Journalism scholar Dan Gillmor argues “Let’s subsidize open broadband, not journalists” at Salon.com. He begins by arguing that the Post Office Act of 1792’s enabling of cheap publication (and distribution?) of news papers “was an outright subsidy, for a social purpose.” The result? “It was central to the rise of the nation as a society based on knowledge.”
Based on what I’ve read over the years, I think he’s spot on. What’s more, he’s correct to argue that a direct subsidy to news organizations would be a bad idea (the relationship would be a bit too close), but that we have a timely solution that’s quite similar to the Post Office Act — Internet Neutrality.
Gillmor makes the following point that I hope he and Salon will permit me to quote at length:
In the 1950s, America’s state and local highways were relatively well developed. What the nation decided it needed, and what corporate America couldn’t begin to provide, was a robust system of long-distance roads.
With data, the reverse is true: the long-distance data highways, the “backbone†networks, exist in abundance. What we really need now is better local conveyances, the ones running to and into our homes. Big telecom carriers say they’ll provide these connections — that is, they may provide these connections if they feel like it — only if we allow them to control the content that flows on those lines.
Imagine if we’d given the interstates to corporations that could decide what kinds of vehicular traffic could use them. If you want to worry about a threat to the journalism of tomorrow, consider the power being collected by the so-called “broadband” providers right now.
I couldn’t have said it much better myself (and I’ve tried!). Because of the high investment costs and the natural monopolies of networks like roads and wires, a public investment makes great sense. I hope Gillmor’s argument reaches the ears of those who need to hear it.