On Thursday, February 16 at 12:00 PM, the Connecticut General Assembly's Energy & Technology committee will hold an informational forum on broadband and telecommunications issues. If you have a good broadband connection, you can watch the forum on the CGA Energy and Technology YouTube channel or on CT-N, the Connecticut Network.
Why does the League of Women Voters of Connecticut take a position on Internet and Media issues?
Pua Ford, LWVCT Legislative Specialist
To people outside our organization, the League is only about voting and candidate debates. Maybe people know about our stand on women’s rights like the Equal Rights Ammendment. For our members, most know that we advocate in state legislature on other government-related issues—Redistricting, Ethics, Open Government. Maybe someone remembers that it was LWVCT testimony in 2005 that helped push the creation of our Citizens Election Program, a national model for campaign finance reform. Maybe they also know we have had Public Issues specialists going to Hartford for our positions on School Finance, Transportation, and Mental Health.
Why did the Connecticut League adopt positions on Internet and Media?
At first
In 2008, we believed the positions followed naturally from the Citizens’ Right to Know—First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, open government, and so on. Along with the national League, we support good election laws, healthcare reform, environmental and climate laws, and anything in public life that needs reexamination through a Diversity, Equity & Inclusion lens—and all this connects, IF one has adequate, affordable internet connectivity.
And then
In 2020, more Leaguers and others woke up to the idea of universal internet access because: COVID! Until vaccines and health protocols were worked out, remote schooling, working from home via internet were the only way to keep education and the economy going without killing more people. Telemedicine became essential to the League’s Universal Healthcare position.
Meanwhile
LWVCT heard that the League of Women Voters of Tennessee, home of the successful Chattanooga gigabit network, chose to concur with LWVCT’s study. So did the League of Women Voters of New Mexico and Maine. But there wasn’t an opportunity to get advocates in the other states together with ours to compare notes or learn from each other.
In fall 2021, a board member for the League of Women Voters of New York State asked for our 2006-07 study. Kathleen Stein in St. Lawrence County (“closer to Ottawa than Albany”) is also the ringleader of the Rural Area Caucus (RAC) of local Leagues, an informal group of local Leagues across the nation concentrating on issues particular to rural communities. Since the pandemic shutdowns, rural communities have even more need for a decent internet connection. The League of Women Voters of the United States' positions cover healthcare and education but hadn’t needed to include access to telemedicine or remote learning.
RAC wanted all that included. Another year-long study by state Leagues or national could establish an up-to-date position, but if state Leagues could simply concur with Connecticut, why not the whole LWVUS? And why wasn’t this recognized as a Diversity-Equity-Inclusion issue? Compact, fairly connected Connecticut also has farming communities, some rough geography that impedes infrastructure buildout, and urban centers where internet affordability is a problem. So, I joined the RAC team to bring Digital Equity to Convention, held in person in Denver and virtually for those who could not travel there.
If I tell you everything RAC had to do to bring this issue for a vote at Convention, you will never read the rest of this. It was a lightning campaign. The final vote to adopt by concurrence the LWV of Connecticut position on Digital Equity was 638 yay, 228 nay. Some of the 904 remotely-attending delegates said they could not complete their votes because of problems with their internet connection. Ironic, no?
Is this position really necessary?
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) are already moving funds in the direction we want, to build out networks in unserved and underserved areas, to address digital inclusion. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a federal executive branch office, lists all the points that RAC brought to LWVUS Convention. In Connecticut, the Dept. of Energy and Environmental Protection asked everyone what should be included in their guidelines for distributing those federal grants, to address doubts about the FCC’s past maps of broadband coverage, doubts about how broadband wirelines will weather then next tropical storm.
The governments seem to be taking care of the problem without our involvement. Why does the League need to say anything?
Projects that involve as much money as this deserve a close eye by everyone. Should a network built on public money be open to many competing providers? Or are we better off with the current model of one or two large Internet Service providers per area? Can a small, less famous internet service provider offer better service? What’s the best way to keep the network maintained once it has been built? And (as mentioned in a Connecticut Mirror article in January), don’t we need to consider affordable hardware for some of our people?
Ask your legislator.
