Hyperlocal online news startup, Bay Citizen, will have a 14-person bargaining unit for editorial workers with the Pacific Media Workers Guild after the union won a card check election 7-5-2.
The Labor Relations Board certified the election on July 12th and contract negotiations will begin soon.
The Bay Citizen has a local work force of 30 people. The new bargaining unit will cover 14 editorial employees, less than 50% of the total employee count.
Bay Citizen president and CEO Lisa Frazier is reported to earn a salary of $400,000 per year. Annual reader memberships cost $50-$149 per year and the site includes PG&E, Wells Fargo Bank, Visa, Yahoo, New Republic Bank and Canon in a list of corporate sponsors.
The Guild issued this press release on July 20th:
***
The Bay Citizen Becomes First Start-Up News Website to Unionize
New model in journalism leads way in workplace democracy
San Francisco, July 20, 2011 – Journalists at the nonprofit news
website The Bay Citizen have voted to affiliate with the Pacific Media
Workers Guild, Local 39521 of The Newspaper Guild-Communications Workers
of America.
“We believe The Bay Citizen, as one of the pioneering exponents of
new civic journalism, should also be a leading example in the area of
workplace democracy,” The Bay Citizen’s editorial staff wrote in a
letter to TBC President and CEO Lisa Frazier ahead of filing cards with
the National Labor Relations Board.
The majority of the organization's editorial staff signed union cards
seeking to be represented by the Guild on May 26th, the one-year
anniversary of The Bay Citizen's launch. Voting was conducted June 27 at
The Bay Citizen's San Francisco headquarters and by mail-in ballot.
NLRB officials counted the votes on Tuesday, July 12.
Two votes out of the 14 cast are being challenged. The remaining
ballot count resulted in a 7-5 win to form the union. The two challenged
votes have not been opened, however the Guild is certain that whether
these two voters are included in the unit or not, the concluding tally
will remain in favor of forming a unit. The Guild is asking the NLRB to
count all votes cast.
Bernie Lunzer, international president of The Newspaper Guild in
Washington, D.C., said the result marks an historic advance for media
workers, as traditional newsrooms shrink and the industry struggles to
find new models to stay competitive in the online era.
“The future of quality journalism depends on reporters and editors
shaping the vision of innovative new media organizations. By voting to
be represented by the Guild, employees at The Bay Citizen have given
themselves this voice," Lunzer said.
Support came from unionized journalists at The New York Times and KGO
radio, which have agreements to obtain local news content from The Bay
Citizen.
“For more than a year, journalists from The Bay Citizen have provided
important coverage for the pages and website of The New York Times, and
these talented journalists are an asset to the Guild at an important
time, ” wrote Grant Glickson, New York Times Staff Assistant and Unit
Chairperson.
Bay Citizen staff members are committed to the success of the
organization and expect their new Guild unit to work in partnership with
management to create a contract appropriate for their nonprofit
startup.
The Bay Citizen was founded in 2010 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan news
organization dedicated to fact-based, independent reporting on civic and
community issues in the San Francisco Bay Area. Its newsroom of
award-winning journalists covers Bay Area civic and cultural news topics
that are under-reported today. TBC also partners widely with
independent media organizations and produces the Bay Area pages of the
The New York Times.
The Bay Citizen unit joins one of the premier affiliates of TNG-CWA.
Formed after a series of recent mergers, the San Francisco-based Pacific
Media Workers Guild (known as the California Media Workers Guild until a
name change in January) represents about 2,000 news workers,
freelancers, court interpreters and union staffs throughout California
and Hawaii. News units include the San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose
Mercury News, Bay Area News Group-East Bay, Bay City News Service, Santa
Rosa Press Democrat, Sacramento Bee, Fresno Bee, Modesto Bee, Honolulu
Star-Advertiser, Hawaii Herald-Tribune and Maui News. The Guild also
includes the California Federation of Interpreters, print shops and
union staffs at AFSCME Local 3299, the ILWU and California Labor
Federation.
This
is me, at the edge of town. We've got most things you need in Stamping
Ground — or at least near here. Except for real broadband.
It’s
a wonder anyone in the rural U.S. bothers to have an Internet
connection – certainly anyone living more than 10 minutes from a town
of any reasonable size.
Not only are the available options
painfully slow – though the satellite ISPs tout their wares with
phrases such as “blisteringly fast” – they are expensive and the
“service providers” (their words, not mine) do everything in their
power to keep you in their talons once they have you signed up.
For
$50 a month I have only once reached a download speed of more than 260
kbs. Their explanation? It’s because I’m bundled with an evil TV
service provider that restricts the amount of bandwidth it allocates to
me. However, if I were to sign a new stand-alone contract with the ISP
and pay for a new installation of the latest equipment and a
more-expensive plan, then my service would miraculously improve.
Or
so they tell me. It must be a joke, right? Why would any company allow
another to tarnish its name by downgrading its service — all the while
working in partnership with it?
The providers of cable, satellite
and landline services have apparently borrowed a leaf from the same
manual used by the companies that own the cargo ships. That’s the page
where it tells you how to divide your world – in this case the U.S. –
into spheres of influence but still maintain the illusion of
competition. It’s horrifying.
Appalled by the obstructionist
attitudes I encountered as I tried to work through my problems, and the
possible damage to his reputation, the small businessman who’d
installed my new TV service organized a three-way phone hook-up with my
ISP (Company A) to see if we could find a solution. Could I keep my old
account and equipment while they sent out an installer with the new
gear? No, I’d have to sign a new contract. Well I might as well cancel
all together.
My place, the house broadband forgot.
The ISP rep, all helpful and condescending – why do these people all
assume you’re not as smart as they? – said something like, “Don’t do
that, sir; I appreciate your problem and I’ll switch you through to
someone who may be able to help.”
In a flash we found ourselves
talking to a sales rep with another company, one that advertises itself
as Company A’s chief and fiercest competitor. I kid you not and I’ll
swear to it in court if it comes to that. In response to our
incredulous question, Company B’s salesman said: “We are a sister
company, sir.”
How did things get to this state and why is the
U.S. so far behind in communications technology (29th in the world and
slipping) – especially in what is available to people who live outside
city limits? It’s not that the country around Stamping Ground,
Kentucky, is sparsely populated. Nor is there any resistance to the
idea of affordable access to truly high-speed Internet for all
Americans, regardless of where they live. (Note to ISPs: 1Mbs is not
high speed. That is considered slow everywhere except in your
advertising. South Korea is already testing a 1Gbs network that will be
up and running next year.)
Nor does U.S. Internet service come
all that cheap. Daily Infographic this year published a statistical
map* crediting the U.S. with an average speed of 4.8Mbs at an average
cost of $3.33 per Megabit; Japan is shown at 61Mbs and $0.27 per Mb.
I’d
dispute the U.S. figures because my guess is that only major population
centers figured in the calculations. My average speed is far less and
my cost far more than is quoted for the U.S., and I’m willing to bet
there are many people in the same slow and leaking boat. Government
surveys indicate that something less than half of all Americans enjoy
access to truly high-speed Internet service and, of those who do, less
than half receive service qualifying as true broadband, despite the
ISPs’ claims.
What’s to be done about it? If the government did what is being done in Australia
and ran fiber-optic cable wherever wireless doesn’t reach and launched
a few satellites better able to handle Internet communications, then
things might improve.
And it’d certainly give the flagging
economy a boost. The network could be sold to private interests once it
was up and running – with a stipulation that service must be maintained
in rural areas – or kept as an income generator for Social Security and
Medicare.
Of course there’d be the usual howls of “socialism”
and the big corporations would argue that they do things better and
more efficiently than government. Maybe they can, but they don’t.
Service to clients and country comes at best a very poor fourth after
executive bonuses, profits and “responsibilities to our shareholders.”
(I
note that the CEO of one service – which may or may not be the one I
cancelled due to high cost and lousy service – has been awarded a
year’s compensation just a McDonald’s or two shy of $33 million.)
We
are ankle deep in politicians’ crocodile tears shed over business,
competition from cheap foreign labor and the plight of the struggling
middle-class (forget the poor; they’re always complaining). But part of
the remedy is staring them in the face. And not only would a national,
hybrid high-speed wireless/fiber-optic/satellite network make rural
businesses more competitive, it would do wonders for health and
emergency services, traffic lights, schools and the 1001 other things
we now depend on in our increasingly complex world.
But shoot,
what do I know? I’m just some grudge-ridden malcontent living way out
in the boondocks – all of 20 minutes from the State Capital, 15 minutes
from a county seat and 35 minutes from the State’s second-largest city.
No doubt I get what I deserve.
Here is a letter advocating for the passage of the largely AT&T sponsored DIVA legislation (Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act) - AB2987 - from the AT&T union representative CWA. The letter stated several benefits to the passage of the law, which changed the state from local cable franchising to a statewide franchise, an action which has raised cable rates for consumers, reduced competition and caused the closure of more than 20 public access centers in the state since 2007. AT&T laid off more than tens of thousands employees in the 24-month period after the legislation was passed.
***
April 6, 2006
The Honorable Fabian Nunez, Speaker of the Assembly - Capital Building Room 2117 - Sacramento CA 95814
Dear Speaker Nunuz,
The Communication Workers of America strongly supports Assembly Bill 2987, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006.
(snipped)
AT&T announced last week they would be investing over one billion dollars in digital infrastructure in CA. AB 2987 will insure that this investment will be made and will result in union jobs both to upgrade the current infrastructure and to keep that infrastructure appropriately serviced in the future.
AB 2987 will introduce competition into the cable industry, thus providing consumers with a choice of cable providers. We are well aware that when competition exists, the price of cable services drops dramatically. Consumers win when communication services become more available and affordable in California.
It is not often that one piece of legislation can cut costs to the consumer, provide greater access and create good middle class jobs all in one action. That is why we strongly support AB 2987, and thank you for your leadership.
In an uncharacteristic bit of theater, the Social Science Research Council has released a new report on Media Piracy in Emerging Economies with a Consumers Dilemma. Come from a higher-income country? No free report for you!
***
From the Social Science Research Council Blog:
***
Not unexpectedly, our Consumers Dilemma license for the report has
generated some controversy. To recap, the CD license creates different
paths to acquiring the report: first, we have an IP address geolocator
that sends visitors from high income countries toward an $8 paywall
when they download the report; all other resolvable IP addresses get
free access.
Criticism so far has taken two general forms:
1) That we are being unfair in constraining access in high-income
countries by setting an $8 pay wall. This divides further into what
I’ll call a ‘CC left’ position, which thinks the report should be
Creative Commons-licensed (and therefore free to everyone), and a
‘Grumpy Right’ position which appears to just resent being asked to pay
$8 when others are getting it for free.
2) The view that the license is cheap theater unworthy of the
scientific purpose of the study. Since this complaint is
underspecified so far, I’ll assume it includes 1 but is mostly about
the commercial reader license, which gets read as juvenile sticking it
to the man.
Maybe some clarification is in order here. The reader is faced with a dilemma: pay the
legal price, acquire it through pirate channels, or
don’t bother with it. In most of the countries we’ve studied in this
report, the results of this calculation with respect to DVDs, music,
and software are strikingly consistent. Media goods are highly
desired, exorbitantly priced with respect to local incomes, and freely
available through pirate channels. High rates of piracy and tiny
legal markets are the result. We’ve written 400+ pages about this
dysfunctional form of globalization and its causes.
The resulting consumers dilemma is a ubiquitous experience in
medium and low-income countries but one that confronts the American or
European reader much less frequently and with much less
intensity. The global market is made for those consumers. It is
priced and distributed for them.
The Consumers Dilemma license
is a way of reversing that equation and, in the most minor ways,
requiring an explicit engagement with it. Among the surreal aspects,
that simple choice can subject you to crushing civil and criminal
penalties, but you can rest easy knowing that only very rare, arbitrary
examples will be made (and none in our case). Now that’s theater. Our
license has a theatrical side, to be sure, but it also stays true to
the experiences documented in the report. Those experiences–the
personal choices and the market and price structure that informs
them–are the report’s primary subject.
(* Go here if the resolution of your dilemma is to pay the $8 for the report).
Posted by Tracy Rosenberg on Reel Girls and Media Literacy Project
Two new videos: 1 from Reel Grrls in Seattle on this year's Academy Awards spectacle and another from Albuquerque's Media Literacy Project on overpriced vocational schools that exploit young job seekers.
The Greenlining Institute presents “Mapping Our Future: Drawing Lines that Matter!” – a 5 minute video about California Redistricting in 2011 and what’s at stake for communities of color. Redistricting - the process of re-drawing state election districts - is one of the most important political processes happening in 2011. It will determine whether your community has a voice in government for the next 10 years! This is your chance to get involved.
As part of the Greenlinging Institute's state-wide civic engagement campaign to ensure that California's low-income communities and communities of color are heard as decisions are being made, you are invited to join in on one of the upcoming community meetings. More information available via the Greenlining Institute Facebook page.
The Media Freedom Foundation's 2011 Censored is out with the 25 most under-reported stories of 2010. Please support the work of Project Censored and buy a copy today!
MA member Jonathan Nack recorded this video of the foreclosure protest that disrupted the annual Wells Fargo Shareholders Meeting for over an hour earlier this month.
KPFA Radio, has received complaints from 3 Berkeley City Council members and 6 workers on two different incidents of problematic coverage in a week on the daily hour-long statewide broadcast of the Pacifica Evening News.
The first complaint was from by Berkeley City Council members Linda Maio, Kriss Worthington and Laurie Capitelli on a story on a council resolution asking all parties involved in the station's contentious November layoff of 2 employees to negotiate in good faith with each other.
Councilmember Linda Maio asked for an on-air correction on February 10th: (excerpted)
Below is a transcript of Aileen
Alfandary's characterization of the Council's vote and, by extension, the
Council's sentiments.... The Council, in its vote, did not take
sides.My vote was not "prompted"
by the layoffs.Kriss's wasn't,
Laurie's wasn't.Kriss, you will
recall, wanted to add more specific language that we were neutral.We thought that went without saying but
I can see now it was well advised. I will do what I can, through messages
to my own friend and constituent lists, to correctly convey my own
position.
Councilmember Laurie Capitelli added on February 11th: (excerpted)
I strongly concur with Linda's concerns. The council vote was a message to all sides
in the dispute to move forward with mediation hopefully starting with
fresh eyes and a true desire to get past the events of the last several
months.
A second complaint was filed on February 10th by six workers about a news feature on an FPPC volation by one of the station's unpaid staff members. The "open letter" stated: (excerpted)Airing a personal attack to bolster a station turf
war is unacceptable. There are
too many authentic and important news stories stories waiting to be
told.
Media Alliance is not aware of any direct response to either complaint from the KPFA news department.
MA's director sits on the KPFA and Pacifica Foundation board of directors.
The Alliance for Community Media's former director of Information and Organizing Services Rob McCausland provides these illuminating maps in a survey of the landscape of community television across the United States,
Get a visceral feel at the range of what we stand to lose if we don't protect the hard-earned channels, facilities and equipments that cable companies were forced to give back to local communities.
You might have never heard of them if not for KUSF, the venerable San Francisco college radio station that first played their music.
College radio is part of the diverse package of community media
voices around the country that with spit-and-glue budgets, volunteer
energy and a handful of overworked staff, keep bits of the television
and radio waves open to the public, while training millions of young
people in technology and how to use it.
These do-it-yourself outlets, which have survived for decades with
an open door policy, often feature unique and eclectic formats inspired
by the passions and talents of the surrounding community. At the University of San Francisco
for the past thirty years, that has often meant the city's flourishing
and influential music scene, one of the most vital in the country.
KUSF hasn't gone unnoticed. Besides a lofty alumni list of musical
talent that later became household names, KUSF also broadcast public
affairs programming in 9 different languages, weekly broadcasts of the
Metropolitan Opera and other random niches rarely served by larger
broadcasters, and received commendations from a hit parade of local and
national institutions including the United States Senate, the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors, American Women in Radio and Television, The National Association of College Broadcasters, The United Way, the San Francisco Weekly, the San Francisco Bay Guardian, and SF mayors Willie Brown, Jr. and Dianne Feinstein,
Sounds like a community media success story.
But KUSF broadcast for the last time on January 18, 2011. Howard Ryan, a former DJ, describes the events of that day:
"I turned around to see Trista Bernasconi, KUSF Program
Director, standing in the doorway of the studio. She asked me to step
outside, and looked upset. I went over and she told me: This is the
hardest thing I've ever had to do. The station has been sold, and I
have to turn the transmitter off. I looked behind me into Studio A and
the signal was already gone as my record continued to play silently on
Turntable One."
I could end this story in the most conventional of ways: large
corporation buys scrappy but financially challenged community
institution and adds it to growing pile of investments. We've all seen
that play out. Corporate media consolidation is not an untold tale.
But what happened to KUSF and Rice University station KTRU and about two dozen other college radio stations
in the last decade wasn't a corporate takeover. Their licenses were
absorbed into public media or NPR, assisted by the public media
financial leveraging firm Public Radio Capital.
Public Radio Capital has been around for about a decade, an initiative arising from the Station Resource Group. A planning document left up on the net drew my attention with a sentence it contained:
"With virtually all FM channels in well-populated areas
already assigned, the only option is to obtain outlets from those who
already have them, including commercial, religious, and educational
broadcasters outside the public radio system."
Educational broadcasters outside the public radio system include a
large variety of college-based and community-based stations that
criss-cross the country, including the 5-station and 150-affiliate
Pacifica Radio Network.
Every year, the public and community media family sing kumbaya at
annual conferences like the National Federation for Community
Broadcasters or the bi-annual National Conference on Media Reform,
where independent, alternative, community-based and public interest
media are saluted for their roles as antidotes to the lack of
credibility of the commercial and corporately-owned networks, the cable
giants and the radio empires of Clear Channel, Infinity and Entercom.
Seemingly united around shared values of localism and diversity, one
hates to think that behind the solidarity is a plan for the long-term
absorption of all licenses outside the master ship.
At this time, when public media financing is facing serious
challenges in Washington, and all hands on deck are needed to help
preserve what little public interest media we have, perhaps we need to
redefine the private financing needs as Community Radio Capital
and the challenge as leveraging the financial resources to keep
educational and community-based broadcasters, NPR-affiliated or not,
right where they are, servicing their unique neighborhoods and
developing formats and programming priorities that are as varied and
diverse as the local places they inhabit.
After all, if there's a million channels and they're all playing the same thing all day, what have we gained?
(Media Alliance webinars coming soon! We were ready to announce the lineup and then feel victim to capitalist acquisition as our platform of choice was swallowed up by Salesforce. We're researching other open source options).
The latest buzz in education is the growth of online learning
communities to address educational access. Through online offerings,
education can be more affordable and have the capability to reach
communities that otherwise couldn’t access quality institutions.
Concurrently, as more students and educators move towards online
learning as an alternative, issues of equality are emerging. The
question arises, how can online learning close the educational access
gap if there is still a great digital divide in low-income
communities in the US and around the world.
Increased Enrollment:
There is no doubt that instructional online learning is
increasing. In their 2010 Class Differences: Online Education in
the United States report, I. Elaine Allen, Ph.D. and Jeff Seaman,
Ph.D. (Babson College) show that “twenty-one percent growth rate
for online enrollments far exceeds the less than two percent growth
of the overall higher education student population.” This growth
proves that the option for online learning is becoming more
mainstream and a serious consideration when making decisions about
one’s education.
The report also states, “Three-quarters of institutions report
the economic downturn has increased demand for online courses and
programs.” Implying that online learning could have a positive
impact on the economy by offering alternative ways for people to
return to school, improve their skill base, and in turn feed these
higher-level skills back into the workplace. However, who are the
students able to take advantage of this opportunity? Is the
population most gravely impacted by the economy unable to access
these online courses and programs.
Access and connectivity:
According to the International Telecommunication Union, the
proportion of households with Internet access at home in the US in
2009 was: 68.89% (rural 63.40%, urban 70.01%). While this percentage
is high, it still means that 30% of the population cannot access
online learning opportunities in their homes which is where most of
these type of opportunities occur.
The majority of online learning platforms require a computer with
a fast processor and newer operating system. In addition there is the
issue of Internet access. Often there is also some type of video
component to accompany a course, which requires a stronger connection
to stream content as well as multi-media plugins like Flash, Java,
etc. In some cases, platforms offer materials in downloadable form
but this still requires online access and downloading the materials
to a personal computer. There may also be software that requires
downloading as well, or operating systems that are not compatible.
This is all to say that online learning platforms require much
more than just having access to a computer. It usually means a sweep
of your system to insure you have the correct software and plug-ins,
a high-speed connection, and a high performing machine. So, even if
people have computers they may not have machines that can handle what
online courses require.
Confidence:
In addition, if exposure to computer use is limited, experience
and skill levels are also limited. Therefore, confidence in seeking
online learning opportunities can be low. Imagine how someone with
limited computer skills would react if they saw a list of system
requirements that included PHP 4.3.0 or higher or MySQL 3.23.0 or
greater. Even a fairly tech savvy person can find those types of
requirements intimidating. So, how can educators and content
providers expect a population who has little-to-no experience with
computers to embrace online learning offerings?
Addressing access:
Currently, there is a pilot program in US public schools
attempting to address the issues of access and confidence among
students and their parents. The Connected
Learning program is currently rolling out its first stage in New
York and Los Angeles. The program provides desktop computers for a
number of 6th grade students to improve the classroom to
home connection. The computers come equipped with a number of
software programs and offer a medium speed Internet connection for
free (a broadband connection is also available at a discounted
monthly price). After the two-year pilot program, teachers will be
encouraged to continue to integrate the software and online
connection into classroom and home learning environments.
“This as an opportunity to not only bridge the digital divide,
but also support teachers to extend learning beyond the four walls of
the classroom,” says Daniel Storchan, Ed-Tech Consultancy Director
at AUSSIE Digital School Solution, Professional Development provider
and grant partner. “There is a huge paradigm shift happening today
in which educators are now recognizing the need to equip young people
with the tools to successfully navigate online spaces as responsible
digital citizens.”
By the end of a two-year period, the grant partners in New York
City will work in 100 middle schools and there will be computers in
18,500 households which did not have them before. Beyond reaching the
program’s 6th graders, parents and siblings will also have access
to a resource that could bring education into their homes.
This is a small step towards closing the digital divide but one
that will provide a window into advantages and hurdles in
introducing new technology and equipment to a population that has
otherwise had limited exposure.
Conclusion:
As a solution to tackling access to education for an entire
population, online learning has a long road ahead. But there are
strategic steps that educational and content providers can take now
to begin to widen the spectrum of participants.
When developing online learning systems and products, content
should be short and sweet, have small file sizes and downloading
options. There should be limited system requirements and no need to
download or update any software.
The emphasis should be placed on the quality of content and not
the bells and whistles of the platform. Simplicity will be the key
ingredient in bridging the digital divide and one that will ensure a
sustainable and effective approach to creating accessible educational
tools for all.
(Abby Martin is a Bay Area based citizen journalist and filmmaker - and sometimes Media Alliance volunteer).
Naomi Wolf's book, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, argues that there are ten steps
common to every state that has made the transition into fascism. One
step is the targeting of key individuals or demographics: artists,
academics, activists, civil servants, gays, Jews; the public
blacklisting of those who don't tow the party line. Another move towards
fascism is the control over the press—all dictatorships and would-be
dictators target journalists and make sweeping media reforms to increase
their control and their ability to censor information.
Her book conveys the inklings of fascism here in America, but in a
globalized society, the West sets the tone for policy and culture that
influences the rest of the world. As Orwellian rhetoric becomes
commonplace-- wars are being waged to maintain "peace" and draconian
bills that curtail civil liberties are being litigated as
"patriotic"—countries worldwide have been enacting Wolf's ten steps,
some with more haste than others.
After decades of post-Soviet, post-Holocaust political and economic
strife, Hungary is starting to embody Orwell's dystopian portrayal.
This April, Fidesz, Hungary's center-right conservative party, won
2/3rds control over Parliament, putting the conservative party in power
for the first time since World War II. Moreover, Fidesz now controls
22 out of the 23 major cities in the country. This complete takeover by
one party is significant, because the Hungarian Constitution can be
effectively changed with a 2/3rds majority in Parliament, an advantage
now regularly enacted by the new party in power.
In the hundred days following the election, sweeping measures were
passed by the Parliament that curtail Hungarians' freedoms. The reforms include
an installation of a "media presidium", drastic legislation against
journalistic independence and an attempt to control the content coming
from the last remaining independent art centers and theatres. The
government is taking these actions under the new mantra of
"re-nationalization", an effort where judicial law is compromised and
the consolidation of power is increased under nationalist rhetoric.
This new mantra is conveyed in a government manifesto that is now
required by law to be displayed in every public sphere across the
country.
Another indication of Hungary's shift to the right is Jobbik, a right
wing nationalist party known for their anti-Semitic and anti-gay speech
that won an unprecedented 47 seats into Parliament. The growing
influence of prominent extreme right political players is in part a
backlash from the Socialist Party's failures which resulted in a
disenfranchised, fragmented left. In 2008, Hungary experienced an
economic collapse and was subsequently bailed out by the International
Monetary Fund. Amid their economic struggle, Hungarians became
disillusioned with Socialism, leading to the eventual takeover of the
center and far right. Presently, under Fidesz's reign, the public live
in an unpredictable political climate in which Jobbik's bigoted ideology
could gain momentum among alienated Hungarians that feel unrepresented
by the current government. Already, an anonymously published list of
many prominent Jewish, Bolshevik and Homosexual Hungarian political and
cultural figures has been circulated, bolstering a climate of
demonization that is reminiscent of McCarthy's Communist era
blacklisting. The targeting and slandering of different groups and
demographics of the population are essential tools for a would-be
dictatorship to propagate the fear required for a compliant culture.
In an attempt to eliminate society's free expression, the Cultural Committee of the government has recommended
the "removal of independent theatres and contemporary moving art
companies from the roll of accredited artistic organizations". Fidesz
has refused to disperse 1/3 of the money already allocated for the
independent theater and art sector, resulting in cancellations of major
festivals and closure of numerous art centers. A complete cessation of
government funds would not only threaten thousands of jobs but would
also significantly threaten Hungary's celebrated culture and heritage.
The art organizations that remain are receiving "content
recommendations" from government, requiring that the art reflect kindly
on the nation. This is particularly alarming given the crucial role of
independent art and media in times of political and societal despair. In
every country, such outlets have served an essential role in society by
reflecting a cultural climate and shaping people's greater
understanding of the world in which they live. Forums for dialogue and
independent expression naturally breed dissent against the status quo,
which likely explains the harsh crackdown on the art and media sector
since Hungary's abrupt political transition. Many are disagreeing with
the suppression—there have already been multiple high profile
resignations attributed to the government's intrusion in this field.
Fidesz's latest assault
on the arts is focused on the internationally acclaimed National
Theatre of Hungary and its award winning art director, Robert Alfoldi.
Members of Parliament have pronounced the Theatre "dangerous,
anti-national and anti-Hungarian" for its plans to host a Romanian
holiday concert, and are calling for the immediate resignation of
Alfoldi for his "betrayal". On December 1st, Jobbik held a rally outside
of the National Theatre building with the purpose of instigating
Alfoldi's expulsion. If Alfoldi is dismissed early from his term without
legal basis, his removal would signify a dangerous precedent in which
leaders from any cultural institution can be dismissed simply because of
the ruling party's ideals.
At the same time, an even more controversial piece of legislation passed
under Fidesz is the new "Media Constitution" or Bill T/363, which set
up the framework to regulate Hungary media on a day-to-day basis for the
next nine years or longer. According to Dr. Karol Jakubowicz,
an international expert in broadcasting and a member of the Kosovo
Independent Media Commission, Bill T/393 creates a registration system
that would construct potential legal and political barriers to new
content entering the media landscape in conjunction with providing
Hungary's government the ability to take increased action against
existing providers of "vaguely unwanted content".
Another aspect of the bill prohibits the incitation to hatred against
nations, ethnic, religious, minority or majority groups. According to
Jakubowicz, the vague restriction of "inciting hatred" is a slippery
slope that would undoubtedly lead to similar sanctions of unintentional
insult or inadvertent incitement to hatred from media outlets that are
simply capable of insult and exclusion.
Jakubowicz writes
that Bill T/363 "require[s] instituting a system of surveillance,
supervision and possible repression that are unacceptable in a
democratic society... placing Hungary alongside authoritarian countries
seeking to control all forms of social communication."
The moves by the Fidesz government to alter the constitution, as well as
to control modes of communication and social networks in the country,
amount to a current political setting that has unsettling similarities
to Germany's rise to fascism. Dictatorships and developing fascist
states have always expelled nationalist rhetoric and Party propaganda
justifying the takeover of free society—the Nazi Party in Germany
believed propaganda was a vital tool in achieving their goals, and
produced it under the Orwellian "Ministry of Public Enlightenment".
In the Nazi Party manifesto, the first point demanded the "union of all
Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of
self-determination of all peoples." Similar propaganda is emerging in
Hungary in the guise of the Fidesz Party's manifesto, The Hungarian National Assembly of National Cooperation,
which states that Hungary has "regained the right and power of
self-determination". Frighteningly, Fidesz's political declaration is
now mandated to be prominently displayed and framed in most public
spaces across the country.
The manifesto further declares
that a Hungarian revolution took place in April's elections in which
"Hungarians decided to create a new system: The National Cooperation
System. With this historical act the Hungarian nation obliged the
incoming National Assembly and Government to take the helm at this
endeavor, resolute, uncompromising and with deliberation, and control
the construction of the National Cooperation System in Hungary."
The document also explains that this "new social contract" will "bring
together the diverse Hungarian nation," creating a future based on the
societal pillars of "work, home, family, health and order." Hungary's
nationalist rhetoric is all too similar to the coded words ringing from
previous regimes that sought to homogenize the face and values of the
nations they ruled.
In Nazi Germany, journalists, writers, and actors were required to tow
the official Party line on world events, and had to get their work
pre-approved by the state before disseminating it to the public. In
Hungary, artists are receiving "content recommendations" from the
government, and the new Hungarian Media Constitution requires that all
media shall provide "appropriate information" that is "factual, timely
and balanced"--all factors that are determined by Fidesz.
Nazism and Communism still scar Hungary's past. The country's regression
to its dark history should be watched closely by the international
community, especially the European Union (EU). Hungary's 2004 membership
into the EU symbolized an agreement to operate under an ethical code of
political and societal conduct established by the EU's Charter of
Fundamental Rights. The Charter prohibits discrimination and enshrines
the freedom of expression, thought, and religion for all EU citizens.
Already, Fidesz has set up a legal framework restricting free
expression, and has created a climate of fear that impinges upon
Hungarians' fundamental rights protected by the EU Charter. If
international attention and criticism are not received in time, Hungary
could continue down an authoritarian road similar to the
Nazis—eventually condemning, incarcerating or even killing those who do
not uphold the principles of the Party.
Abby Martin is a freelance writer, citizen journalist, activist and artist living in Oakland, CA. You can find more of her writing at www.MediaRoots.org and view her artwork at www.AbbyMartin.org
For most of the past year, public interest groups worried about the
future of the Internet have pushed for action on net neutrality by the
Federal Communications Commission. In response to that call, Chairman
Julius Genachowski moved in the spring to reclassify broadband
services, proposing a light regulatory protocol as a "third way".
After that didn't exactly take off, the chair convened meetings with
industry including AT&T, Skype, Verizon and Google, meetings that
broke down after Google and Verizon announced a deal that would
introduce paid content prioritization. In the ensuing uproar, the issue
once again rose to the level of a burning public debate with right-wing
accusations of "Obamacare for the Internet" competing with public
interest laments about slow lanes on the Internet to come for
alternative news, independent artists and musicians, and community
groups.
A stalemate was waiting to be broken. The chairman jumped into the
breach once again (apparently hoping the 3rd time would be the charm)
and announced the release of an order to be voted on December 21st. The
order passed Tuesday on a 3-2 vote, but is not promising with some
restraints on network management practices for wired systems, but a far
less strict protocol for mobile and wireless networks and little
control of paid prioritization marketing schemes.
The Federal Communications Commission is a five-person commission,
with two Republican commissioners who were opposed to any action
whatsoever and two Democratic commissioners who were expected to push
for stronger regulations, which left the Chairman (a Democrat supported
by a Democratic president) as the tiebreaking vote.
So what are we to make of this order?
Genachowski's order does attempt to impose some teeth to enforce the
equal treatment of data on wired connections. The arbitrary jamming of
Bit Torrent uploads that was chronicled by Robb Topolsky and led to
sanctions on Comcast in 2008 would not be permitted. At least in the
eyes of the FCC. But their legal authority to enforce sanctions without
reclassifying is shaky at best, and may not hold up to a court
challenge.
So your laptop is theoretically on neutral territory when you have
it plugged into a wall. Take it on the road, however, and you're in a
different ballpark. The order skimps on extending neutrality
protections to mobile Internet usage so traveling laptops, smart phones
and tablet devices like the ipad are largely exempted from rules
assuring the equal treatment of all data and all applications of your
choice.
Some of you may be thinking that in 10 years, it is likely the
majority of Internet traffic will be on one mobile platform or another.
You wouldn't be wrong.
We may be regulating the Internet equivalent of the Pony Express.
The other big elephant in the living room is the threat of paid content prioritization. Is that an imaginary threat?
Not if you listened to the CEO of the UK's Virgin Internet, who had this to say way back in 2008:
In an interview with the Royal Television Society's Television
magazine, far from covering up their intentions, Virgin Media's new
incoming CEO Neil Berkett - who joined the Virgin Media Board just a
few days ago - has launched an attack on the ideas and principles
behind net neutrality. "This net neutrality thing is a load of
bollocks," he said, adding that Virgin is already in the process of
doing deals to speed up the traffic of certain media providers and that
he has promised to put any website or service that won't pay Virgin a
premium to reach its customers into the "Internet bus lane."
While you probably wouldn't get any American telecom CEO to be quite
so blunt, it stands to reason the profit model is not wildly different
in the United Kingdom than it is here at home.
We don't simply have to rely on telegraphs from abroad; Comcast,
always the first to leap off any bridge, recently started charging a
recurring fee for the transmission of Netflix streaming videos by their
third party provider Level Three Communications. Thomas Stortz, the
legal officer for Level Three had this to say:
With this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from
ever being delivered to Comcast's subscribers at all, unless Comcast's
unilaterally determined toll is paid - even though Comcast's
subscribers requested the content. With this action, Comcast
demonstrates the risk of a 'closed' Internet, where a retail broadband
Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers
interact with content.
Level Three will pay the fees and then presumably increase what they
charge Netflix and then Netflix will increase what it charges consumers
and life will go on with a $5 month surcharge, but if you think about
the competitive implications after Comcast merges with NBC, then the
true horror of paid prioritization comes into focus. It will be
cheaper, easier, faster to access NBC content on Comcast internet
connections because ..... no fees.
After every major content provider scuttles to sign a preferred
content deal with one or another major Internet service provider, God
help the consumer trying to locate some not-so-preferred content.
The Internet slow lane might become a pretty lonely place.
Posted by David Rosen and Bruce Kushnick on Alternet
This is a conservative estimate of the wide-scale plunder
that includes monies garnered from hidden rate hikes, depreciation allowances,
write-offs and other schemes. Ironically, in 2009, the FCC's National Broadband
plan claimed it will cost about $350 billion to fully upgrade America's
infrastructure.
The principal consequence of the great broadband con is not
only that Americans are stuck with an inferior and overpriced communications
system, but the nation's global economic competitiveness has been undermined.
In a June 2010 report, Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranked the U.S. 15th on broadband
subscribers with 24.6 percent penetration; the consulting group, Strategy
Analytics, is even more pessimistic, ranking the U.S. 20th with a
"broadband" penetration rate of 67 percent compared to South Korea
(95 percent), Netherlands (85 percent) and Canada (76 percent). Making matters
worse, Strategy Analytics projects the U.S. ranking falling to 23rd by year-end
2010.
But these are just overall statistics. Today, people in
Japan, Korea, Europe and other countries get broadband services that are
100-mbps services in both directions for what we pay for inferior, Asymmetric
Digital Subscriber line (ADSL), while in Hong Kong companies have started to
offer 1-gigabit speeds.*
Part of the reason for this is these countries have sunk
more fiber optical cable into the ground and connected more homes to the
next-generation grid. According to the OECD, the U.S. ranks 11th with only 5
percent fiber penetration, compared to Japan (54 percent), Korea (49 percent)
and European OECD countries (11 percent).
Another reason for the woeful state of U.S. broadband is
that we have one of the slowest networks in the world. According to the
technology company, Akamai, the U.S. ranked 22nd globally in average connection
datarate speed, averaging only 3.8-mbps in Q-4 2009. In comparison, Korea's
average datarate was nearly three-times faster (11.7-mbps), Hong Kong more then
double (8.6-mbps) and Japan was at 7.6-mbps. A surprise to many, Romania had an
average rate of 7.2-mbps and Latvia clocked at 6.2-mbps.
Screwed
Grand cons regularly screw Americans. Millions bet the
lottery that never pays off; millions go to Las Vegas and Atlantic City hoping
for the big score and leave with empty pockets; and millions bet big-time on a
housing run-up and lost big, big time. Hustlers offer a zillion get-rich
schemes over TV and the Internet that people accepted either out of naivety,
greed or desperation. But one of the greatest -- and little reported -- scams
perpetuated on the American public is the broadband con.
The scam was simple. Starting in 1991, Verizon, Qwest and
what became AT&T offered each state -- in true "Godfather" style
-- a deal they couldn't refuse: Deregulate us and we'll give you Al Gore's
future. They argued that if state Public Utility Commission (PUCs) awarded them
higher rates and stopped examining their books, they would upgrade the
then-current telecommunications infrastructure, the analog Public Switched
Telephone Network (PSTN) of aging copper wiring, into high-speed and two-way
digital optical fiber networks.
State regulators, like state politicians, are seduced by the
sound of empty promises -- especially when sizable campaign contributions and
other perks come their way. Hey, what are a few extra bucks charged to the
customer every month for pie-in-the-sky promises? And who cares about massive
tax breaks, accelerated depreciation allowances and enormous tax write-offs?
The promises sound good on election day and nobody, least of all the voter,
reads the fine print.
The broadband con has been played out across the country. In
California, Pacific Bell (now part of AT&T) claimed it would spend $16
billion and have 5.5 million homes wired by 2000. Instead, after a merger with
SBC in 1997 (renamed AT&T in 2005), it secured state deregulation and
simply stopped building out the fiber-based broadband infrastructure. On the
East Coast, things were pretty much the same. Bell Atlantic, which covered New
Jersey to Virginia and is now part of Verizon, claimed it would spend $11 billion
and have 8.7 million homes wires by 2000. And in Connecticut, SNET (now also
part of AT&T) promised to spend $4.5 billion and have the entire state
rewired by 2007. In the mid-West, the story was similar. Ameritech (now part of
AT&T and which controlled five states, including Illinois and Ohio) claimed
they would have 6 million homes wired by 2000. For Ohio, Ameritech claimed it
would rewire every school, library and hospital with fiber by 2000. None of
these promises have been realized.
Over the last two decades, the telcos have engaged in a lot
of sleight-of-hand tricks to make Americans believe that broadband was real and
their service was the world's best. In 1996 the Internet hit and everyone
wanted to go online. This migration to the World Wide Web was led, not by
AT&T and Verizon, but by thousands of small and larger ISPs from AOL and
Prodigy to over 9,500 small ISPs.
By 1998, not only did the telephone companies mostly stop
building out their networks, but instead of rolling out the next-generation
"info superhighway," they pulled a bait-and-switch and rolled
backward, offering customers ADSL service, a watered-down "broadband"
connection that runs on good old copper wire.
Another trick used by telecoms has been to submit to federal
and state regulators falsified cost models, often lying to regulators and the
public. For example, the great lie was voiced in 1991 when the telecom boldly
announced the new broadband age based on technologies that they claimed capable
of delivering 45-mbps bi-directional services, but the technologies didn't
exist and couldn't work out at the cost models submitted. When pushed, the
phone companies presented self-produced, self-funded or self-serving
"research" by shill think-tanks to buttress their claim for higher
rates.
Now, nearly two decades after Gore announced the Info
Superhighway and the telcos secured deregulation to build out the
next-generation communications infrastructure, the nation's two largest phone
companies, Verizon and AT&T, have begun to seriously deploy fiber services.
In 2004 and with much fanfare, Verizon introduced FiOS, a fiber-to-the-home
service. Today, it claims only 3.6 million subscribers and new subscriptions
have stalled.
AT&T, which originally promised to launch its advances
service, U-verse, in 2006 in 15 markets, got it running in 2007 but in only 11
markets -- and then not through an entire market. As of the end of Q-2, 2010,
it claimed 2.5 million subscribers. Sadly, the telecoms have only 6 million
full broadband fiber subscribers as of 2010. What happened to the other 94
million households they promised to sign-up?
Americans have paid and paid again billions of dollars for
an imaginary upgrade to create a fiber optic future. The estimate of $320
billion has already been collected which means that every household has paid
almost $3,000 to upgrade the phone networks. The question no wants to really
address is simple: What have Americans gotten for the telecom broadband
rip-off?
Playing the con
In order to understand how the broadband con works, it is
useful to examine how it has played out in one state and extrapolate this to
the other 49 states. In this case, we will examine New Jersey as representative
of a nationwide policy.
New Jersey state law requires that by 2010, 100 percent of
the state is to be rewired with 45-mbps, bi-directional service. To meet this
goal, Verizon collected approximately $13 billion in approved rate increases,
tax break and other incentives related to upgrading the Public Switched
Telephone Networks. To cover its tracks, Verizon submitted false statements
year after year, claiming that it was close to fulfilling its obligations. For
example, in its 2000 Annual Report, it claimed that 52 percent of the state
could receive "45-mbps in both directions or higher."
Based on such false claims, Verizon has benefited for
significant pricing increases for essentially inexpensive computerized
services. For example, Call Waiting and Call Forwarding cost less then $.01
cent to offer yet the company charges $4-$7 for such features. In addition,
fees for inside wiring went up to $7.00 from $1.25.
The company also benefited from more invisible perks. It
secured massive write-offs on its network even though it wasn't being replaced;
it actually secured a write-off of over 105 percent above the amount of
construction. These write-offs helped save it billions in taxes. These factors
have helped significantly heighten the company's Return on Equity, the standard
measurement of profits, jump from 12-14 percent before deregulation to 30-40
percent.
But all this gets complicated as they are no longer required
to submit full New Jersey annual or quarterly reports and the FCC's filing
requirements stopped in 2007. So, in 2009, Verizon, New Jersey outlined
financials showed a "net income" loss of $194 million dollars, and a
$160 million "tax benefit" and a series of "affiliate
transactions," meaning transferring expenses to the utility but without
showing monies flowing back.
Verizon's New Jersey coverage is for approximately 3.2
million households, which represents about 3 percent of total U.S. households.
Extrapolating from New Jersey, we estimate that Americans have been bilked of
at least $320 billion since deregulation went into effect in the mid-'90s.
Digital Houdini
Federal and state regulators ignore the great telecom
rip-off -- politicians simply get too many contributions from too many
lobbyists to worry about their constituents' phone bills. Telephone companies
have orchestrated a massive digital Houdini act in which they present an image
of an essential service that offers customers more for less.
After almost 20 years of telecom deregulation, the American
communications infrastructure is in shambles. The FCC's broadband plans are now
in play. While much debate has taken place over the future of net neutrality,
particularly in light of the Google-Verizon proposal to maintain Internet net
neutrality on wireline distribution and end it on wireless communications,
little attention has been paid to the never-ending rate hikes, failure to
deliver on previous promises, poor state of fiber deployment, and into who
pocketed the missing $320 billion in over charges.
In 1967, James Coburn stared in a wonderful satire, The
President's Analyst, about the corrupting power of a secretive TPC, the phone
company. The film pits the Central Enquiries Agency (CEA) against the Federal
Bureau of Regulation (FBR), an all-male agency consisting of J. Edgar Hoover
look-alikes all under five-foot-six-inches tall. In the intervening four decades,
but especially since the break-up of AT&T in 1984 and deregulation starting
in 1993, the power of the telecommunications companies, including the cable
industry, has both increasingly grown and become increasingly invisible. <br> <br>
A century ago, giant corporate trusts dominated America's
economic landscape. A century later, they are back in full force and even
greater control over the nation's economic life and political culture.
(For more detailed analyses of the great broadband rip-off,
visit www.teletruth.com.)
David Rosen is a regular contributor to CounterPunch,
Z-magazine and Brooklyn Rail and is author of 'Sex Scandals America: Politics
& the Ritual of Public Shaming' and 'Off-Hollywood: The Making &
Marketing of Independent Films.' He can be reached at drosen@ix.netcom.com.
Bruce Kushnick, the founder of New Networks Institute, is a telecommunications
industry analyst who regularly reports for Harvard Nieman’s Watchdog. He can be
reached at bruce@newnetworks.com.
Filmmaker Jeff Kaufman made this short film on behalf of Americans Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, who have been detained in Tehran's Evin Prison for 474 days. Watch the film!
Bauer's fiancee Sarah Shourd was released on bail a month ago, citing humanitarian health-related concerns. Free The Hikers, the friends and family advocacy effort, is a fiscally-sponsored project of Media Alliance.
Soon all Oakland Police will be outfitted with a video
camera, and they may not have to tell you they’re using it.
In September
2010, the Oakland Police Department began testing a small video camera about
the size of a cell phone worn on the uniform’s lapel. 20 officers participated
in the testing period, a mix of officers from the traffic, crime reduction and
patrol teams. OPD officer Holly Joshi reported that the initial testing went
well and the cameras will be incorporated into OPD patrols in December 2010.
Currently 19 officers wear the cameras. OPD allows officers
to turn the cameras on whenever they wish and requires the cameras be activated
during car stops, walking stops, probation searches, parole searches, and
search warrants. The cameras can record up to 4 hours of footage, and officers
are unable to change the footage captured. Once downloaded to the server, the
system administrator has sole access, and footage is stored for 5 years. The
cameras will be paid for using leftover funding for the in-car camera system
that was never fully integrated into the department.
Police usage of cameras presents a few interesting
questions. It comes on the heels of the Mehserle trial for the murder of Oscar
Grant, and at a time when the states of Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts
made moves towards preventing citizens from recording on-duty police officers.
It also raises questions about the purported objectivity of
video. Camera angles, when the camera is turned on and off, and how the viewers
interpret what they see taking place within the frame all impact the
determination of what “really” happened.
According to a KTVU article about San Jose’s testing of a
similar device, Chief of Police Rob Davis said one benefit of cameras is their
ability to provide evidence and save Internal Affairs the time and cost of
pursuing complaints hinged on one person’s word against another.
As a citizen of Oakland, and someone who believes deeply in
media literacy, I wonder about the embedded asumption that this kind of video
is objective evidence. While video footage is likely to provide additional
information, this could also eventually boil down to one person’s video against
anothers.
I’d like to be able to assume that all police officers are
driven by the “protect and serve” mantra, but situations are much more
complicated, and abuse of authority happens. What does it mean to give authority
the potential to support alleged abuse with footage shot literally from their
perspective and automatically assumed to be objective? Does this serve to heighten
the power differential between police officers and citizens who may not have
the means to video tape police interactions?
Technology continues to move forward. It’s not unreasonable
that cameras will be a standard law enforcement tool: the same way police use
radio. My questions lie in the assumptions made about the technology. For
example, when a communication via radio dispatch is unclear, I assume
clarification is requested before action is taken. What’s the video equivalent
of that request for clarification?
Perhaps it’s in the policies the department establishes
about usage of that footage as evidence. Lets take a scenario in which a police
interaction with a person escalates. The officer - sensing the escalation -
turns on the camera as the person becomes angry. The officer restrains the
person and the video is used as justification for the restraint in response to
the complaint filed. Yes the video may show a situation in which an officer was
justified in the use of restraint, but what happened before the camera was
turned on? Did the person come running at the police officer unprovoked? Did
the officer approach the person without cause? What had been the police’s
interactions with this person during the last week, last month, last year? Now
this “one person’s word against another secenario” is one person’s word against
another who has a video that may or may not represent the context of the
incident.
To date, it appears that the Oakland Police Department has
set a date for full incorporation of the camera program, but has no policy
regarding the ethical usage of the resulting footage or had any discussions
about how video may not always be the gold standard in objectivity.
As we grow increasingly dependent on the Internet for everything from
soup to nuts: employment and educational opportunities, staying in
touch with friends and family, and accessing critical news and
information, the question of how this essential network operates has
never been more important. Does it work in the interests of the people
who rely on it? Or does it work more and more in the interests of the
large telecom companies who deploy the wires and deliver the bits and
bytes?
Broadband for the People, a campaign of the Media Action Grassroots Network, (http://www.mag-net.org)
a nationwide coalition of community organizations working together for
media change, calls for the full adoption, affordability, and openness
of broadband networks. Without these 3 central principals underpinning
our communication system, the tremendous power the Internet holds for
creativity, economic expansion, civil rights and civic engagement will
never be recognized. And the social divides that rack this country with
poverty, racism and limited opportunity for many, will carry over,
unchanged, into the digital realm - "the digital divide". We didn't get
anywhere as a country by vowing to electrify 2/3 of our homes and leave
the other 1/3 in the dark. And similarly, we can't settle for anything
short of full adoption, full affordability and full openness.
It's a big challenge to get from here to there. For many years, the US
has been stuck at about 70% connectivity - with the lagging 30% heavily
concentrated in rural communities, poor communities, communities of
color and limited English-fluency households. We've also stayed well
shy of the top ten countries in the world on most measures of the
available speed and reliability of our connections. One can say,
without exaggerating, that the performance of our vendors, the large
telecom companies that dominate the marketplace, has been firmly
mediocre. There's a lot of room for people and neighborhood
organizations to take on the challenge of making this situation better
for ourselves. Here are some ways we can begin:
-- Share
Resources - Multiple technologies exist for allowing groups of people
to share connectivity that might be unaffordable to them in solitude.
While many large telecoms frown on such arrangements, not all do
(including the few hardy independent ISP's that have survived) and in
these days of financial distress, we all need to find ways to meet
basic needs with dwindling resources. If four families banding together
can share expenses, that is four less families in the dark. One example
of a local initiative is Oakland's 510pen.
--
Institutionalize Digital Literacy - Libraries and other community
centers have been providing "computers" for years - and this has been a
valuable service, especially in economically challenged communities.
But after years of these programs, a stubborn digital divide remains.
It is naďve to expect that the mere provision of a computer converts a
non-user to a fully engaged digital citizen.
How to find
things online, how to stay safe from cyber-theft and online harassment,
understand copyright and digital property rights, fix things when they
break, identify reliable and less-reliable sources of information, and
locate culturally, geographically and linguistically appropriate
content is not always obvious. All of our residents need local and
accessible resources to help late adopters come on board to the
benefits that Internet access, whether via computer or smart phones,
can offer. Broadband for the People is working on a digital literacy
toolkit for local organizations to work from in taking on the challenge
of working for full digital adoption in their neighborhoods.
-- Fight for Internet Openness and Affordability Like We Mean It -
Public policy often seems arcane to people's real-life struggles and
nowhere is that more true than in the world of telecommunications
policy. Who can even read an FCC Request for Information, much less
reply to all 67 pages of it? But there are two important public policy
fights that we cannot sit out if we believe that 1/3 in the dark is too
many.
The first is to re-organize the Universal Service Fund
(most of you will recognize part of it as the "Lifeline" telephone
service fee) so it applies to broadband Internet connections as well as
telephones.
The second is an open Internet - which means the
equal treatment of all kinds of data and all kinds of applications - by
pipes that are neutral and do not discriminate. An Internet that
redlines is an Internet that cannot deliver the promise of equal
opportunity to all. Net neutrality is not negotiable.
So the
next time you get a request to sign a petition or go to a hearing,
don't just send it to the circular file. We only have one chance for a
people's Internet - and the time is now.
A day-long comedy of errors began Monday morning when the Yes Men,
supported by Rainforest Action Network and Amazon Watch, pre-empted
Chevron's enormous new "We Agree" ad campaign with a satirical version of their own. The activists' version highlights Chevron's environmental and social
abuses - the same abuses they say Chevron is attempting to “greenwash.”
“Chevron's super-expensive fake street art is a cynical attempt
to gloss over the human rights abuses and environmental degradation
that is the legacy of Chevron's operations in Ecuador, Nigeria, Burma
and throughout the world,” said Ginger Cassady, a campaigner at
Rainforest Action Network. “They must think we're stupid.”
“They say we're 'interrupting the dialogue,'” said Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men, referring to Chevron's terse condemnation. “What dialogue? Chevron's ad campaign is an insulting, confusing monologue - with many tens of millions of dollars behind it.”
The activists' pre-emptive campaign began early Monday with a press release from a spoof Chevron domain which launched the fake “We Agree” campaign hours before the real Chevron could launch its ads. The fake "We Agree" site featured four “improved” advertisements, complete with downloadable PDF files to be used in on-the-street postering.
Nine hours later, after producing its own “We Agree” press release, the real Chevron decried the hoax in a predictably curt and humorless manner. Mere moments later, the counter-campaign issued a much better denial on Chevron's
laying out Chevron's principal arguments in its Ecuador case. “We have
binding agreements with the Ecuadorian Government exempting us from any
liabilities whatsoever, granted in exchange for a $40 million cleanup
of some wells by Texaco in the 1990s,” the spoof press release crowed,
absurdly yet accurately.
Throughout the day, a sort of slow vaudeville unfolded on the
web, as a number of outlets, from industry mouthpieces to the AFP and
even a watchdog group, produced accidental mash-ups of “real” and fake
information.
First, Fast Company fell for the hoax then related their duping
with humor. An outlet called “Environmental Leader,” quoted
indiscriminately from both real and fake press releases, before quietly
removing the fake parts a few hours later.
Shortly after that, Energy Digital, an online source providing “news
and information for Energy Executives” (capitalization theirs), quoted extensively
from the fake release to describe Chevron's campaign, then mentioned
that the campaign had “already been spoofed.” They didn't realize
they'd just fallen for that very same spoof.
Even the AFP found itself duped
and described with glee the hoax “that appeared to have fooled some
news outlets,” before going on to quote “the real firm” at length. (The
“real firm” wasn't.)
“If you really want to snooker the media, it's pretty hard for them to
resist,” said Mike Bonanno of the Yes Men. “We cobbled together some
fake releases with string and thumbtacks and chewing gum, and we fooled
the most respectable outlets.”
“Chevron is doing what we did, a million times over, with a
ginormous budget - and it never reveals its subterfuge,” said
Bichlbaum. “No wonder the media's full of lies.”
“Yesterday's spoof was a comedy of errors, but what's happening
in Ecuador is no joke,” said Mitch Anderson, a campaigner at Amazon
Watch. “While Chevron spends tens of millions every year to greenwash
their image and fool the media, Ecuadorians continue to die from their
toxic legacy."
Yesterday's hoax is just the beginning for the activists. “Stay
tuned,” said RAN's Cassady. “There's a lot more to come in the days
ahead. We're going to keep Chevron scrambling.
###
The Yes Men work to expose corporate crimes, mainly through humor.