Why are some civil rights groups & leaders on the wrong side of net neutrality?
It’s said that politics creates strange bedfellows. I was reminded how true this can be when I traveled to D.C. in recent weeks to figure out why several advocacy groups and legislators with histories of advocating for minority interests are lining up with big telecom companies in opposition to the FCC’s efforts to pass “Net Neutrality” rules.
Net Neutrality is the principle that prevents Internet Service Providers from controlling what kind of content or applications you can access online. It sounds wonky, but for Black and other communities, an open Internet offers a transformative opportunity to truly control our own voice and image, while reaching the largest number of people possible. This dynamic is one major reason why Barack Obama was elected president and why organizations like ColorOfChange.org exist.
So I was troubled to learn that several Congressional Black Caucus members were among 72 Democrats to write the FCC last fall questioning the need for Net Neutrality rules. I was further troubled that a number of our nation’s leading civil rights groups had also taken positions questioning or against Net Neutrality, using arguments that were in step with those of the big phone and cable companies like AT&T and Comcast, which are determined to water down any new FCC rules.
Most unsettling about their position is the argument that maintaining Net Neutrality could widen the digital divide.
First, let’s be clear: the problem of the broadband digital divide is real. Already, getting a job, accessing services, managing one’s medical care—just to mention a few examples—are all facilitated online. Those who aren’t connected face a huge disadvantage in so many aspects of our society. Broadband access is a big problem -- but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with Net Neutrality.
Yet some in the civil rights community will tell you differently. They claim that if broadband providers can earn greater profits by charging content providers for access to the Internet “fast lane,” then they will lower prices to underserved areas. In other words, if Comcast — which already earns 80 percent profit margins on its broadband services — can increase its profits under a system without Net Neutrality, then they’ll all of a sudden invest in our communities. You don’t have to be a historian or economist to know that this type of trickle-down economics never works and has always failed communities of color.
Whether the phone and cable companies can make more money by acting as toll-takers on the Internet has nothing to do with whether they will invest in increased deployment of broadband. If these companies think investing in low-income communities makes good business sense, they will make the investment. Benevolence doesn’t factor into the equation.
On my trips to Washington, I met with some of the groups and congressional offices questioning or opposing Net Neutrality. I asked them what evidence they had to back up claims that undermining Net Neutrality would lead to an expansion of broadband to under-served communities, or that preserving Net Neutrality would thwart expansion. Not one could answer my question. Some CBC members hadn’t yet been presented with a counter to the industry’s arguments; others told stories about pressure from telecom companies or from other members of congress. As one CBC staffer told me, many CBC members have willingly supported the business agenda of telecom companies because the industry can be counted on to make campaign contributions, and they face no political backlash.
I also heard from people who don’t consider themselves against Net Neutrality, but who say their issue is prioritizing broadband expansion over maintaining Net Neutrality—as if the two have some intrinsic competitive relationship. When I’ve asked about the relationship, again, no one could provide anything concrete.
To those taking positions against Net Neutrality, I ask what sense it makes to undermine the very power of the Internet, especially for our communities, in order to provide access to everyone, presuming for a second the two were even connected. It’s like what we have with cable — our communities are saturated with programming that they cannot control, with no benefit of empowerment for anyone. Again, no one with whom I talked had an answer to this point.
Thankfully, there is an array of grassroots, media and social justice organizations that have not followed this line of reasoning and are actively supporting Network Neutrality, such as the Center for Media Justice and the Applied Research Center. Black and brown journalists and media groups who understand the need for unconstrained expression on the part of our communities are on the same page as well: the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, UNITY: Journalists of Color, the National Association of Latino Independent Producers, the National Association of Black Journalists, and the National Hispanic Media Coalition have all been vocal supporters of Net Neutrality.
Prominent lawmakers, including CBC members Reps. John Conyers, Maxine Waters, and Donna Edwards are vocal supporters, as are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama — who has pledged to “take a back seat to no one” on the issue. And last week, Mignon Clyburn, a commissioner at the FCC, called out advocacy groups entrusted by many to represent our communities, for making half-baked arguments that completely miss the boat on the importance of Net Neutrality to our communities.
As Clyburn pointed out, far from being just a concern of the digital elite, Net Neutrality is essential to what makes the Internet a place where people of color and marginalized communities can speak for ourselves without first asking for permission from gatekeepers, and where small blogs, businesses, and organizations operate on a level playing field with the largest corporations. Net Neutrality regulations are needed to protect the status quo, because the telecom industry sees an opportunity for profit in fundamentally altering this basic aspect of the Internet.
In the coming weeks I plan to head back to DC to continue to fight for Net Neutrality. I’m hoping that on my next trip some of the anti-Net Neutrality civil rights groups or CBC members will heed my call and explain their position. I would like to believe that there is more to the “civil rights” opposition to Net Neutrality than money, politics, relationships, or just plain lack of understanding. For now, I’m doing my best to keep an open mind. But I don’t think it will stay that way for much longer.
America is way behind other countries in speed and bandwidth.
"making half-baked arguments that completely miss the boat on the importance of Net Neutrality to our communities."
You might be too kind. Those arguments might be fully baked and missing the boat is their objective. Confuse people when you have no facts type of a thing.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
This kind of thinking amazes me. It's sort of like my credit union raising my credit card APR from a fixed 9.99% to a variable 12.9%; when I called them about it, they went through all kinds of verbal convolusions to inform me that it is more "competitive" and "protects" me. "Gosh," I said, "with that kind of logic, please raise it to 40% - it'll be incredibly 'competitive' and I'll be so much more 'protected.'"
Sheesh!
as soon as a business interest says they are trying to "protect" you or provide more "choice", you know you're about to be screwed. If you haven't already, as in your case..
♥
Study the symptoms not the virus...
same reason municipalities that install free wireless access only to strangely reverse positions after talking (privately) with the local cable operator?
when supposedly grassroots organizations sell out to give corporations cover. It's the DLC business model.
Could you imagine MLK making decisions like this? Me thinks not.
Dr. Tiller killer convicted of murder.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100129/ap_on_re_...
What affect will this ruling have on other would be right wing domestic terrorists? Probably not much, because these wackos listen to a higher authority than man's law doncha know. Just like the Muslim extremists. Two sides of the same coin.
... Tiller will claim he's being persecuted.
It should be noted, however, that neither the judge nor the prosecutors allowed Tiller to 'spread his message' from the witness stand.
Doubtless to be discussed further in its own thread.
Nothing and I mean nothing will bring down the cost of Internet service. When corporations and politicians talk about competition bringing costs down, its all unadulterated bullshit! No business wants competition! In addition, it sounds to me like the Congressional Black Caucus are being bribed.
It sounds like the people buying into the 'we don't need this' argument have swallowed Rush Limbaugh's 'free market' nonsense, hook, line, and s(t)inker.
It's NOT a free market when corporations can pour gobs of cash into getting their message out, or dictate whose message gets priority. Or, as we've seen with Comcast, interfere with large-volume data transfers (implying that such HAS to be bittorrent/piracy).
Net neutrality is more than the Fairness Doctrine; it is essential. Do you think our founding fathers would have succeeded with declaring independence if the British Crown controlled the narrative? Do you think Jesus Christ - using the same methods he did in the Bible, travelling a specific region and holding one large sermon - would stand up against syndicated ideologues like Rush Limbaugh?
That wants to hide certain info. IMO
They built it for war and did not envisioned the long term impact it would have... down the road or highway if you will. :-)
From bbs's to prodigy to AOL, they're not gonna be able to put this genie back in the bottle, temporarily maybe? Where there is bad there is also good... and when there is money, power, prestige and the like to be gained...
What truly moves the Blue-dogs?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Here's your answer.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/7/media_consolidation_opponent_byron_dorgan_to
JUAN GONZALEZ: —such as net neutrality and some of these big mergers. The civil rights groups in the ’60s and ’70s really led the way in media reform, in challenging licenses of many broadcast stations. But now, increasingly, because they’ve been receiving a lot of money from telecoms and cable companies—and they say that’s not the reason, but they have been receiving quite a bit of money—many of these groups seem to be supporting the agenda of the telecoms and the cable companies. Your sense of what’s happening? And is there a rift developing between some civil rights organizations and the media reform movement?
JEFF CHESTER: Well, look, this has been going on for quite a while, and that’s a real problem, Juan, that—and I—you know, not to plug my book only, but in my book that came out a couple years ago, I talk about this, because in the late 1990s, when open—when network neutrality and all these issues were coming up, the big companies—Time Warner, AOL—gave a lot of money to the civil rights groups. They didn’t support the civil rights groups, a progressive media agenda then, and they’re not doing it really now. They’re taking a lot of money—Hispanic groups, African American groups—and it’s really tragic.
Read on
by corporatists. at least 50% now belong to the DLC/DSCC/DCCC.
Their behaviour is no surprise.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Unless I am horribly misinformed, the congress and the FCC already support and enforce laws on shipping companies and telephone service in regards to those types of services not being allowed to act as gatekeeper (other than things like sending explosives or toxins through the mail) to what is carried over thier networks. How can any of the people that continue to support and uphold these regulations simultaneously argue against Net Neutrality? It is the exact same thing.
by minority organizations on this issue.
I will relate this experience. When the American arm of BATUS, (British American Tobacco) attempted a hostile takover of Farmer's Insurance in the 80's. Farmer's attempted to garner support from black leaders by pointing out BATUS did business in South Africa.
BATUS made Kool cigarettes. Kool sponsored more than the Jazz festival. It was the largest corporate contributor to the United Negro College Fund and the Congressional Black Caucus, which could get direct corporate support. Black leaders told Farmer's they did not give a rat's ass whether BATUS broke the apartheid boycott. Of course it did not help that Farmer's had just lost a case proving they redlined and blocked the sale of policies to blacks in California.
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
The powers that be know that the net is an empowering resource for the grassroots. I think this will heat up and be a huge issue. They absolutely cannot be allowed to regulate the net or it will be a huge blow.
With the SCOTUS decision on corporate funding and the clear division between the people who have the power and money and the rest of us, I wonder at what point there will be a real revolution of the people...not that bogus teabagger crap.
amazing!
Amended: I think I just made 0.00024 cents for C&L's ;)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
"The most prominent Democratic sponsor of the COPE Act is Rep. Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther who represents Chicago’s South Side.
How did this one-time militant morph into the Step ‘n’ Fetchit of the telecom industry? (Note the rhetorical question.) Perhaps the $1 million that AT&T (formerly SBC) gave to the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation has something to do with it. Rush and his wife founded and serve on the board of this company, which employs their son and which used AT&T money to build the Bobby L. Rush Center for Community Technology."
I haven't seen any arguments that didn't involve Randroid free marketeer bullshit and/or a total misunderstanding of what "net neutrality" means.
Honestly, it's a fucking terrible phrase for helping convert others to the cause, someone should really should come up with something with more clarity.
you trust the government, others don't.
you assume regulating the internet will be in favor of the consumer and limit big corporations, when in fact, over time all regulation end up being changed in favor of big corporations with a lobbyist staff.
"net neutrality" legislation is the beginning of that process.
keeping the internet as a flat ground where all content and web sites are equal "regulation"?
Please explain this. Because the whole purpose of Net Neutrality is to keep it open so that everyone has access to everything rather than the corporations being the gate keepers and deciding what content gets passed on to folks.
"Why are some civil rights groups & leaders on the wrong side of net neutrality?"
Because they know nothing about technology and were told to be against net neutrality.
I'm actually surprised anyone thinks there was any actual thought behind their decisions.
I have long been a supporter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I don't think any of you links went to them but I appreciate their work on this too.
A good guess is that they are corrupted , if you are straight up / stand up you'd have to have a brain the size of a pea to be against net neutrality . Corporations are now persons , they can spend unlimited money on a campaign or on a particular candidate and you can bet that they will go after the internet full force in the near future , when the corporations ( the right )get control over the net it's all over folks . The right wing / Repugs are absolute fascists and in cahoots with the corporations ,that's a fact , the real world .
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
Please please please do not let the small amount of comments deter you from addressing this topic many many more times in the near future. This is one of the most important and least understood subjects of this time. It is so very important and C+L has to take responsibility to educate it readership. So many people do not understand what it is all about yet for the people who come here it affects them tremendously! Keep bringing up this topic. Please.
If we don't prevent this theft of our ability to access whatever we want online then we are looking at loosing a lot of what we love, maybe even C&L.
The only way out will be for the people to open their own company to allow unfiltered access web. But the change will be so subtle and gradual that most people won't even notice. Like how they haven't noticed their liberties being taken away little by little for the past 30 years.
It is the goal of our leaders to turn America into a nation of nincompoops indebted to the credit card and health insurance industries.
Comments are closed on this entry