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.
Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Save the Internet | Join the fight for Internet Freedom
Big Cable: Net neutrality violates ISP 1st Amendment rights
FCC Backs Net Neutrality — And Then Some | Epicenter | Wired.com
Moyers on America . The Net @ Risk | PBS
Blackburn: Net neutrality is 'Fairness Doctrine for the Internet ...
George Mason University on rights:
"True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation confiscate dollars from other Americans. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn."
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one’s own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
We are telling you that we need 100% broadband deployment and adoption yesterday, and that’s not soon enough. Anything else is secondary.
The reason we are seeking regulation to network neutrality is because telecoms have flexed their monopoly muscles to pick low-income people + people of color as losers in the Internet access lottery.
The core of the telecom argument against net neutrality, which is in turned echoed verbatim by many civil rights organizations, is that regulation will prevent them from investing in communities who today are unable to affordably access the Internet. This position is nonsensical because failing to create regulation means the status quo remains, which means people will continue to be excluded from Internet access.
There is another component to this that is in line with the values of civil rights organizations: Internet Freedom. The other casualty of non-neutral networks will be the ability of every person to express themselves online and give their ideas the opportunity to flourish. Telecom companies are planning to place Jim Crow-esque poll taxes on content they deem unfit for higher-speed, higher-quality Internet connections. This assault on the freedom of speech and expression by private interests is as wrong now as it has ever been. Instead of aligning with companies who have such intentions, these organizations should consider aligning with those who'll be vicitimized.
And thank you for this column.
It is outrageous that civil rights groups are against Network Neutrality. It’s actually kind of shocking. The idea that civil rights groups could support corporate giants over what’s best for the community seems to totally contradict their mission.
I first heard about the issue of Network Neutrality from my friends. But I learned more about it during the Obama campaign. I watched Obama on YouTube expressing his support for Network Neutrality . He was concerned with the goal of corporate gatekeepers to charge people more to make sure their sites are accessed by the public at faster speeds.
The idea that civil rights groups oppose the Obama administration’s promise to protect a basic internet freedom is troubling and needs to be challenged. Thank you for doing that and for shining a light on this issue.
The position that you champion is in lock-step with Google, which might I add has a larger market share than any American Internet providers combined. Google controls 72% of the search engine traffic and has the capability to filter content at the drop of a dime (remember that CNBC special a few weeks back –Inside the Mind of Google) and they have created their entire business model on that very practice. Contrary to what you may represent, your view is one that supports the largest monopoly interest involved in this whole net neutrality debate.
Alton Drew
The Alton Drew Group
www.altondrew.com
I'll assume you're not Glenn Beck's lapdog, if you accept that not everyone who supports net neutrality is a Google automaton (or who believes NN is a panacea).
http://gawker.com/5387076/glenn-beck-net-neutrality-is-marxist-plot
I can understand why the same groups who have been the oppressors want to strike out net neutrality....
Thanks to internet wide access, voices are being heard who have been ignored before (for instance, Hispanic groups pressured CNN to get rid of Lou Dobbs).
Thanks to all who are working for net neutrality and may the force be with you!
The arguments against Net Neutrality (it's a government takeover of the internet!!) seem suspiciously like the health industry's disinformation campaing about healthcare reform.