The city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, developed its own broadband Internet service. Through the service customers can purchase a 1-gigabit connection per second for $70 per month and 100-megabit connection for $58 per month. The average US broadband speed is about 9.8-megabits per second for an average of about $47.50.

The Obama Administration and now the chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, are proposing that access to the Internet be regulated like access to a public utility. The project in Chattanooga began in 2008 and uses infrastructure that was built to also route electricity. In many ways, broadband in Chattanooga is literally a public utility rather than just regulated like one. It provides much faster connections for about the same price.

This may be a good model for other municipalities. During the last eleven years various cities have attempted to make free Wi-Fi available for everyone. These attempts have been largely unsuccessful or the Wi-Fi has only been available at a few specific locations in the cities. There are three key differences between Chattanooga’s approach and these other attempts. First, in Chattanooga Internet access is not free. Second, the other cities subcontracted to private companies to provide Internet access. Third, these other cities were attempting to provide wireless Internet whereas Chattanooga provides wired Internet. Incidentally other ISP’s unsuccessfully sued Chattanooga to try to stop them from developing the service.

On a personal note, in the mid 2000’s I read about the SFLAN, a free “citywide” Metropolitan Area Network in San Francisco and was excited to try it. The only way I could get a connection was to take my laptop to my roof. On the roof, it took several minutes to open the home page of the New York Times. Despite the James Taylor song about the wonders of being on a roof, I decided that this was unworkable. ūüėČ

More information can be found about Chattanooga’s network here:


Additional information about cities’ attempts to provide free Wi-Fi can be found here:



This blog has included four previous posts about the importance of Net neutrality. In November of last year President Obama released a statement describing the importance of Net neutrality. I agree with his statement and wrote one of the nearly four million public comments mentioned early in the full statement. An excerpt from the middle part of the statement is posted below.

Prior to reading the excerpt though please consider an example of what happens when what happens when what the President describes as the “gatekeepers” decide to throttle certain content on the Internet in order to extract more profits from content providers. Starting during the summer of 2013 Netflix subscribers’ accessing the Internet using Comcast found that their movie streams gradually slowing. Comcast wanted Netflix to pay to have them upgrade their capacity. Then in February 2014 Netflix paid an undisclosed amount to Comcast and the problem instantly stopped. Obviously it is not possible for a cable company to upgrade its capacity where no capacity existed before. Doing so would be like building a 12-lane highway overnight.

Here is the excerpt from President Obama’s Statement:

I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:

  • No blocking.¬†If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player ‚ÄĒ not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP ‚ÄĒ gets a fair shot at your business.
  • No throttling.¬†Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others ‚ÄĒ through a process often called ‚Äúthrottling‚ÄĚ ‚ÄĒ based on the type of service or your ISP‚Äôs preferences.
  • Increased transparency.¬†The connection between consumers and ISPs ‚ÄĒ the so-called ‚Äúlast mile‚ÄĚ ‚ÄĒ is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
  • No paid prioritization.¬†Simply put: No service should be stuck in a ‚Äúslow lane‚ÄĚ because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet‚Äôs growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored exceptions for reasonable network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.

The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.

To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information ‚ÄĒ whether a phone call, or a packet of data.

So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act ‚ÄĒ while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone ‚ÄĒ not just one or two companies.

November 10, 2014

For the entire statement please click here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality – section-read-the-presidents-statement

For all of the posts in this series about Net neutrality, which include additional examples of problems with a non-neutral Net please click here:


In late 2010 the FCC enacted a set of rules known as the Open Internet Order to stop deals between Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) and content providers. ¬†This meant, for example, Giant Movie Provider could not pay an ISP to have its HD movies stream fluidly while Itsy Bitsy Movie Provider’s films were only given enough bandwidth to appear like pixelated images shot while using a stroboscope for illumination. ¬†Or imagine Bank Q’s homepage opens in a millisecond, whereas Bank B’s homepage opens in 20 seconds. ¬†Or even imagine that Bank B’s content, which is entirely legal, is blocked by your ISP. ¬†Having such commercial arrangements would give businesses with deep pockets a major advantage. ¬†

Today,¬†the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, ruled that rules that bar ISP’s from charging content providers are invalid. ¬†This will give ISP’s incentive to make deals with whoever can pay them the most. ¬†Although plaintiffs argued that this was necessary for innovation, as far as I can tell, providing the wealthiest content providers with the fastest access to customers will further ossify the existing structure thereby reducing competition, which in turn will diminish innovation.

In the press, an aspect I have not seen mentioned is that much of the backbone of the Internet in this country is paid for by our taxes. ¬†ISP’s provide some of the infrastructure but mainly what they provide are onramps for people like you and me. ¬†They charge us monthly fees to use those onramps. ¬†Of course for traffic/content¬†coming from content providers such as Netflix, the¬†on-ramp you are using is their off-ramp. ¬†Now ISP’s have a means of charging for traffic going in both directions. ¬†This could restrict or make difficult access to certain information. ¬†If you wish to learn more about this, please read the other posts in this series which can be accessed using the following link:


Recently, a director of a public library wrote to the Calix listserv asking for information about charging non-residents for library cards.  Below is my response to her.

Dear N.,

Since reading your questions I’ve been reflecting on the ramifications of charging for public library cards. Today, I read a blog entry by Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, about the problem with public/private enterprises and decided to post it here, with a few comments, in case it helps to clarify the potential repercussions of charging for library cards.

Reich writes:

What defines a society is a set of mutual benefits and duties embodied most visibly in public institutions ‚ÄĒ public schools, public libraries, public transportation, public hospitals, public parks, public museums, public recreation, public universities, and so on.

Public institutions are supported by all taxpayers, and are available to all. If the tax system is progressive, those who are better off (and who, presumably, have benefited from many of these same public institutions) help pay for everyone else.

‚ÄúPrivatize‚ÄĚ means pay-for-it-yourself. The practical consequence of this in an economy whose wealth and income are now more concentrated than any time in 90 years is to make high-quality public goods available to fewer and fewer.

Much of what‚Äôs called ‚Äúpublic‚ÄĚ is increasingly a private good paid for by users ‚ÄĒ ever-higher tolls on public highways and public bridges, higher tuitions at so-called public universities, higher admission fees at public parks and public museums.

Charging non-residents for a public library card is in effect privatizing the library for non-residents. It will “make high-quality public goods available to fewer and fewer.” An argument could be made that people who can afford to travel to a library in a town where they are not a resident can also afford a library card. However, often the closest library is not in the town of residence. Or the closest library is not open during hours when people can get to it. This is especially true of people working several jobs to make ends meet.

By charging for library cards, in the short term, you may generate a little extra revenue for your library. In the long term though, this will make even more resources available to people who already have more resources, which results in further concentrating wealth. If you think that further concentrating of wealth and resources is what your community and this country needs, then maybe charging for library cards is a good idea. If not, then maybe it isn’t such a good idea. Personally, I think it’s a bad idea.

That’s my opinion. I hope it’s helpful.

Best regards,
P.S. Robert Reich’s entire blog post, posted January 4, 2012, can be seen here.

Below is a letter that I sent to the Calix Listserv about the Google Book Settlement.


Here’s a link to an excellent opinion piece about the¬†Google¬†settlement, by¬†Robert Darnton. ¬†Darnton advocates for a digital public library rather than Google‚Äôs proposed commercial venture.


In 2009, Darnton wrote a longer essay contextualizing the Google Book Project within the history of US copyright law.  In his essay, Darnton frames copyright law as originally striking a delicate balance between private profitability and the common good.  Gradually, the copyright law has shifted out of balance toward the interests of private profitability.  This essay can be found here:


What Darnton does not discuss at length is that digital works are often covered by End User License Agreements (EULA’s) rather than their print¬†counterparts, which are subject to the Right of First Sale. ¬†EULA’s are more like the Wild West in terms of the law; the owners of the digital rights largely set their own terms. ¬†If I purchase a print copy of a book, regardless of the publisher or vendor, the book is subject to the same copyright laws. ¬†In contrast, EULA’s for digital books can vary between different publishers and even between vendors. ¬†This already has dramatic implications for libraries as¬†Harper Collins¬†recently demonstrated when they decided to only allow their ebooks to be “borrowed” 26 times before the license needs to be repurchased.

In the digital landscape we are now entering, libraries will purchase licenses rather than purchasing actual books.  This means we will not actually own the etexts we are purchasing, rather we will license them.  This gives the actual owners (i.e. the publishers and vendors) more power and potentially greater profits at the expense of the common good.

Consider this for example:¬†Last week, Amazon made the ebook lending site Lendle non-operational before restoring its operational status, on the condition that Lendle disable a feature. ¬†Lendle allowed users to lend a Kindle ebook¬†for up to two weeks, permitting only one loan per book. ¬†According to Amazon‚Äôs page describing the Kindle, this is permitted.¬† In essence, they were creating a digital¬†lending library. Lendle even created an extra provision to protect Amazon: before borrowing a book, Lendle users needed to loan a book.¬† Nevertheless, because Lendle did not “serve the principal purpose of driving sales of products and services on the Amazon site,”¬†Amazon decided to shut it down until it submitted to Amazon’s demands, which it immediately did.

Here we see the impact of not owning the books we read or lend.  A vendor or a publisher can abruptly limit the functionality of what we’ve licensed.  In the case of Lendle, Amazon didn’t actually take away the ebooks, instead they revoked Lendle’s access to computer code necessary to run Lendle.  This brings up an interesting problem, even if we have a license that says we have access to the etexts, if the vendor can take away or disable the program that is necessary to read those files, then the files effectively become useless.

As more library loans are of purely digital media, we will need to respond to a fluid set of limits imposed on us by vendors and publishers as they work to maximize profits.  In contrast librarians work to maximize the common good.  Despite the Google decision, overall, I believe the balance is shifting even further toward control by for-profit businesses.

Do others feel that the balance is shifting toward for-profit and if so, what can we do about it?  According to a couple of publishers mentioned in a New York Times article, libraries account for 7 to 9 percent of their total revenue.  Collectively we have a significant voice.  Do people have ideas about how we can band together and leverage that voice?

Finally, if others disagree that the balance is shifting toward the for- profit, then what are some examples that have influenced your thinking?

Best regards,
Ethan Annis
Head of Access Services
Dominican University of California

The iPhone app Word Lens translates text using the phone’s camera and OCR software. For example, the words in a sign in Spanish, viewed through the Word Lens, appears in English. The translations are literal and it only works between English and Spanish but its conceptually very promising. Here’s a demonstration:

Telegraphing Modernized

In the past, people paid by the character to telegraph information to distant locations. Only concise bursts of information denoting major transitions were telegraphed. With 160 character limits on IM’s, 140 characters per Tweet and 420 characters to update a Facebook status, in some sense we’ve returned to the telegraphic economy of characters but without the economy of updates!