On the line
I was surprised to see among the list of ten censored news stories your inclusion
of number six, “closing access to information technology” [Kari Lydersen, “Censored!”
Oct. 9]. Telecommunication company representatives have been quoted as saying
they “missed the boat” on the Internet boom of the ’90s and intend to control
and dominate broadband Internet access. That essentially means: “Suck every
dollar out of the consumer they can.”
I recently received a flier for a conference called “Innovations in Connectivity,
The Fourth Annual Telecommunications Conference,” which is being held at the
University of Illinois at Springfield [Nov. 20-21]. On the bill is U.S. Rep.
John Shimkus (R-19th) and Link Hoewing, Verizon’s vice president of Internet
and Technology Policy.
What are these guys going to discuss at UIS? Well, probably how companies
like SBC Communications and Verizon can provide all the information technology
to rural communities, including Internet access. I doubt they will mention it
was companies like ours that brought local Internet access years ago to all
those rural communities.
Incidentally, when our business tried to obtain help from the congressman,
all we got were pat answers that may as well have been written by a spokesman
for Verizon or SBC. Of course, SBC is among Rep. Shimkus’s largest campaign
contributors.
Your article is essentially correct: Verizon, SBC, and the other regional
Bell companies intend to destroy competition in the Internet access arena by
doing what they can to prevent deployment of any alternative broadband offerings
and eliminating any competition. Then they can milk everybody for as much as
possible while providing service far below the standards maintained by the state’s
independent Internet service providers.
Mike Dappert
President, Winco Inc.
Winchester
Media matters
This is in response to Jeff Moore’s letter [Oct. 16] on the “Censored!” story.
I find it odd to suggest that the author made the stories up or got them from
non-credible sources. For example, “Censored!” cited coverage of the first and
second Patriot Act. The fact that Bush signed this legislation (the first act,
so far) and that this has an effect on our civil liberties is hardly a conspiracy
theory. The point was that the dangers the act poses have gotten very little
media attention. Why? There are many reasons why the media censor stories. One
is mainstream media are owned by a few giant corporations that exercise control
over content. Another is that the large media tend to pander to the mainstream,
somewhat conservative public.
The media may, in fact, as Mr. Moore points out, be all over a story if it’s
controversial, but this is only if the public’s interested. The public seems
to be completely uninterested in the fact that Bush lied about his case for
war, so this takes a backseat to other stories. Answer this one: How many civilian
deaths have there been so far in our wars with Afghanistan and Iraq? Very few
people know, I suspect, because of the media’s lack of reporting.
Another reason Moore cites for criticizing the article seems to be based on
his view that “America wouldn’t really do this.” Well, I can certainly tell
you that in the times America has gotten its hands dirty, it was generally not
with the intention of improving freedom and basic human rights.
Seth Bohlen
Springfield
Voice of the people
This is just to say thank you to Illinois Times for its ongoing interest
in and presentation of poetry and local poets. There are many of us who look
forward each week to reading the work of John Knoepfle and the poets featured
in “People’s Poetry.” Kudos to both Corrine Frisch and her predecessor, Lee
Gurga, for their work as editors of “People’s Poetry.”
Joe Coffey
Springfield
Public TV seeks support
The recent debate over media consolidation has overlooked the distinctly local
service that public television and public radio stations provide to their communities.
Because “ownership” isn’t in question, public broadcasting stations aren’t
considered in that debate. But there is a lingering question about funding that
threatens the services they now provide.
The House’s fiscal year 2004 Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill would
reduce federal support for public broadcasting by $100 million — a 26 percent
reduction in federal funds.
A drastic reduction in the federal appropriation would have a chilling effect
on public radio and TV stations providing local programming — and would simultaneously
put in jeopardy their ability to pay for NPR and PBS programs. The House bill
would silence strong local voices.
Those concerned about the preservation of locally controlled media should
contact their Congressional representative [and] ask them to support the funding
level for public broadcasting proposed by the Senate.
Candis Isberner
Acting Director
SIUC Broadcasting Service
Carbondale
John Lawson
President
The Association of Public Television Stations
Washington, D.C.
Letters policy
We welcome letters, but please include your full name, address and a daytime
telephone. We edit all letters for libel, length and clarity.
Send letters to: Letters, Illinois Times. P.O. Box 5256. Springfield, Illinois
62705. Fax: (217) 753-3958. E-mail: editor@illinoistimes.com
This article appears in Oct 23-29, 2003.
