LWVCT
Media Study
 

Executive  Summary
 

In June 2007, the LWVCT Convention authorized a state-level study of emerging media issues, their relevance to democracy, and their importance to Connecticut residents. The study group attracted  members from Bethany, Greenwich, Litchfield, Madison, West Hartford, Weston, Wilton, and Woodbridge. Although the group has identified several additional topics for further study--chief among them the critical role that media ownership and consolidation plays in the dissemination of news and information in our democracy--the focus of the present study was threefold:
 
·    the implications of the LWVUS's new "pro" net neutrality position for Connecticut,
·    universal high speed Internet access for Connecticut residents, and   
·    the future of community access TV  (PEG TV)  in CT.

The group has researched online materials from government, academic, business, and the nonprofit sectors, as well as conducted interviews with Connecticut experts knowledgeable in these three topics. The LWVCT Fall Conference--E-Democracy: A 21st Century Citizen's Right to Know and Participate--made emerging electronic media issues its theme this year. The entire 2½ hour tape of the conference can be viewed at http://www.lwvweston.org  The study group has also published an online blog for group postings of resources, questions, and discussion--www.ctmediastudy.wordpress.com--and has included background information for members in past issues of our semiannual VOTER newsletter.

Our report includes the findings of our group, our references, excerpts from personal interviews, and statements for member concurrence. A summary of group findings and concurrence statements are included in this Executive Summary. The entire report is posted online at www.lwvct.org;call the LWVCT at (203) 288-7996 for a hard copy.

Please read the full report and complete the questionnaire that is arriving in your state VOTER or copy the enclosed list of Concurrence Statements in the final section of this e-mail message. Deadline for return of the questionnaire is April 1,2008.  Please remember to sign your name and your League on the form.
 

 

The League of Women Voters believes that a vibrant democracy depends upon the informed and active participation of its citizens at all levels of government and that access to information is the lifeblood of a democratic, open government. Over the past two decades, the Internet has emerged as an essential vehicle for free speech, journalistic expression, democratic participation, political association, and business innovation-in both the private and public sectors. The LWVCT believes that a free and open Internet is increasingly important to the protection of individual liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, by the Connecticut Constitution, and by the League's Principles. The 2006 LWVUS Convention adopted a resolution to call upon Congress to support net neutrality legislation. To help members understand this issue, the LWVUS Board convened a task force to develop educational and background materials for the net neutrality position. The LWVUS Net Neutrality Task Force's report is available online at www.lwv.org in the Members section.

According to a December 2006 survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 70% of American adults (approximately 141 million people) use the Internet. Sixty seven percent of Internet users go online to get news, 66% have visited a local, state or federal government Website and 54% look online for news or information about politics or upcoming campaigns.

Regardless of your type of Internet service, we all expect that, when we're online, we can reach any Website, use any search engine, and watch any online video that we choose. When you pay your monthly Internet service bill, you want FULL access to the ENTIRE Internet. No one company owns the Internet-we all do! Taxpayer monies funded its origins through Department of Defense projects in the 1960s. Network neutrality has always been one of its original characteristics and, many argue, the reason for its unique success as a communications and information service.

Net neutrality means no discrimination-all data, Websites, and content on the Internet must be transmitted without discrimination, favoritism, blocking, or quality degradation by your Internet service provider (ISP). Your e-mail is just as important as anyone else's, the Christian Coalition's Website appears as quickly as Planned Parenthood's, and one candidate's Website is just as accessible as her opponent's.  Think how important this is for voters during election season and for democracy itself!

Federal regulations protecting a neutral, nondiscriminatory Internet had been in effect for years until a Supreme Court decision on telecommunication policy eliminated them for ISPs in 2005. Regulatory protections remain in place for dial-up Internet service providers. Individual citizens, good government groups, consumers, legislators, journalists, academicians, and businesses have joined together in a national grassroots coalition of more than 750 groups to support a return to the pre-2005 regulatory protections and Internet neutrality legislation. They argue that our country must return to the protections historically offered by the neutral, nondiscriminatory nature of the Internet, so that diverse voices can report and interpret the news, citizens can participate fully in the democratic process, political candidates can reach their growing online audiences, innovators can compete with established businesses, and small businesses can reach big markets.  

On the other hand, many telephone and cable companies-which provide Internet service to customers throughout the nation over the wires, pipes, and cables through which traffic on the Internet travels-welcome the elimination of regulatory protections. They argue that network neutrality protections are impediments to innovation and, because they own the wiring, that they should control what travels over the Internet and be able to charge certain contributors extra fees for faster loading and priority status. They further argue that regulations are unnecessary and unwarranted. However, recent reports of interference suggest otherwise.  

The arguments of telephone and cable companies ignore the fact that innovation on the Internet-designed to be an open network of networks-has flourished for the past 40 years under the regulations that protected the Internet's neutral, uncensored nature. It's also important to remember that these privately held, for-profit corporations received substantial public funding and other incentives to build their telecommunications systems in the first place.

Like the supporters of net neutrality, the cable and telephone companies have established advocacy groups of their own to influence public and legislative opinion. In two reports on the lobbying strategies of telecommunications companies, Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: Parts I and II, Common Cause labels several of the telecommunications lobbying groups "Astroturf" because, although they masquerade as grassroots coalitions, many are funded by the telecommunications industry with minimal actual citizen support.     

Several states-New York, Michigan, and Maine-have already considered net neutrality legislation on a state level. Maine became the first state to pass a net neutrality resolution-a bipartisan effort-to monitor and report on relevant state telecommunications policies. Maine's coalition of legislators and good government groups believe that net neutrality protections are essential for political discourse, dissemination of news, and democratic participation.

The LWVCT believes that a free and open Internet is increasingly important to the protection of individual liberties-freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association -guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by the Connecticut Constitution. The League also believes that net neutrality protections are essential for political discourse, dissemination of news, and democratic participation. Therefore, the League of Women Voters of Connecticut strongly supports the LWVUS position to protect the open, neutral, nondiscriminatory nature of the Internet.  To further this position, the LWVCT supports efforts by the State of Connecticut to protect the open, neutral, nondiscriminatory nature of the Internet.

Agree  or  Disagree
 

 

High speed Internet-or broadband-means a fast Internet connection through cable lines, telephone lines, power lines, or by wireless technologies.  Connecticut residents need fast, high capacity connections to engage in political discourse, to communicate with their legislators, to use Internet telephone services, to get speedy access to e-mail communications, to conduct business efficiently, to telecommute, and to view live video or radio broadcasts.  Some basic types of Internet service-like dial-up service over a telephone line-just don't offer enough speed and capacity to view video or to use Internet telephony. Moreover, they require the full use of a telephone line.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) uses a standard definition of high speed broadband Internet service-200 kilobits of data per second-for either downloading material from the Internet to your computer or posting it from your computer to the Internet. (FCC 2006)  This definition troubles many consumer advocates, good government groups, computer scientists, and some FCC commissioners, because it sets the standard much lower than that used by other developed nations in the world, presenting a more positive picture of access to modern Internet service than really exists in the U.S.  They say that other countries have speedier Internet service for lower costs to customers and criticize as inaccurate the FCC's method of data collection on high speed Internet service availability and penetration rates in rural areas, such as eastern and northwestern Connecticut.

The New York Times, Connecticut Section, has reported on the obstacles for residents and Internet service providers alike regarding modern Internet connections in some parts of Connecticut, the state with the nation's highest per capita income. (Hochswender, 2007) Cable and telephone company spokespersons said that laying the infrastructure for high speed Internet access throughout less populous and remote communities is expensive and, with more competition for customers in TV and Internet service, may be a costlier investment than expected. Residents said that their access to news and information is compromised and their ability to compete in the modern marketplace is jeopardized by outdated communications technology.

Additionally, Connecticut cities recognize the importance of updated Internet service to schools, community centers, and libraries which often serve as communications centers for non-affluent residents who find Internet subscriptions too costly. Several cities, like Stamford, have begun implementing downtown wireless Internet projects to make their cities family-, business- and visitor-friendly.

Finally, a Connecticut legislator introduced legislation encouraging cities and municipalities to implement their own Internet access projects. This is noteworthy because in other states, such as Nebraska and Arkansas, this right has been curtailed by state legislatures.

The LWVCT study group proposes the following statements for member concurrence on universal Internet access:

Efficient, affordable, high speed access to the Internet for all Connecticut residents-regardless of geographic location or neighborhood demographics-is a necessity for assuring equal access to local and state government, for maintaining openness and transparency in government activities, for communicating with legislative leaders, for engaging in political discourse, for competing in the global marketplace, and for assuring that voters receive the information they need to participate in our democracy.  Therefore, 

·    The League of Women Voters supports making high speed Internet access available to all Connecticut residents, without cost, through schools, libraries, and other secure public buildings.                 Agree   or  Disagree 

·    The League of Women Voters believes that affordable high speed Internet access is an essential service that should be readily available to all Connecticut residents and businesses.  State and local government policies should support broadband, wireless, and other means of high speed Internet deployment throughout the state. Agree   or  Disagree
 

 

The League of Women Voters believes that an informed citizenry is the bedrock of democracy and that governmental bodies must protect a "citizen's right to know" by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding open meetings, and making public records accessible. In 2000, The League of Women Voters urged the Federal Communications Commission to issue requirements for broadcasters to cover local public affairs.

PEG is an abbreviation for Public, Educational, and Governmental access TV channels. These form the three branches of Community Access TV -the TV channels that broadcast your local Board of Selectmen and Board of Education meetings, your grandchildren's spelling bees, and your local Meet the Candidates events. PEG access has its roots in the 1984 federal Cable Act and in various amendments to the Act. PEG channels-throughout the nation-allow residents to see their local government in action, without commercial "spin" or commentary, from the comfort of home. One PEG center operator states, "no issue or constituency is too small to receive equal time on PEG channels. This level of localism, even micro-localism, is not found anywhere else on the cable dial and it's what makes PEG unique and essential to many communities." Often PEG channels are broadcast from TV stations in town halls, community centers, or regional PEG centers with lots of volunteers and minimal funding.

The Connecticut Network (CT-N) is a close cousin of community access TV. Established and funded by the Connecticut General Assembly, CT-N has its own channel which offers a critically important way for Connecticut residents to view statewide public affairs programs and live, uncut sessions of the state legislature.
 
In exchange for using public rights-of-way (the roads, sidewalks, and public land where phone lines and cables run),  cable companies promise, through franchise agreements, to pay fees to municipalities so that schools, governments, libraries, and individuals can gain access to the public airwaves-thus, the term community access. Subscriber fees collected by the cable companies pay for equipment, training, and staffing of local and regional PEG stations. Providing community access TV channels and providing for citizen input through regional cable television advisory boards are required parts of Connecticut's franchise agreements with cable TV companies. These agreements are regulated by the CT Department of Public Utilities Control (DPUC).

Telephone companies are beginning to offer television service throughout the country, as competition for cable TV companies. In a new state law which certifies new TV/video providers in Connecticut, the legislature required companies to carry community access TV and CT-N on their basic, or lowest-price-service plans. New TV services-like those offered by telephone companies-competing with cable companies must provide the same number of community access channels that the town's current cable company carries and must carry CT-N. However, there is no requirement in the new law that requires companies to offer the same quality of PEG broadcasting or ease of access to PEG channels as to that of other TV channels.  Finally, none of these requirements pertain to satellite television providers. Customers using a "dish" for TV reception will not receive CT-N or any community access channels at all, unless the provider chooses to offer them.

The LWVCT study group proposes the following statements for member concurrence on community access TV:

Access to information through modern TV/video communication is essential to the public interest and to League of Women Voters' mission and purpose- to protect civil liberties, to ensure open, transparent government, and to promote the public's right to know. To protect the public interest, high quality PEG transmission and PEG availability on basic service tiers are essential. Therefore, 

·    The League of Women Voters believes that community access television channels-for public, educational, and governmental programming-must be adequately protected, promoted, and funded, regardless of the provider of TV/video services to Connecticut residents.     Agree   or  Disagree  

·    The League of Women Voters believes that statewide public affairs programming, such as provided by The Connecticut Network (CT-N), must be adequately protected, promoted, and funded by the state legislature and available to all Connecticut residents, regardless of the provider of TV/video services. Agree   or  Disagree 

·    The League of Women Voters believes that government should provide opportunities for citizen participation in decisions regarding community access, or PEG, TV.  Agree   or  Disagree

____________________________________________________________________ 

 

 
Thank you for participating in the concurrence process!