discussing it as part of our "platform". Package it. Make it something that even they can't tear apart. Present it so that every segment of society can see the benefits....and yes, there will be some who are simply happy they will get free internet. :)
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
Wow, that was long
n/t
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
"We aren't the only people who read this site"
This is a good point, and it's something that I stay keenly aware of. But someone who wants to can take our bests posts and selectively quote and twist it against the author. That's a good reason not to share specific action plans or to say frivolous, stupid, or knee-jerk things in this space. But it isn't a reason to not discuss the things that are important to us. In this case, I think your vigorous dissent makes it clear that this isn't me or CarolinaDem speaking for the community at large or for the party.
I read the whole comment, and I love the principles and priorities you describe, and I do truly hope that your chin is not drooly any time soon. But I feel like the disagreement I have with your argument can be expressed in relation to statements in the first paragraph. First, like you, I don't believe that internet access automatically does anything, but I've mentioned training above, and some of that training could be accomplished through the internet. Second, access to computers is a problem, but not a fatal one. They can be cheap, cheap, cheap. That means they can be sold on a sliding scale and that people like Z. Smith Reynolds and Bill & Melinda Gates can buy them for the neediest.
And third, and I think this is most important, the computer is not just for the 43-yr-old woman, but for her kids as well. Even with the risks for kids on the internet, a child raised in a home without access is going to be at a disadvantage as in relation to a child that has had access. And kids aside, I really do believe that she's going to benefit from internet access. I use the internet to make decisions about spending, about medical care. Better decisions.
So that's one thing. I'm going to break this up into two comments.
You read the whole thing?
I thought I was the only one who was a glutton for punishment.
I did address the kids in the next paragraph...you know the little one buried between two big ones.
And you know...I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it doesn't address preparation for entering a global economy/market/community as it stands on its own.
Damn...I should just go erase the really long post and put that in its place. Never use one word when ten words will do, eh?
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
Ok, here's my one-sentence take:
"I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it doesn't address preparation for entering a global economy/market/community as it stands on its own."
That's not a reason for not doing it; it's just a reason for not abandoning other work.
I'm talking to Arica about this as I'm typing
(Arica is my wife), and she's making some of the same points you are. One way she put it is that if she were having a hard time paying for food and medicine for their family and someone came to her offering a computer and internet access, she say "I need food; I need medicine; I don't need MySpace.com." I have a couple of reactions to that.
One, the internet thing is finite. It requires this much training, this many computers, this many feet of fiber, this many wireless routers.... It can be done (and again, I think it can be done at an overall savings). We are not close to structuring our economy so that nobody is hungry. The social and economic barriers to health care reform are huge and intractable. We should be working vigorously towards overcoming these problems, but they shouldn't stop us from helping in less fundamental ways along the way. We don't need to refrain from giving someone good and useful things on Tuesday just because we can't meet their needs until Friday.
Two, there are a ton of opportunities that the poor don't take advantage of because they don't know about them. Websites explain your rights at the emergency room. They tell you what health clinics provide what services. They explain your worker's comp rights. There are websites for charitable and social organizations. Is every mother on assistance going to take advantage of these? Probably not, but what percentage have to before we stop looking at the internet as dinner rather than dessert?
I'm going to stop because I'm getting all excited. I am enjoying this discussion, though. I'm surprised to find myself so excited about a proposition that hadn't occurred to me before yesterday. I don't think we need to be but so worried about what the righties will think. No policy is going to be adopted or rejected because of what we say here, but the people who read and write on this site are the people who will be taking ideas from these discussions into work in the physical world.
Arica is a beautiful name
and she's obviously quite brilliant..:)
You're right about information being available on the web that will benefit those in need of public services. That is exactly why this needs to be part of a comprehensive plan, though. I am obviously focusing on those whose most basic needs aren't being met. I realize that there are far many more who are among the working poor who don't live in public housing who can afford a basic computer. This will certainly benefit those families tremendously. I also think we can address this as a viable option for those who are truly impoverished by promoting/funding/creating neighborhood centers with computer labs and doing the same for existing programs at churches and community centers.
My point about this being read by others wasn't meant to imply we shouldn't discuss it, just that we shouldn't leave it out there in an undeveloped state. I'd much rather accuse some winger of taking something out of context.
These are the discussions that need to be front and center. These are the discussions that breathe life into our party platform and bring the tried and true old-school ideals to the next level. Hopefully, these are the discussions that make the Republicans look cheap and heartless because they only look at the global market as a means to line their pockets while we look at it as a way to reach out to others in need and strengthen our country and the world. (Please tell me you hear patriotic music in the background...LOL)
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
I did, I did hear the music!
Nicely said.
Have Cake, Will Eat It
Chapel Hill has an opportunity to make a big dent in deploying a municipal network by going with a Wifi/WiMAX solution for their realtime bus ETA system.
Their transit dept. is about to spend $950K on a last-gen tech solution (using cell tech) when we could go with a system like Albuquerque's Rapid Ride Wifi or Portsmouth UKs Cityspace systems.
An quick look at Chapel Hill's bus routes will show a fairly strong correlation with areas underserved.
More on how Chapel Hill is poised to waste a $1M opportunity to bridge significant portions of the digital divide:
http://orangepolitics.org/2006/05/catch-the-nextbus/
http://www.blog.willraymond.org/2006/05/09/nextbus-whats-the-price/
http://www.blog.willraymond.org/2006/05/08/nextbus-recap-the-story-so-far/
More on Chapel Hill's recent muni-networking forum (which, I think, was quite successful in covering most of the bases):
http://www.blog.willraymond.org/2006/05/18/fiber-is-future-proof/
With some strategic thinking, a community can achieve a network build out "on the cheap". For instance, another opportunity coming up for Chapel Hill is the NC-DOT signalized intersection rewiring.
NC-DOT will be dropping fiber to cover all of Chapel Hill's signalize d intersections, about 100 in all, widely dispersed about town (to link the stoplights, add traffic cameras, etc.)
Chapel Hill can tag-a-long with this project and, for pennies a foot, NC-DOT will drop a parallel fibre optic cable along the same routes. Thise would make for a very comprehensive backbone for town for less than what we spent on summer movies downtown.
Thanks Will
I'm going to go do some reading.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
Comments on Southern Dem's Muni-networking issues...
Thanks guys for taking the ball and running with it...some quick observations.
1) Part of the Chapel Hill proposal, at least from the folk I'm collabrating with, is to provide both connectivity, user education and user support. We're looking at a NPO "owning" the system on behalf of the citizenry. We've suggested teaming with other NPOs or creating a "job corp" NPO to provide education and support. So, we're talking a comprehensive program.
2) It's not just wireless tech but wireless provides an incredibly cheap and effective starting point that can organically grow via a cooperative networking strategy called "mesh networking".
3) If we had to go it alone (no municipal support), we'd probably call on folks at home to configure their $20-40 off-the-shelf Wifi routers to contribute %5-95 of their broadband capacity to a mesh. The mesh grows more powerful with each node.
4) "....might be able to scrape enough together to buy a computer during their school years." The %10 of students Ray Reitz, CIO of Chapel Hill/Carrboro schools, identified as "left out", had or could get free computers. The real problem was connectivity. He pointed out, as others, that there's a glut of corporate cast-offs, perfectly useable, that can and have been redirected to the under-served (BTW, there's NPOs in our area that specialize in providing computers).
5) Ray also pointed out that the 'net is not only the dominant research tool for students, but studies show increased reading skills (the 'net is still mostly words), a demand for interactivity, etc.
6) As Lance points out "Websites explain your rights at the emergency room. They tell you what health clinics provide what services." Neat recent example: a way of making Tamiflu (a drug offering one of the best hopes for turning the tide on an avian flu epidemic) much more cheaply (and more safely) was released into the public domain and on the 'net by Harvard Professor Elias Corey, who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1990. Now, my organic chemistry is fairly rusty, but I think with a little practice I could even follow the formula.
There's a lot of cruft on the 'net, but what's left over - from Project Gutenberg to the flawed Wikipedia to Ibiblio to the Library of Congress' comprehensive efforts - represents a treasure trove of valuable, practical information provided (or should be provided) at a cost and flexibility other media can't compete with...
Finally, because I don't want to break the record for lengthy comments:
7) Who controls the new Town Commons is critically important.
Corporations (Verizon and ATT, for instance) and the government (via Echelon, CALEA, TIA, the recent NSA debacle) have both proven unworthy stewards of this new Town Commons.
It's time for local control.
I think the Dems should be pushing for decentralized, community-based ownership of the "peoples" means of communications. They should trumpet the peoples right to unfettered access as a matter of principle.
Ask yourself, would the progressive voices on BlueNC, dailyKos, etc. be able to exist in a corporate/government controlled Town Commons?
Anyway, a long post, but, hopefully, one with some ideas to spur further conversation.
WillR...you know you could have worked a little harder
to break my record. hehe
Just remember that you really can't use Chapel Hill/Carrboro as a model. The percentage of students without home computer access is much greater in a large city or more rural area. It is a start, though and really, really smart people (not including myself in this group) can build on it to assess suitability for other markets.
My biggest concern is not whether small university towns can succeed with this, but whether as part of our national party platform we can implement something that will be as successful in rural/mountainous/coastal regions as it is in the big booming metropolis of Chapel Hill. It's easy to get excited about something that you know will work in your city. If we adopt this as part of our party platform we have to be prepared to make it work everywhere or else it isn't equal access.
***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.
Did we get mooted?
It looks like the government is already working to get everyone broadband. At least in North Carolina it is.