In every competition, there's a winner and a loser.
The open Internet protections being debated by the Federal Communications Commission right now will determine who wins and who loses in the fight over whether big companies or regular people will control the Internet. I want everyday people to win.
In the fight over who will control the Internet, big companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast are hoping they will win a pass on FCC oversight and public interest protection leaving them free to make as much profit as they can even if the service they provide is gated and discriminatory. Some civil rights groups are legitimately concerned that protecting the public from discrimination online -especially the poor and people of color- from the proven abuses of Big Media companies will result in those companies refusing to build out high speed broadband to rural communities and poor urban communities. Media companies have said as much, claiming that public interest and consumer protections that ensure that the Internet remains an open and true source of innovation, otherwise known as "net neutrality", will cost too much and deprive them of revenue for deployment of broadband to the communities that need it most. Threatening to withhold buildout of this critical national utility in poor communities if there are consumer protections attached is called digital redlining, and it's wrong.
It makes sense that the threat of digital redlining has some civil rights groups in the DC beltway concerned. This concern has resulted in some groups like the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC), run by David Honig, taking a position against the open Internet protections that would ensure that the Internet remains an un-gated platform for self-representation, innovation, and opportunity.
What doesn't make sense is that groups like MMTC would deny that the financial relationship between them and the same media companies that are blackmailing the communities MMTC claims to represent, has an impact on their position on open Internet protections. I agree with Garlin Gilchrist II of the Center for Community Change that the undue pressure of big media on some civil rights groups like MMTC to advocate against strong open Internet protections has pushed those organizations dangerously close to unwittingly and unwillingly becoming astroturf groups.
Wikkipedia defines astro-turf as "an English-language term referring to political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but designed to mask its origins to create the impression of being spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior. The term refers to AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass. The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity--a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach", "awareness", etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual pushing a personal agenda or highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations..."
The Internet is the most creative and expansive communications infrastructure of our time. When Joe Torres, my friend and colleague at Free Press, hesitated to call MMTC an Astroturf organization, he was right. But MMTC's support for a corporate line around open Internet protections comes dangerously close to astroturfing. While many legacy civil rights groups have clarified that they are not opposed to net neutrality, MMTC continues to take a position against keeping the Internet open. Since there is no evidence that these rules will do anything but protect communities of color and the poor- I don't understand why a group claiming to represent the interests of people of color like me would focus on us only as consumers of a commercial broadband and not as communities who deserve all the richness an open Internet has to offer.
Openness protections are the Internet's bill of rights. There are no such protections for broadcast or cable and these mediums have become a gated community full of devastating misrepresentation. Openness protections level the playing field on the Internet and ensure that those communities who create and rely on small businesses can use the Internet as a platform for economic mobility and real opportunity. Outside of DC, the civil rights community understands this. The organizations of the Media Action Grassroots Network have met repeatedly with the Federal Communications Commission to share stories from our communities about why a non-discriminatory Internet is a civil right in need of protection. We told Commissioner Mignon Clyburn about the millions of migrant families who use free sites like Skype -which are threatened by removing open Internet protections- to remain connected with their families abroad. We talked with Commissioner Clyburn and our congressional representatives about how the openness we enjoy now on the Internet enables the constituencies we represent to reach a larger audience. This ability to speak in our own voices and control our user experience on the Internet is as important to communities of color and the poor as broadband deployment and adoption, and is one of the most important communications fights of our lifetime.
Commissioner Clyburn has become a champion of Internet openness and has called upon the DC civil rights community to do the same, and some legacy civil rights groups have done so. Unfortunately, MMTC keeps ringing the false alarm that these openness protections will harm our communities. Honig claims to represent the interests of communities of color, and has taken a strong and positive stance on broadband deployment- but in the case of protecting the interests of communities of color online- its time for MMTC to stand with communities of color and the poor, and not with big media.
Over 300 groups outside of the DC beltway support the strongest open Internet protections possible, and have signed a pledge to that effect. These out-of-the beltway civil rights groups have no financial relationship with media companies, and nothing to gain by the position they've taken. Yet the trade newspapers and mainstream media continue to turn to the beltway for the "civil rights perspective" on the Internet. It's time for the official story on the open Internet and civil rights to come from the mouths of those most impacted by it.
As a national civil rights community, we know the FCC must fulfill its mandate to represent the interests of people of color and the poor online. We know that broadband adoption is only act one in the story about Internet access. Act two demands 21st Century democracy- and in this information age that democracy will be navigated online. The un-gated access to education, health care, jobs, and democratic engagement that net neutrality rules provide must be defended, and the civil rights of the poor, migrant communities, and communities of color must be protected online. If MMTC won't stand for the millions of people of color and poor people outside of the DC beltway, who will? Perhaps its simply time for us to speak for ourselves, and demand the strongest open Internet protections possible.
Who speaks for communities of color and the poor about open Internet protections? We speak for ourselves.
Follow Malkia A. Cyril on Twitter: www.twitter.com/movementrising
Only the uninformed could call MMTC an “AstroTurf” group. Her lack of knowledge about all of the deeds MMTC has accomplished to ensure that voices of minorities and women are heard and addressed at the FCC on proceedings dating back to the mid-1980s indicates why she seems more concerned about finger pointing than problem solving.
With all MMTC has done to advance the rights of the public interest, consumers, minorities and women, it seems Ms. Cyril should have done her homework before deciding to malign this organization at a time when there are real issues to be discussed. I have been involved in policy debates for close to 15 years, so let me give you a tip. If you truly want to represent “your” community and the new generation, learn that in a POLICY debate, reasonable people can and do disagree, what they don’t do is resort to frivolous name calling.
I admire passionate advocacy, but empty rhetoric is not advocacy. Ms. Cyril should know that facts drive policy and she needs to do more than spout anecdotal “would bes” and “could bes” to get the government to move in her direction.
To be honest, much of the open internet debate is based on hypotheticals. If she is not certain how the rules can affect minorities and the poor, how can she really, in all honesty, reprimand another group for wanting the government to look at the facts and take a “first do no harm” approach? I don't know about Ms. Cyril, but I like my government regulators to thoroughly examine the outcome of potential regulation and not just blindly adopt them. I'm with MMTC on this issue. Investigate this all thoroughly first to make sure our communities aren't left out once again.
What is Malkia really hoping to accomplish with this mudslinging? Everyone knows how minorities lag in adoption, access and use of the Internet. So how can she say MMTC is out of line for focusing on that issue? While she is promoting the interests of those looking for new internet regulation so they can have unfettered access to private networks, shouldn’t she be concerned about her neighbors who don’t have access?
I also can't get over the fact that she thinks that because MMTC asked the FCC to think carefully about imposing new internet regulations it is only treating people of color as consumers by doing this? On the contrary, I would think that MMTC’s three decades of advocacy for increased access, adoption and use of broadband on behalf of communities of color is in fact treating those communities as they deserve, seeking “the richness of the open internet” for them.
There's value in a diverse spectrum of opinions and thus it only seems natural that organizations will not always align themselves on the same side of any given issue all the time. What is supposed to happen when difference in opinion occurs is each side does its best to advocate its position & hope others agree. You don't bully the other groups by levying unfounded attacks on them until they succumb to your side. Tha'is how I describe the recent veracity, intensity and now frequency of attacks coming from the side advocating for net neutrality on MMTC.
I ask that we all take a step back and reevaluate how and to what extent we engage those whose opinions differ from ours? Posts like this certainly is not the way to do it.
This MMTC organization is not speaking for anyone other than large corporations. Let's hope members don't find out their leaders have been cooking the books to hide payoffs from large corporations to misrepresent members' views.
The real truth is that "network neutrality" regulations would harm people of color and all those who are poor and disadvantaged by increasing the cost of Internet access, reducing quality of service, and discouraging employment. They would do this by enacting needless requirements that would make the service cost more to provide. These requirement would have nothing to do with free speech whatsoever (no ISP censors content now, nor would any do so). Rather, they're designed to help large corporations such as Google, which is providing the lobbying money to back the astroturf groups which are lobbying for the regulations.
For more on this topic, see my speech to the FCC at http://www.brettglass.com/FCC/remarks.html and my filing at http://www.brettglass.com/nprmcomment/pdf.
Bottom line sister, NN doesn't have to do anything with minority communities.
I'm not sure who you think you are fooling with this stuff because it just seems empty to me. No one in my neighborhood knows anything about Net Neutrality. When I ask them about what the government can do to help them with broadband. They would like to know if there are coupons to help them afford it. They're not tripping on Net Neutrality.
Come on now. If MMTC doesn't agree with you. Move on!
What is it with you calling MMTC out like that, anyway? Unless you think your position isn't strong enough to stand on its own and you are hoping calling out this group would make your side look better.
Well, to be honest. It doesn't. Just looks like in-fighting to me. I think you need to stick to drumming up some more support for your side there, friend, rather than cutting down another group that I know has done a lot to help out minorities on REAL issues of their concern that have had REAL results for them and not just for big rich corporations which will be the REAL winners if NN passes.
As it relates to your astroturf definition, who's bucket of water are you carrying. Wait, hold on, let me "GOOGLE" you! "YAHOO" I found it. You are just "AMAZON".... oh, I'm sorry.... I meant to say amazing!
Anyway, I loved your piece. You are a great writer....But.... we don't need your representation either Brother Cyril. What you need you to do is dig a little deeper....You can start by going back to Commissioner Clyburn and asking her about the civil rights groups, minority organizations, minority leaders on the local, state and federal level that represent so many millions of people OUTSIDE OF THE BELTWAY that have submitted opinions opposite of yours.
Keep doing your thing! FIght the Power NOT the people.
With all the best!
One Love