I’d be perfectly content to go about my life reasonably unpreoccupied with all the contentiousness du jour if it wasn’t made inescapable by so much incessantly vocal partisanship impeding any really amiable co-existence. Trouble is, moneymaking by any and all digitally designed means now drives an insatiable e-socialization and its unquestioning allegiance to an increasingly cyber-based economy. Facebook dominates everyday life by admittedly algorithmically fueling a tribalism dynamic of destructive e-separateness. “Us vs. Them” is simply more profitable than a “We” based bottom line. Bravo Mr. Zuckerberg. Take a “friending” bow. 

Even those of us on the sidelines can’t help being caught up in an e-existence that most participants rationalize as somehow being our inevitable lot in life. Something we’ve no control over and therefore better to be part of rather than voluntarily excluded. As a once popular counterculture sentiment observed: “Live it, or live with it.” As Doris Day sagely opined: “Que Sera, Sera.” I’m still optimistic that, with a little undeserved grace, we can just possibly do somewhat better. 

Not 100 percent Luddite, I recently turned on my car radio and caught a “Maine Calling” discussion on the state of the art of fiber-optic technology and broadband communications in general. During the short time remaining in the program there was no essential distinction made between the two, no real examination of other competing means of conveyance. The foremost emphasis was one of underscoring the overarching socioeconomic imperative of embracing whatever technology necessary to maximize Internet access at the highest speed capability to as many people as possible. The important takeaway was to accept that broadband already defines our economic future. A failure to do so, and soon, will only increase the lack of competitiveness already penalizing Maine in our national economy and our nation in a now all-encompassing global marketplace. 

This was most clearly stressed in the show’s surprise last call-in commentary by no other than the co-chair of the Senate Broadband Caucus. Apologizing that he’d been unable to hear the previous part of the program, Sen. Angus King then impressively proceeded to touch on basically all of the issues already explored, as revealed by my next-day e-visit to the complete airing of the topic. Though obviously a champion of incorporating fiber optics’ elite deliverance capabilities, his central point was that because “Broadband is the key infrastructure of the 21st century” there’s “No single answer” in realizing broadband’s own infrastructure. The crucial importance of comprehensive broadband warrants all available means of reaching that goal. 

The show’s guest expert and chief proponent of “fiber” broadband instead argued for its superior capacity, superior performance, and superior reliability as incontestable reasons to make it both the sole choice and ultimately the most economical option going forward. She totally dismissed all fanfare currently bandied about regarding the supposed merits, especially cost-wise, in implementing so-called 5G WiFi’s now touted “best solution” in overcoming Maine’s rural hurdles towards achieving optimum interconnectivity statewide. 

All participants in the call-in exchange enthusiastically promoted broadband as something fundamentally necessary, an advancement rivaling that of the electrification of modern life. Such comparison to a public utility prompted opinion that broadband’s now gained status as a fundamental need rightfully extended to all if everyone is going to become “part of the 21st century.” Indispensable, if people are to share in the growing freedom to “work where they live, not live where they work.” 

The discussion never once mentioned any negative broadband impacts. No discussion of the dangers accompanying WiFi versus landline conveyance. It was all about short-term economic health without any concern of long-term radiation-related health risks. The unquestioned necessity of maintaining business competitiveness and personal social currency wherever one might reside completely ignored examining any socioeconomic downside accompanying broadband’s more and more all-powerful dominion. Broadband’s blind boosterism appears equally tone-deaf to what’s becoming a less and less attractive overall picture of supposed e-world merits. 

Sen. King himself elsewhere rallies attention to the alarming specter of cyberwarfare and how we must ironically achieve e-technological superiority against that e-economic endangerment to national security, functioning governance and the sovereignty of our elections. That aspect of broadband religiosity apparently needs some praying over. Business monopolization, innovation suppression, fake news, privacy loss, anonymity abuse, identity theft, cyberbullying, sexual predation, tribal divisiveness, silo socialization, increased hate speech and terrorist networking. All have become acceptable e-existence trade-offs. Spiraling microwave radiation exposure to both us and the ecosystem … ditto. Somehow, such equally alarming dots aren’t so easily connected. 

When electrification initially took off, its American model never took the time to do it right. Europe immediately chose a more efficient, reliable, aesthetic and safe underground conveyance over the slapdash pole-to-pole design much of America still endures as if undeserving of it ever being upgraded. 

Hopefully, Sen. King will also revisit that “Maine Calling” presentation in its entirely and rethink his all-of-the-above approach to Broadband’s build-out. E-communication, good or bad, shouldn’t be allowed the same inept implementation historically permitted to our still embarrassingly antiquated electric utilities. Fear of falling behind global competition isn’t sufficient excuse for once again compromising on true technological leadership already exampled elsewhere. 

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.