With concerns to technology, a main talking point for presidential candidates currently is the idea of expanding broadband internet service to rural and underserved communities. While the article that I read focuses on Bernie Sanders’ $150 billion expansion plan, I find it important to note that other presidential candidates are touting similar plans, even if less expansive. Elizabeth Warren is planning on spending $85 billion, Joe Biden wants to spend $20 billion, and Pete Buttigieg wants to spend $80 billion with concerns to expanding broadband service and making it more affordable. While these are unmistakably large sums of money, Sanders’ plan is nearly double that of any other candidate. I feel a certain sense of relevance to this conversation, as I myself come from a rural community (Western NC) where I grew up with what I would consider inadequate internet access for quite some time (talk about first world problems). While this topic is not as paramount as many others discussed in class, having limited access to the internet puts rural students at a disadvantage when compared to other students who can easily use the internet to study and communicate with peers and/or teachers. While not having internet access is far from life threatening, the consequences become greater as we become more and more dependent on services provided through the internet (education, commerce, entertainment, etc.).
Quite similar to the harvesters discussed in Langdon Winner’s Do Artifacts have Politics?, an unintended consequence of the internet is a distribution of power that favors cities and wealthier places of living. While having better internet access in the city is to be expected, as any developing technology needs to find its largest audience with the lowest cost in infrastructure, one cannot deny the fact that lack of internet access could and does hold students from rural and underserved communities behind when compared to students who live in more populated and/or wealthier areas. While I was fortunate enough to have mostly consistent internet access (the access point at my mom’s is powered by solar power, so after a couple cloudy days the internet access dies) by the time I was in middle school, I had many friends who were not so lucky. I went to an early college for high school, and taking online classes was close to a necessity when it came to staying on track. Even in-person classes had online textbooks and assignment submission pages. Those who did not have internet access (or laptops for that instance) were basically told to figure it out for themselves (not that there was anything that teachers or schools could do). Unlike students like me who could easily use the internet from home, they would have to manage their lives and their classes so that they could complete all of their online requirements at school or at a public place like the library.
After experiencing the disadvantages of having limited internet access firsthand, I was pretty excited to see that major contenders for the 2020 presidency are taking the issue seriously. Sanders went as far as to say that internet service should be a human right. While calling services human rights has always made me a bit squeamish, I would be fine with calling it an almost-necessary privilege. Sanders even compared internet to electricity, saying that, “just as President Roosevelt fundamentally made America more equal by bringing electricity to every farm and rural community over 80 years ago, as president, I will do the same with high-speed internet” (Finley, Wired). His plan would also regulate rates for internet providers, strengthen net neutrality, and break up large internet giants (which have had monopoly-like tendencies in the past). While these plans are nothing but lip service currently, I am hopeful that these propositions will be considered within government in the future.
https://www.wired.com/story/bernie-sanders-internet-service-human-right/