Communist
31st January 2010, 01:07
----------------------------------
Why are some Civil Rights Groups & Leaders On the Wrong
Side of Net Neutrality?
(http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2010/01/why-are-some-civil-rights-groups-leaders-on-the-wrong-side-of-net-neutrality/)
By James Rucker
Jack & Jill Politics (http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/)
January 29, 2010
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 are 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.
_____________________________________________
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------
---------------
------------
---------
-------
-----
---
-
Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.
Why are some Civil Rights Groups & Leaders On the Wrong
Side of Net Neutrality?
(http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2010/01/why-are-some-civil-rights-groups-leaders-on-the-wrong-side-of-net-neutrality/)
By James Rucker
Jack & Jill Politics (http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/)
January 29, 2010
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 are 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.
_____________________________________________
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------
---------------
------------
---------
-------
-----
---
-
Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.