Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["christian stalberg" <cstalberg AT web-analysts.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: moderator AT PORTSIDE.ORG [mailto:moderator AT PORTSIDE.ORG] 
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 1:56 PM
To: PORTSIDE AT LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG
Subject: Why Are Some Civil Rights Groups & Leaders On the Wrong Side of Net
Neutrality?

Why Are Some Civil Rights Groups & Leaders On the Wrong Side of Net
Neutrality?

By James Rucker
Jack & Jill Politics
January 29, 2010

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2010/01/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 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.

Submit via email: moderator AT portside.org Submit via the Web:
portside.org/submit Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
Account assistance: portside.org/contact Search the archives:
portside.org/archive