haitiearthquake. that is where donations can go. as has been widely reported, yesterday i signed the order for the process of tps status for haitians already in the united states. this is an intermediate immigration status that allows those who are here to remain and to work. as they work, many send remittances back home. this in and of itself is a form of support to haiti and a form of economic assistance to haiti. to qualify, you must have been in the united states before january 12, the day of the earthquake. if you qualify, you should go to uscis.gov, and there is information there to provide

you on how you get the tps status. it will be good for 18 months from the date of issuance, so that will be in july of 2011. for haitians in the country who were here before the earthquake, we are now opening up the process of tps for you. lastly, if any haitians are watching, there may be an impulse to leave the island to come here. you will not qualify for tps status. if you do, you will be repatriated back if you attempt. this is a very dangerous crossing. lives are lost every time people try to make this crossing. please do not have us subvert are necessary rescue and relief efforts going into haiti by trying to leave at this point.

it is time to focus all our efforts collectively with haiti, and the united nations, and our international partners in rebuilding the devastated country. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a discussion on the obama administration's policy on jobs and the economy. also, a look at how poorly equipped haiti is for natural disasters with a new york born councilman. olin that, a special election in massachusetts to fill the late senator edward kennedy's see. -- senator kennedy's seat. >> this week on "the communicators," a discussion on establishing high-speed internet in the united states.

our guest is larry cohen. this program was taped in december 2009. >> this week, the president of the communication workers of america, larry cohen. also, the senior editor with telecommunications reports. briefly give us a snapshot of the communication workers of america. >> 700,000 women and men at work in the communications field. it could be broadcasting or journalism. we also have several hundred thousand retired members to remain active in many ways. we are in every state, with 10,000 in canada, including the canadian broadcasting company. >> what companies do they work for? >> about 1000 different

companies, companies like at&t, general electric, verizon, comcast, "the new york times," and all the news agencies. >> when it comes to policy matters, what are some of the major areas of concern that you concentrate on? >> obviously communications policy is huge for us. health-care policy has become huge, because no matter where our members work, a great concern about what the future will be. we obviously support health care reform, but what does that mean? organizing rights is a big problem in the united states. the global economy as well, as a lot of the work our members do is affected by what is going on around the world.

we try to build alliances that are global. >> one of the big issues currently moving in this country with regard to telecommunications is broadband deployment. what is your position on the broadband plan being developed by the fcc, and overall broadband deployment? >> we applaud the focus the sec has on broadband deployment. that is the frame we would use -- we applaud the focus the fcc has. we have been running a program called "speed matters."

we would say that communications is part of infrastructure in the same way as electricity or water and roads. in terms of economic development in the 21st century, it is critical that we have 21st century internet. >> your project shows 5 megabits per second average download versus that in korea. >> it makes a big difference, on the economic side as well as in residence. we would stress is upstream and not just downstream. you need to be able to upstream

speed matters as well. there are lots of examples why it matters. for high-definition video connection, you need six or seven megs just for that. things like c-span or not just entertainment. as we look forward to where we are headed, more importantly than in eight residents, it is in the community. high-speed internet connections affect the entire economy of the state. there is no connection in towns in west virginia, for example. the road is the internet as well as the road that the truck

arrives on. the biggest group of our members works on the network itself. it is their job. we are looking at an economy now with a minimum of 10% unofficial employment. the job creation employs people who work on the network. catching up in terms of the economic development that goes along with it. it is about folks in the u.s. turning into consumers. you cannot really be a consumer without working. it is a combination of the two. several hundred thousand of our members actually work on the network and are concerned about their futures. we promote among our own members, constant upgrading of

skills. look to the future and not to the technologies of the past. we started the campaign in iowa two years ago. it was our members in iowa who met with candidates in both parties to talk about libraries, schools, hospitals, and clinics in i would not have high-speed connections and what that means. our organization is not just about the standard of living, but also about employment, where the skills come from, and how to contribute in a meaningful way. it is not just to go to work, but to feel like your work is meaningful. >> one of the ways the fcc is looking to try to shift resources is to take it away from traditional narrow band sources. what do you think of that

approach? >> in one word, great. the universal service fund -- we see boys going forward as an application -- we seek voice going forward as a software application. the $8 billion a year could be used to stimulate private sector investment in low density areas or underserved areas. congress needs to get involved in that as well. we need about $350 million to upgrade our internet to the standards of korea, which is ironic to most americans that we are behind korea. japan is in the forefront of this. they have 100 meg service to

90% of japan. the universal service fund can provide incentive, and you can match it in leverage. when you have $8 million a year, large parts of the country are left out. that is one of the ways we can get ourselves there. >> he mentioned specific dollar amounts and the amount in universal service fund every year. you mentioned the $302 million fcc has set to get those services out this year. what can you do with that small amount of money to really make a

difference? >> we do state maps where we encourage people to go in and see what their speeds are. hundreds of thousands of people have taken the speed tests, and we publish the results by state. people joke why do we need to spend billions of dollars when you guys have already done it? phase one of the stimulus funds directed at broadband will provide better maps and the maps i have here, state by state. that would then allow you to take the money and pinpoint it to provide services on a voice cried in areas that would not get it through normal sources. essentially, you would do some form of reverse auction kind of

thing. the big thing we are stressing is that speed matters. we cannot just use the word broadband. it is itone meg in each direction. the gold japan set five years ago was 100 megs across japan. whatever funds we have, to match that in some kind of way to get the private sector investment we need as well. usf is funded by all of us.

i think the first thing is to map out where we need to go and then get some sort of option to get speed where we need it. it is a tax expenditure that people are more comfortable with. you could do accelerated depreciation to get it out faster. we also need to do more to create demand. parts of our proposal is to have certain digital ambassadors in underserved areas. it could be high school kids working with other kids. brazil has a project to get computers across brazil. to drive up demand, you also need to work in underserved areas to get people to get on the internet and to be using

these services. i think it is a whole approach. is the non-profit sector, the private sector, and the public sector. local government has played a key role in this. >> along with the broadband deployment, the fcc is also looking at net neutrality and adding rules to net neutrality. you recently sent a letter to julius genachowski and others. >> we support an open internet, but at the same time, we have to look at some kind of reasonable network management as part of the incentives with the people who are investing in building these networks. if you had a total of neutrality, it would mean there would be no prioritization of any of the data bits on the internet.

you will have latency issues and drops and it will not work. similarly with video, you need to be sure there is some priority in keeping the bits together. we call that managing the services, to some extent. if there is discrimination on one side versus another, the network providers need to be targeted. there is a little bit of new ones in that letter. we are not exactly the same as some of the folks who say what do we need regional network management for? we would gather all parties in the room with the commissioners and figure this out. if we do not figure it out, we will freeze up the investment, and the problem of what kind of infrastructure we will have only gets worse.

we believe absolutely an open internet, no discrimination, but reasonable management. you are providing some incentive for them to spend the billions of dollars to build out. >> would you distinguish your position with those of the carriers and broadband providers with those who work for content providers that would be on the open internet site of the argument? >> we would distinguish ourselves in that we think the fcc does need to police the open internet and make sure there is not any discrimination. there have been a couple of examples. we think there needs to be a presence there to say if you screwed up, there will be

penalties for that. we are not saying leave it up to the market. you got into an area that is very key to us, which is how we promote the diversity of information? things like c-span, how we fund and promote information so it is not just market forces advertising overcoming everything else? we are worried about the concentration content. most of those issues, we would be an agreement with. it is just on the extremes, you get into a situation where we could have a total open internet that is a 20th-century internet. >> this is "the communicators." our guest is larry cohen, president of the communication workers of america. lynn stanton is a senior editor

with telecommunications reports. could you tell us what it is really? >> we have been publishing since 1934, everything that affects carriers. >> mr. cohen, you mentioned that you are concerned about the concentration of power and you have already raised red flags, from your perspective, on the comcast-nbc potential conflict. >> we are concerned about that language of putting contact -- content and that work together. -- content and network together. the ideal world would distinguish between content and the pipe.

right now, there are huge differences in price points in terms of delivering content. right now, in terms of the cable companies, particularly comcast, who we have a lot of respect for, we would be very worried about what happens to content they do not own versus content they do on. our concern is what happens to the content with this merger, not so much just what happens to the jobs. if a higher and higher percentage of content is owned by a company that accesses homes, what happens to the democracy issue as we move forward?

there are ways for that murder to work. -- for that merger to work. >> you were talking about the distinction between the content and the type. in pushing this stuff over the pipe, there's a first amendment concerns. the see that as a reasonable argument? >> i am not familiar with that argument. >> wendy fcc is looking at in terms of neutrality, that will possibly impinge on the first amendment rights of the pipe owner, not the delivery of the cable system, but specifically

over the broadband isp. their first amendment rights decide how to deliver that content. >> that would worry us. we would be more interested in our rights as creators or citizens to create content and make sure we can get that content over the public internet that is not a disadvantage. they meant individuals, not corporations. we have run into trouble that -- trouble with that in different ways recently. we would say the first amendment isabel when one knew it -- is about when 1 million people create content and let them distributed, rather than letting the pipe owner of decide what content goes over it. he will not get the investment otherwise. on the other hand, a robust

public internet is where the excitement and innovation comes in. >> mr. cohen, when you visit congress, what are the committees to concentrate on? >> congress has all of these issues, and they also have health care, education and labor committees in the senate. similarly in the house. it is a wide range, because our members are on different sides of things. we are also concerned about manufacturing. that is another subject for another day. hardly any of this stuff is manufactured in this country that we are talking about. we think we need better trade policies. it is a wide range. we are concerned about jobs being moved out of the country, customer service, tax support. even though you think you are talking to somebody -- i

hesitate to mention one company, you are talking to someone who is contract it out to other nations. a wide range of issues that we care about. workers' rights is way at the time as well. are we going to have bargaining rights in this country? where do we stand on people's rights to organize and bargain with their employers? obviously health care distribution, universal access to health care, lots of concerns for lots of members of congress. >> how would you grade the current congress and the current administration with regard to your issues? >> i would say that as for the house, i am a big fan of what the speaker is trying to do, and all the people that work with her. there is a genuine folk is there

on innovation. our belief is we need to look forward and look what is going on around the world that we can learn from. the senate, and truthfully, we are concerned about the rules and how they operate. it is a challenge to have a democracy where we are in a situation where every single thing needs 60% of the senate to actually show up to even get a nomination for a. we are very concerned about gridlock among our senate friends. what i like about the white house is, they are up working all night. they are willing to accept new ideas. we have to go further to creating a government where we are really looking at the ideas rather than where it originates from. i am excited about the president and his team.

>> with all those issues in front of congress, healthcare and energy will come before communications in the lineup. the national broadbent plan is said to be non self and to keep -- nonself edgeexecuting. >> i think there is some room on the jobs front. we are stressing this as infrastructure. it does not get as much attention as a bridge or even a new building. i think there will be openings around jobs. americans are concerned about unemployment. we would argue that a lot of what we discussed here today is specifically a jobs

conversation. >> under website, you did a recent analysis or report comparing google and at&t, which i found interesting. can you tell our audience what it is and where they can find it on the website? >> you can go on speedmatters.org. the reason we did this, back on the net neutrality front, we were concerned it appeared -- that we understand where the jobs are. at&t employs about 300,000 americans. google employs about 15,000, yet

google has a higher market value. the ability of google to impact public opinion around the world is enormous. the profit they create is incredible, compared to the number of people who work there. as popular as google is, paid search is what is providing the revenue there. it is getting less and less attention and less and less value. the quickest way to raise advertising money is paid search. we need to see where the jobs are. also, capital expenditures. companies like at&t worked the leading companies in terms of capital expenditure in the u.s..

last year was $17 billion. the google number was nothing like that. while innovation is huge, while companies like google are huge in the world economy, we also have to focus on how we create jobs and keep up in terms of speed and deployment as well, so that americans get back to where we were in leading in the economy. >> for a long time, the prescription in washington that will and other companies were paying attention to washington. are you equally matched or overly matched? >> my counterparts around the world will tell you that it is an issue in every capital. sometimes it is just about google and their profits. that is the way the market system works.