So says the Times-Union. We need a government reformer in the Attorney General's office, not an Albany hack:
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky dismissed criticism of the Assembly's process for rejecting congestion pricing, arguing that, "[i]n this case, the issue was so important that the conference substituted for a committee meeting. It was a committee of the whole, as it were."
Students of government will pick up on the problem right away--a traditional "committee of the whole" functions as a forum for debate for the whole legislative body. By excluding minority members and the public from the conversation, the Assembly's treatment of congestion pricing was almost exactly the opposite of a committee of the whole. Since when is it a good idea to make the most important debates the most secret?
The subject of broadband penetration is one we've been talking about for quite some time here at TAP. We tried our best to push Assemblyman Richard Brodsky's Telecom Reform Act and were supportive overall of Eliot Spitzer's broadband efforts as well. We've tried to point out that any plan to revitalize the upstate economy should absolutely incorporate broadband penetration as a large part of such a plan.
Those who have been reading this site for a while now know that many of us are in rural locales with limited, if any, broadband access. Many community members are on dial up even though they live in more urban settings.
There is a difference between available and accessible. In New York City, practically every household has at least one option for moderate-speed Internet service. Most have two: Time Warner and Cablevision connect to 98% of households and Verizon offers DSL to 87%.
Yet less than half of the city purchases the service. Broadband adoption rates in the Bronx rival those in rural America. Three quarters of low income households throughout the city do not have their own broadband connection. If you are a New Yorker reading this from your home, you are in a privileged minority.
Most efforts to address this problem focus on what's called "demand-side stimulation." That means trying to convince people to purchase a computer and an at-home broadband connection because, well, what crazy person wouldn't purchase an Internet connection when they could? The problem must be in the people who aren't on the Internet, rather than with the Internet itself. Of course, the people who have this idea all use the Internet every day and can't imagine life without it.
If we're going to make the Internet work for the other half of my city - and the other half of the country - we're going to have to ask the people who know the Internet's problems to help design the solutions.
Internet for Everyone has just launched a great series of videos titled "Five Days on the Digital Dirt Road" where they have traveled around the state of North Carolina. They've been talking to folks about their experiences and the many shortcomings of the broadband situation where they live. They are even organizing a Town Hall meeting that folks can attend in person or online.
This is one of the videos from NC, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks from around NY who can realte all too well to this man's experience.
I'd love to see such a campaign here in New York with Town Halls and the input of folks from across the Empire State. Maybe we could light a fire under the policy makers who continue to punt on this ever more important issue.
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky is set to release his report on the new Yankee Stadium today and the preliminary reports are grim. All told, Brodsky says we're on the hook for $850 million bucks. What did we get for all that public money? 15 permanent jobs.
The new Yankee stadium got up to $850 million in taxpayer investments but will create just 15 permanent jobs, a scathing new report charges.
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester) will release the 30-page "House That You Built" report today; it comes as the team finishes its final home stand at its old historic ballpark.
The report says the Yanks got $336 million from the city and state and up to $500 million in interest savings on IRS-approved tax-exempt bonds.
It slams the city Industrial Development Agency, saying it "may have violated existing law in its creation of massive amounts of public debt and its failure to assure public benefits from the massive taxpayer investment."
The Daily News first reported many of the findings in the report, which charges:
- The city "manipulated" the assessed value of the stadium to meet the need for an IRS tax exemption. The city appraised the value of the new stadium land at $21 million, but told the IRS it was worth $204 million.
- "Sworn commitments" to the IRS and the National Park Service were not kept.
- The Industrial Development Agency and the mayor's office "secretly" acquired a luxury suite.
- The city failed to protect fans from "excessive ticket price increases."
"If you had 44 Republicans and 32 Democrats, you could theoretically pass a bill that a majority of the Democratic conference opposed," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky of Westchester, who emerged as the vocal public leader of the opposition to congestion pricing. "That is not the way we run the system. And frankly, it's not the way we should run the system."
Two weeks ago I attended Assemblyman Richard Brodsky's hearing net neutrality. For 90 minutes, Brodky questioned to big time lawyers for Verizon, Monica Azure and Keith Clemmons, about how their company decided to block text messages on their network from NARAL Pro-Choice America. I've been meaning to write about the hearing ever since, but I've been extremely busy. Someone was kind enough to send me a transcript of the hearing and I just had to share this gem. Trust me, it was even more uncomfortable than it reads.
VZ Lawyer Monica Azure: That's assuming that we do censor, and we're not saying we do that.
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky: Ok, huh. Does the existence of a legal barrier against your doing that create an impractical disadvantage for you in your exercise of your business?
VZ Lawyer Keith Clemmons: Your talking about on the telecommunications side... It would be difficult for me to expound to that, to assess its impact because it is a situation, which with we've lived, you know, since we've been providing Telecommunication service. We really don't have any way to compare what our, how we would provide for someone, or to deliver to costumers if we did not face that restriction.
RB: But, just assume because I've heard from you guys repeatedly about this particular regulation. In fact, you've asked legislation to remove some that have come through the legislature - to remove the regulatory barrier to business activity. Do you assert the existence of this for your telecommunication services has such a barrier?
KC: Ok, now the existence, if your talking about regulatory barriers generally, I can answer that question.
RB: I'm not. I'm talking about this - regulatory barriers. It's not a group liable, it's specific - some are good, some are bad. Is this one a good one, or a bad one?
MA: court regulation...
RB: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
MA: I haven't found a good regulation, but...
RB: (laughs robustly) How about lead paint on Chinese toys? That's good.
MA: Especially, Thomas the Tank Engine. I have a major problem with it.
RB: Ok, I just wanted to find out one we could agree on.
MA: There is one we can agree on.
RB: Ok, but go ahead. Is this particular telecommunications restriction, a good one or a bad one - and, does it offend the principles that you set forth in the testimony?
KC: I think I'd have to answer that it is an unnecessary one. So, to the extent that it is unnecessary, I would say that I'm not really saying that it is bad. That's because our view is that we don't need to impose regulations on telecommunications carriers to get them to do the right thing - to provide open network services, to provide services to all their costumers, to not restrict the content of their messages. Aside from the fact that there are other laws that would restrict us from doing things with content of, and costumer proprietary network information...
RB: That's the question we are examining today.
KC: But, our view would certainly be that much of that regulation is not necessarily, that we would have gotten there anyway, and that we certainly endeavor to provide those kinds of services that our customers would always demand even in the absence of those types of common carrier rules on the telecommunication side.
I'm going to tryo to make it over to Assemblyman Brodsky's hearing today in Manhattan on the issue of net neutrality. Hopefully, I may even have some video later. What's clear from the press release announcing this hearing is that Brodsky "gets it".
If Verizon can dictate the content of messages on reproductive freedoms, they can do so on any other matter, and our ability to talk with one another, to campaign, to challenge orthodoxy, to bring new and unpopular ideas to public attention, to protect minority views, all these will be subject to the ultimate control of Verizon, or Cablevision, or any of the few national corporations that dominate telecommunications.
Speaking of "getting it", check out this op/ed on this subject in this morning's Washington Post. It was co-written by the presidents of both NARAL an the Christian Coalition.
As the presidents of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Christian Coalition of America, we are on opposite sides of almost every issue. But when it comes to the fundamental right of citizens to participate in the political process, we're united -- and very, very worried.
Free speech shouldn't stop when you turn on your computer or pick up your cellphone. But recent actions by the nation's biggest communications corporations should be of grave concern to all who care about public participation in our democracy, particularly our leaders in Congress.
...
When it comes to censoring free speech, sorry just isn't good enough. Whatever your political views -- conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, pro-choice or pro-life -- it shouldn't be up to Verizon to determine whether you receive the information you requested. Why should any company decide what you choose to say or do over your phone, your computer or your BlackBerry? Technologies are converging in our communications system, but the principles of free expression and the rights of all Americans to speak without intervention should remain paramount.
This issue is broader than one organization, one company or one topic. The issue is how communications companies can believe they have the authority to block content in the first place.
...
If corporations can't tell Americans what to say on a phone call, they shouldn't be able to control content or tell us what to say in a text message, an e-mail or anywhere else.
That's something all Americans -- regardless of their political views -- can agree on.
Remember my post about Net Neutrality and the Brodsky Bill?
Net Neutrality is the realization of the First Amendment, except on the digital plane. Remember, Free Speech is government regulation. Imagine the ridiculousness of claiming that we don't need the Bill of Rights, because "the market will sort it out". Same deal with Net Neutrality.
In case the term Net Neutrality confuses you, Public Knowledge has crafted a quick three minute clip explaining the idea in an elegant and clean manner.
Really, watch it. It'll only take less than three minutes, and explains the whole deal very well.
(Sayhar has written a couple of great pieces about the Brodsky bill and net neutrality over at Rochester Turning. I asked if he would cross post and he has agreed. Thanks, Sayhar. - promoted by phillip anderson)
Most of the bill is concerned with giving great cheap broadband to most every New Yorker. I know it's a bit cliched to say it, but this really could be a modern-day analogue to the Erie Canal. Like the Erie Canal, however, it has to be used for the public good, and not for corporate short-sighted interest.
To that end, the bill also has Net Neutrality provisions. Let those good folks at the Save The Internet Coalition explain the concept:
National ISPs (like Verizon) can block your access to national sites (like Google), and stop any exciting new entrepreneur that threatens their grip on power.
Net Neutrality can affect you personally. Without it, there is no way to stop a rich local businessman from bribing roadrunner into censoring your competing website. For that matter, if we piss off the local Republican Party too much, they could bribe local ISPs to stop you all from accessing Rochester Turning.
Things are looking increasingly grim for Michael Bloomberg's Congestion Pricing plan, or at least for the prospects for the plan snagging a huge chunk of federal money to help implement the plan.
First, Assemblyman Richard Brodsky has released a study that he claims shows that congestion pricing is unfair to middle class New Yorkers.
Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan is unfair to middle-class New Yorkers, says a study out today - as Albany obstacles threaten to derail the proposal.
"I could not recommend the bill presented to us. It doesn't do the things the mayor says he wants to do," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, who heads a committee examining Bloomberg's legislation.
...
But Brodsky (D-Westchester) said the fee will hit outer-borough drivers the hardest, and that the bill Bloomberg sent to Albany doesn't guarantee the fees will be spent on construction.
Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx drivers make about 24% of the trips into the congestion-pricing area, but would pay 47% of the fees - even though their average salary is $46,000, the study says.
Manhattan drivers, though, would make 72% of the trips into the pricing zone and pay just 42% of the fees - even with a $74,000 average salary. Trips within Manhattan would cost just $4, and taxis would be exempt.
And now it's looking less and less likely that Shelly will bring the Assembly back for a special one day session next week.
Albany's atmosphere is so toxic that the Assembly probably won't return next week.
"I don't think it will happen," said Democratic Majority Leader Ronald Canestrari, D-Cohoes. "Realistically, we could come back in the fall, and that might be better."
Added Albany Democrat Jack McEneny: "I don't see how we could be productive in this poisoned atmosphere."
McEneny, Canestrari and others cited the bitter fight between Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno, which escalated last week amid questions about Bruno's use of state aircraft and Bruno's allegation that Spitzer used State Police to spy on him.
...
Even if the Assembly were inclined to approve the plan, which is far from certain, the complex issue would still need to be negotiated.
Silver, said one insider, speaks daily with Spitzer and Bruno, but the feuding "really makes it harder, or really impossible, to get any deals. ... The sense is, no progress will be made until things calm down."
I sat in on Eric Massa's weekly blogger conference call this morning and he greeted me with words of strong support for our effort to urge the Governor to support the Telecom Reform Act. The topic of this week's call was economic renewal in western New York and what he plans to do to help foster such a renewal. I think it goes without saying that any plan to spur the long depressed economy out there must surely include bringing broadband services to those populations. That said, let's not forget that all that fiber optic cable has to be laid and installed by real people, with real skills. The first wave of job creation to come from implementing Brodsky's bill will come from the very work of building out that much needed infrastructure and there is much, much work to be done.
The USA trails other industrialized nations in high-speed Internet access and may never catch up unless quick action is taken by public-policymakers, a report commissioned by the Communications Workers of America warns.
The median U.S. download speed now is 1.97 megabits per second - a fraction of the 61 megabits per second enjoyed by consumers in Japan, says the report released Monday. Other speedy countries include South Korea (median 45 megabits), France (17 megabits) and Canada (7 megabits).
"We have pathetic speeds compared to the rest of the world," CWA President Larry Cohen says. "People don't pay attention to the fact that the country that started the commercial Internet is falling woefully behind."
It's time for New York to take the lead. If you want broadband built out to a minimum of 85% of the state, if you want strong net neutrality protections, if you want cheaper rates for cable through real competition and if you want to do something real and concrete to breathe new life into the upstate economy, Please Call the Governor and ask him to support Assemblyman Brodsky's Telecommunications Reform Act.
Person I spoke with said this was not one of the issues they were currently tracking.
The governor's office isn't tracking upstate economic renewal? or internet freedom? or the most significant reform of telecom law in New York ever?
It is imperative that we put this issue on Mr. Spitzer's radar. If you haven't yet done so, Please Call The Governor and ask him to support the bill. You can reach his office at 518-474-8390.
If they tell you they aren't tracking this, tell them they should start!
(Bumped. Have YOU called the Governor yet? - promoted by phillip anderson)
The Legislature left Albany last week with much unfinished business. The Governor issued a statement expressing his disappointment with lawmakers for so abruptly abandoning a number of viatl pieces of legislation before leaving for home.
This record is totally unacceptable.
New Yorkers expect and deserve dedicated and aggressive action to revive the upstate economy and reform state government.
...
In the days and weeks ahead, I will be traveling the state to remind lawmakers of their obligation to address pressing issues.
Mr. Spitzer lists many of the issues left unresolved by the legislature including Wicks law reform, paid family leave and power plant siting legislation. But, one of the most significant bills introduced in Albany in years didn't seem to make his list, Assemblyman Brodsky's Telecommunications Reform Act of 2007, a bill that would certainly qualify as "dedicated and aggressive action to revive the upstate economy" by requiring the buildout of high speed broadband infrastructure to a minimum of 85% of the state, something desperately needed by under served and economically depressed communities upstate. It would also protect net neutrality, bring cheaper cable and telephone rates through increased competition and allow New York to once again be a progressive, innovative model for other states to follow.
Quite a coalition of support has coalesced around the bill since its introduction including NYS Rural Advocates, NYPIRG, Common Cause, Jobs With Justice, Citizen Action, Rural Opportunities Inc, New York State Alliance for Retired Americans, Consumers Union and ACORN among others. Much of the credit for assembling this coalition goes tp Pete Sikora at the Communications Workers of America who has done a fantastic job of building support for the bill against its only known opponents, namely the cable companies and Verizon (and by extension, Joe Bruno and the Republican state Senators who represent those upstate New Yorkers who stand to benefit most from passage of the bill.)
I've written about the bill here several times and want to explain again why I and so many others believe it to be the "gold standard" in state telecom legislation (or as Pete Sikora put it, "the best thing since sliced bread") but first I want to ask you to do something to get this bill back on the governor's radar. Please call Mr. Spitzer's office and ask him to support this bill. You can reach his office at 518-474-8390.
We know that the Governor has a long history of supporting consumers over corporations. He also campaigned on expanding broadband infrastructure to underserved upstate communities and has often expressed his vocal support for net neutrality such as when he wrote to Senator Ted Stevens (.pdf) last year:
Net neutrality embodies the principle of open access and nondiscriminatory treatment of all internet users and content providers. Net neutrality has made the internet a powerful promoter of public discourse and commercial exchange, affording to users throughout all parts of the nation and the world and unlimited array of information, news, opinion and entertainment. Net neutrality has also fostered robust competition by content providers, without regard to ownership of the backbone facilities over which Internet traffic travels.
We need to let the Governor know that not only do we want what this bill provides (and he has repeatedly advocated for) but that there is a constituency of support for him when he takes on this fight. Call him at 518-474-8390 and ask him to support this bill.
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky unveiled a plan yesterday to put a six month moratorium on any new Empire Zone projects while the state would perform a "thorough audit" of the program. Call me silly, but that "thorough audit" might take six years as the program is a mess and the program has a history of being less than forthcoming with information. That said, it's about damn time.
Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky unveiled a proposal yesterday to temporarily halt and eventually overhaul the state's Empire Zones program, one of the state's most widely used economic-development tools.
Brodsky, D-Greenburgh, wants to place a six-month moratorium on the approval of any new Empire Zone projects while the state performs a "thorough audit" of the program. He called the program a corrupt "special-interest feeding trough" that no longer serves its original purpose - to create jobs and stimulate local economies.
"The program, which was intended to jump-start urban economies, has turned into a scandalous, corruption-ridden giveaway," Brodsky said. "I've recently wondered if the entire program should be repealed, but for now we need to stop it and review it."
Brodsky has repeatedly criticized Empire Zones, which grant tax breaks and other benefits to companies that settle in economically distressed areas. The cost of the program jumped from $30 million in 2000 to $600 million last year, with more than $3 billion in taxpayer money spent overall, he said.
His plan would change the makeup of the local boards that approve Empire Zone projects to ensure broad support and prevent conflicts of interest, he said, and would subject companies to greater environmental and labor standards.
A six month pause while we audit the program and work to prevent conflicts of interest, cronyism and such sounds pretty reasonable, right?
I'm working on a long piece about Assemblyman Brodsky's Tellecommunications Reform Act that I hope to have up later today, but I just ran across this utterly clueless op-ed in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle that I just can't let slide. Though I will give the D&C credit for writing about the issue at all given the serious dearth of coverage statewide, the piece they published Wednesday is a train wreck. They start strong with a perfect title, Hold telecom hearings, Public knows too little about major reform legislation, it ends as a muddled, clueless mess.
A key feature of the bill is the abolition of municipal cable franchises, money from which supports local public-access channels, to be replaced by statewide franchises awarded by the PSC. This would benefit latecomers to the cable game, particularly Verizon, which, to compete with Time-Warner and others, now have to go head to head in localities.
Local franchises should stay. The PSC has enough on its plate with energy deregulation. It doesn't need a cable-franchising job as well. Cable competition is needed. But Verizon should wade in on the local level rather than trying to change the rules mid-game. Other bill features - ensuring the entire state has online services and "neutral" Web access - are sound. But they can be dealt with apart from franchising.
First, the statewide video franchise is the is the juicy carrot dangled in front of the telecoms to entice them to fulfill the other parts of the bill, namely to build out their high speed infrastructure to 85% percent of the state. This is actually very important to many communities upstate, including, I wuld assume, many of the D&C's readers.
Second, local municipalities won't be losing franchise funds. The bill sends them the maximum allowed under federal law, 5%. In fact, many municipalities will see their franchise revenues actually increase.
Finally, I want to see this bill kept whole. All of these ingredients work together to motivate different stakeholders. The telecoms get their statewide video franchise. Underserved communities get broadband. Municipalities get moolah. Netizens get net neutrality. Breaking this bill apart will kill it.
Astonishingly, nobody else out there in ProgBlogLand has done anything more with that Brodsky apologia of the Assembly in last Sunday's New York Times. That's odd, because the short article is a condensed, creamy, buttery, oh-so-rich and oh-so-good concoction of considerable comedic potential.
Take, for example, this short paragraph:
This country is a beacon of liberty not because of steamrolling chief executives, but because of legislatures that limit their power. Reform in Albany requires a credible, independent and active Legislature that can challenge the governor, improve or stop his proposals and protect the system of checks and balances that define a democracy.
...and contrast it with this from the Brennan Center blog (the folks at the Brennan Center are the ones who describe Mr. Brodsky's beacon of liberty as the most dysfunctional legislature in America):
Unfortunately, it seems that the Assembly Majority is not committed to creating a more responsive, deliberative, accessible, accountable, and efficient legislative process. Members may boo when the Assembly is called dysfunctional, but it's hard to see how the epithet isn't still deserved.
