Cable Companies Are Charging Astronomical Fees
A few weeks ago, I wrote to the Blue America community about my decision to run for the Portland City Council on a strong progressive platform (we’re off and running so you can contribute here). I also mentioned I was hoping to base the campaign on specific policy ideas, not just comfortable rhetoric—ideas I hope to keep folks apprised of and receive feedback.
Here is one that will be familiar to many of you: city-owned public broadband. I’m working on the most important part of this no-brainer concept— the financing of the infrastructure build-out and annual maintenance cost; a financing plan the area where this good idea often flounders. We are looking probably at a billion dollars for the system build out— and, like many issues (say, national health care), we have money, if we consider this a priority.
The idea of municipal broadband combines two of my favorite outcomes. First, it will keep money in the pockets of countless working-class and middle-class people. Second, it will challenge the power and greed of big corporations, namely, the odious non-union cable giants like Comcast.
It’s a core equity issue: Cable companies are soaking us dry, charging astronomical fees (for mediocre service, often), fees that are often out of reach for working-class people and, especially for economically ravaged communities, and, in particular, communities of color. While many people are shut out, Comcast’s gross profit for the twelve months ending June 30, 2023 was $45.47 billion, Comcast executives get paid $130 million every year (that’s just pay, not including pension and other benefits) and the company’s CEO took home $32 million in 2022.
Something is happening right now that makes this issue especially urgent— for all activists nationwide. Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in 2021, more than $42 billion was authorized to help states create “affordable” high speed broadband. The philosophy behind the investment was fairly straightforward: access to affordable high-speed internet is essential to every individual who is trying to keep pace in today’s economy, especially, school-age children (yes, technology swallowing up the economy has its decided downsides, but that’s a debate for another post).
The idea, then, behind the $42 billion is sound. The problem is in the execution. The money is allocated to states where the funds are directed based on a very loose standard of “middle-class affordability”— but that standard is quite irrelevant when examining the true costs of paying bills in high-cost areas. “Middle-class” is defined as low as $45,000-per year— which is madness if one thinks of just the rising cost of housing in many urban areas. The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) considers broadband service “affordable” if it eats up less than 2% of household income— again, still a lot for low-income families and, frankly, far less than what it actually costs in high-cost areas.
Indeed, from speaking with city officials overseeing technology and infrastructure, I’ve learned that the state of Oregon is directing its share of the $42 billion to “underserved” rural communities. “There will be no funding for Portland” I was told by a senior city official. Of course, rural communities are, in fact, in desperate need of affordable broadband. But, that shouldn’t leave behind the economically strapped working-class and middle-class in cities. And need I point out that “underserved” communities live in urban areas?
Do we have the money? Of course. Four years ago, a proposal floated at the state level would have taxed cell phone users to expand rural broadband— at an annual cost of roughly $12 per year per person. That is a small amount that can also be raised higher and be imposed on a progressive scale.
The new City Council should take the lead. Let’s go!
Comments