Civil Rights Groups, CBC Are Right To Question FCC About Net Neutrality:An Open Letter to James Rucker

Hey James - let me start by saying I am a true fan of Color of Change and have much respect for everything you've done for the movement. But right now your arguments don't make a lot of sense, and you need to check your facts.

First off, all of the civil rights groups and the CBC have been big supporters of ensuring that companies cannot control the content and applications that people can access online. In fact, the civil rights groups fought hard to make sure the FCC developed the principles of net neutrality--this is nothing new, we've been living with net neutrality since 2004. Those principles made it possible for you to create Color of Change and for Senator Barack Obama to become President Obama. You should thank the people that helped make it all happen. Instead you question their sincerity.

We all know the fight today is between Google and the ISPs. And just because the arguments you make sound just like those made by Google and Public Knowledge, it doesn't make you a bad guy. What I don't understand though is why you are criticizing people who are looking for answers. You seem surprised that the CBC and civil right leaders are concerned that when the big companies fight each other the under served may lose?

Don't you think the FCC should answer the questions raised by the civil rights leaders and CBC? Why is it wrong to ask the FCC to make sure the rules they are proposing will not widen the digital divide? Why is it wrong to ask the FCC to make sure the rules they develop will not lead to regressive pricing which would shackle poor people? Why is it wrong to ask that the costs be borne by the people that cause them and not by the underserved? Why are you so afraid of the answers to these questions?

Maybe you don't quite grasp why minority leadership is vexed. Perhaps you're too young to understand why many of our elders, who've given their lives and wear the scars of the struggle, feel the need to seek the truth. You might not understand why they don't trust the FCC to get it right. Understandable mistakes if this is your first foray into media and communications issues...but there is a long history behind their deep skepticism and it makes sense that they would question the FCC on its intended course of action.

With all due respect to Commissioner Clyburn since this isn't her fault--have you checked out the FCC's record on minorities and women - on EEO enforcement (none lately), on saving Black radio (won't even hold a damn hearing), even on multilingual emergency broadcasting (no movement since Katrina)? Please take a look - the FCC has failed miserably. Yet you are willing to put our fate in their hands without question?

Instead of playing this game of whose side is better and which argument is right, why don't we join forces and seek the truth together? If our fears are not justified then we all win. If our fears are justified, then they must be addressed. We have too much at stake to not to get this right.

 

Follow Navarrow Wright on Twitter: www.twitter.com/navarrowwright

Comments

[IGSpeaks]

12:03 PM on 02/11/2010

I won’t presume to know all the ins and outs of the net neutrality debate, but I think Navarrow raises a good and valid point—what’s wrong with civil rights groups asking questions that they think will ultimately benefit the interests of the people they represent? According to @RobertPWilson there are 2 million people on the side of net neutrality clamoring for their voices to be heard. But if 22 million African Americans and 28 million Hispanics aren’t even online (much less aware of the net neutrality debate) I think they are just as entitled as anyone, if not more so, to have their interests represented by the leaders who have been fighting for their communities for decades.

[DJEDDC]

09:08 PM on 01/31/2010

Alright, this is an interesting topic but I do not think that writer gave enough information to the reader to understand the importance of side of the argument. I feel like that it is the government job monitor and set up the proper policies and procedures to handle this type of situation.

[BlackLavender1]

12:37 AM on 01/31/2010

How ironic is it that the very net neutrality advocates who are so afraid of having their speech silenced are the same people trying to cut down @Navarrow for exercising his first amendment rights? The points he makes are true. The FCC has done a horrible job in the past of protecting minority interests. How many Black, Hispanic, Asian American or Native American owned and operated radio and television stations have you seen lately? Exactly. There is lots of merit to @Navarrow’s post, and the bottom line is simple: if you think net neutrality really is the best thing for all people, then stop being afraid to actually answer the questions posed by the civil rights groups. The worst that could happen is that we come up with an even better series of solutions to protect the underserved and unrepresented voices in this whole debate.

[RobertPWilson]

09:28 AM on 01/30/2010

Navarrow. Your condescending tone would be only mildly annoying if you were actually right. But your reckless article is riddled with errors and innuendo.
You ask James to check his facts. But have you? Your writing on this contains mistakes (Google gets a “free ride” on the networks? Untrue) and feeble assumptions (Net Neutrality thwarts investment in network buildout? Show me your data).
Now you claim that civil rights groups are “big supporters” of Net Neutrality -- instrumental in establishing Net Neutrality rules in 2004. If that’s true, then why are they now opposing FCC efforts to make these rules enforceable?
This report has already answered this question for you:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/the-anti-net-neutrality-movement-is-it-just-about-att-money.ars
This fight isn’t between Google and ISPs. Nearly 2 million people have urged Washington to protect free speech and economic opportunity on the Internet by limiting the power of gatekeepers. This Net Neutrality community includes every major consumer advocacy group, as well as many social justice fighters whose main concern is for those on the wrong side of the digital divide. This is more than a clash of corporate Titans. It's a debate over the future of the Internet with one side (ISPs and, apparently, you) advocating for a closed model.
The next time you decide to give ColorofChange a civil rights history lesson , I’d suggest you compare your record to theirs and rethink who should be teaching whom.

[PMat]

10:39 AM on 01/30/2010

First, you are using supporting evidence that comes straight from the mouths of groups that have been battling in support of Net Neutrality regulations for years...the extremist groups like Free Press (hence your 2 million figure) and Public Knowledge, both groups that have an end game of strong government regulation over the current open and free Internet. Also, Ars Technica is a news outlet that has time and time again come out on the side of these groups.

When you use supporting evidence from the fringe groups, you only take away from your stance as an independent thinker- unless of course you were motivated to write your comment based on your relationship with these groups.

Also, can I ask you and your "friends" a question? Can you please prove to me that net neutrality will not in any way harm minority communities. There are many people who cannot yet afford broadband access, so are you 100% sure that those people will be able to access and afford high-speed internet after these rules are in place?

And PLEASE stop misleading people with the free speech argument. When has free speech in the history of the Internet been kept at bay? The existing FCC principles that are in place ALREADY create an open Internet. As I meander through the many facets of the Internet today, I certainly don't see any voices being hushed.

[RobertPWilson]

12:59 PM on 01/30/2010

Net Neutrality protections have been called for by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Republican and Democratic members of Congress, consumer advocates, social justice groups, libertarians and librarians, punk rockers, hip hop coalitions, college football fan clubs, writers and classical musicians, social media innovators like the founders of Facebook and Twitter, a majority of commissioners at the FCC, etc. etc.

Members of Congress report receiving millions of letter in support of Net Neutrality rules. (check the record yourself) If those of us who support Net Neutrality are members of "the fringe," then I wonder who's left in the mainstream.

One of the most glaring examples of Net Neutrality violations - when one of Canada's largest phone companies blocked access to a union Web site representing communications workers in a labor dispute -- was a bumbling effort to stifle free speech. Phone and cable companies have long sought to gain control over the content that flows across the Web without consumer safeguards. I can quote the many comments made by their execs if you like.

Net Neutrality is the rule that keeps the Internet open to all comers and new ideas. No one has presented a shred of evidence that protecting the Internet's openness harms minority communities or any other. Yes, we need to make connecting more people to the Internet a national priority. But it's ludicrous to suggest that phone and cable companies need to block, filter and discriminate against content before they can wire underserved communities.

[higherstrategy]

08:09 PM on 01/29/2010

a lot of talk without actually saying who has what opinion, what they stand for, what they want, what position they stand on Net Neutrality

and you saying this is about Google versus ISP's shows you don't know too much about Net Neutrality.

this is about the Cable companies and those with the 'lines' and their want to control all information on the net.

Cable wants to charge more for the 'blogs' and smaller independent sites, so it can FORCE people to give their portals more traffic while stifling the FREE FLOW of information and controlling/eliminating small business startups online.