Who is killing "net neutrality"?

Man this "net neutrality" debate is really on my radar of late.






It all started with what I thought were (and still do) unfair attacks on David Honig and the folks who run MMTC. And so, with his permission, I posted excerpts of our e-mail exchange regarding the push back that he and other organizations were getting from "digital activists" regarding this issue.






The author of the original piece which attacked the establishment civil rights groups and how they are approaching the "net neutrality" debate, reached out to me and subsequently published a response to David Honig's statement for some online news outlets. He claims that Comcast had his article for NewsOne censored after Honig and others protested (a charge which David Honig and MMTC denies) and that this was just another example of the big telecom companies bullying anyone who dares to shine a light to their tactics.






Anyway, in an effort to be totally transparent and fair in this debate, I promised James Rucker, co-founder of the well respected online grass roots group, Color of Change, an opportunity to respond to David Honig as well.






Here goes:






"Hello Field,

Thank you for allowing me to respond to a statement made by David Honig of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council that you published last week.

In David's statement, he attacked anyone who questioned the influence telecom money has had on the position his organization and other civil rights groups have taken against Net Neutrality, a position that aligns these groups with efforts by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T to undermine an open Internet. But he goes further than that. He says it's insulting — even racist — to ask the questions being posed.

In reality, and David knows this, the circuit of which he is a part is awash in telecom and cable industry money, and all too often the voices of organizations that take industry money end up being aligned with policy positions that benefit the companies providing the money.  

If David acknowledged that this dynamic exists, but disclosed who his backers are in a forthright manner and argued that he himself, his organization, and the civil rights organizations he's organized were an exception to the dynamic, he might have some credibility. Instead, he pretends like this dynamic doesn't exist; according to the Center for Public Integrity, he's been elusive about the millions he's taken from lobbyists, lawyers, and companies with business interests before the FCC; and instead of leading with an argument about how he's right, he (a white guy) accuses those shining a light on these issues of being racist.

Background

First, I want to acknowledge that I know David. Four years ago when I was the executive director of ColorOfChange, I researched the current state of the issue of Net Neutrality in depth (I understood it in the past, given my background as a software developer and architect, and from advocacy work I'd done on the issue in 2006), and ultimately ran a campaign that sought to expose the dynamics coming under scrutiny: civil rights groups (knowingly or not knowingly) taking policy positions that benefit their corporate backers, instead of the communities they represent. As part of the process, I met with David and also talked with the leadership of NAACP, LULAC, NCBCP and other organizations — the context was the previous Net Neutrality proceeding before the FCC at the time. 


 This current debate is an escalation of that previous debate. Back then David organized several civil rights groups to sign onto comments that opposed Net Neutrality, including many of the core organizations currently opposing open Internet protections this time around.  At the time, Honig and other civil rights groups argued they support most open Internet protections but opposed efforts that would ban ISPs from discriminating online (see p.15 of their filing) — i.e. allowing pay-for play fast lanes vs. slow lanes, the prevention of which is a central element of Net Neutrality — because they claim it would hurt low income households. It could have the unintended consequences, they argued, of preventing ISPs from investing in broadband in poor communities. In other words, ISPs would invest in Black communities if they could make more money by discriminating online. It's a theory of trickle-down economics that has been debunked repeatedly. The position MMTC and other civil rights groups staked out at the time perfectly matched the rhetoric and goals of the major ISPs who have backed them. And despite asking, I never heard David, the civil rights groups, or any of the front groups who've pushed these messages, succeed in making a cogent argument to back up their conclusions about how eliminating Net Neutrality would actually result in investment in the communities about which they purportedly care. Four years later, the groups are again making the same arguments, again right in line with the messaging and goals of AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.


Talking with the FCC and Hill staff

Over they years, I've talked with commissioners from the FCC, members of Congress, and their respective staff. There was a time when I thought it was important to explain how the arguments being peddled by groups like MMTC and the major civil rights groups didn't hold water — that they were essentially vacuous arguments that happened to be in service of the interests of the ISPs. I quickly learned that those on the inside — whether on Capitol Hill, at the FCC, or on K Street — knew this. I was told that it wasn't about substance of the arguments; it was about the messenger. Groups like the NAACP, National Urban League, LULAC and others, placed enormous political pressure on the FCC by aligning themselves with the telecom companies. 


 The FCC — especially under Democratic control — doesn't want to be seen as going against the wishes of minority groups. And this is why the approach the telecom industry uses is so effective.  A few weeks ago, I sat down with Tom Wheeler, the current FCC chair, when he visited the Bay Area. When I brought up the dynamic described above — with civil rights groups carrying the trickle-down economics argument of the ISPs — he acknowledged it to be a time-tested tactic, even cracking a joke about the sleight of hand being used by the ISPs to have others carry their water.

The greater dynamic in play
David and MMTC are not alone — they are a part of much larger ecosystem. Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP) has organized civil rights groups in the same manner, but with an emphasis on the Latino community. There are telecom industry consultants and lobbyists who serve on the boards of civil rights organizations and have been shown to use their position to influence. There are media figures that are actually paid by the corporations whose messages they repeat, while not disclosing their connection — just this week, Kristal High, the founder and editor in chief of Politics365, a major MMTC apologist who has trolled the comments section of articles supporting the preservation of Net Neutrality, was exposed for being paid by the ISPs, without disclosing this fact. There are industry front groups (often called astro-turf groups) like Broadband for America — claiming to be community-based and committed to achieving broadband access for communities of color, but in reality they are funded by telecom industry giants and are used to build grassroots support for policies friendly to them.  And, finally, there are paid lobbying firms that are used to go deep into our communities to gin up support for the position of the large telecom players, using the voice of local and state civil rights leaders (this I know because I was approached by a member of a DC lobbying firm that was paid to do this and personally carried out the work). Just search the FCC docket from four years ago for comments filed by MMTC, HTTP, and the organizations they represent, and you'll see the same message being repeated. You'll also see state and local NAACP and Urban League chapters repeating the same industry talking points, deployed by and fed language by DC advocacy firms that specialize in the quid pro quo exchange of money for policy support. So much for free-thinking and independent groups, as David likes to claim.

While this dynamic is understood by those working in the beltway, people outside of Washington remain largely unaware of the relationship between civil rights organizations and the interests of telecom industry players. That began to change in 2011 when Jarrett Barrios, the head of GLAAD, was forced to step down after the LGBT media exposed that the organization was influenced by an AT&T board member to support the AT&T-T-Mobile merger. It was also revealed that the AT&T board member got GLAAD to send a letter opposing Net Neutrality the previous year.

This scandal, for a moment, helped push the conversation about civil rights organizations and telecom companies outside the beltway, with the New York Times editorial page talking about GLAAD, the NAACP, and other civil rights organizations defending policy positions with weak arguments, while receiving big dollars from the companies that stand to benefit.
 
Why this matters

Before finishing, I wanted to say a bit about why Net Neutrality is important to low-income communities, and in particular communities of color. Over the course of history, each new medium to arrive has had the potential to enable everyday people to push back on power, to produce and distribute authentic messages coming from our communities, undisturbed by a corporate filter. And each has repeatedly been killed. For each medium — radio, television, and print — there was the promise of people-controlled media. Yet through media consolidation and barriers-to-entry created by larger corporations to prevent new players from entering, the promise was undone.

The Internet, thus far, has escaped the fate of these other media, largely because of Net Neutrality, which has governed the way content on the Internet is managed. Changing this is in the financial interest of the biggest ISPs (like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon), but it offers no benefit to consumers. In the current Internet, Field Negro can say what he wants, ColorOfChange can knock media figures like Glenn Beck off a major network, and upstart news organizations can come in and challenge major incumbents — because corporate filters and roadblocks haven't been a part of the landscape when it comes to the core design of the Internet. Similarly, all traffic is prioritized equally — there are no slow lanes for content and application providers without a lot of money, and fast lanes for those with deep pockets who can afford to pay.

The courts have made clear that reclassifying broadband under Title II of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is the only way in the current regulatory landscape for the FCC to be on solid ground in attempting to exercise its authority to protect Net Neutrality rules.   Unlike four years ago, the major ISPs, as well as those repeating their arguments like MMTC, have moved away from straight-up opposing Net Neutrality. Now they say they're for it, but that Section 706 of the Act should be used instead of reclassification under Title II. The problem is that the courts have twice struck down the ability of the FCC to use that path for protecting the Internet, preventing fast lanes for those that can pay and slow lanes for those that can't. And that's the problem with the position of MMTC and the major civil rights groups. They now claim that they support Net Neutrality, but history shows it's likely to be meaningless without reclassification, and that relying on Section 706 cannot stop pay for play.


Anyone who has studied the issue, presumably including David Honig, MMTC, and the civil rights organizations he's organized, understands that.
I think it's fine for corporations to advocate for policies that benefit them — it's their job. However, it's the job of organizations that represent our communities to do just that — represent our communities, not the interests of corporations with which they're financially aligned. These organizations, and the moral authority they claim to have (and should have) cannot be for sale.


The recent rash of articles to which Honig objects serve to strengthen our institutions by ensuring they're accountable. Shedding light on the dynamics in play — dynamics that have the ability to undermine the integrity of our institutions, leaders, and messengers — is critical, because in the end it is our community that is harmed by a lack of accountable leadership. It's why the presence of these articles is a great thing. And that's why David's response to the criticism he has received — that it's insulting, even racist for anyone to raise questions about MMTC's or other civil rights organizations' behavior as described above — lacks credibilty and falls flat. 

James"   ~James Rucker is co-founder and former executive director of ColorOfChange.org, and a former campaign director at MoveOn.org.~






I can't stress enough how important it is that we continue to have this debate.


All of you reading this post will be affected by what ultimately happens with "net neutrality" in one way or another. And it is time that you started paying attention to what is happening in Washington and corporate boardrooms in places like Philadelphia----where Comcast happens to call home.






Get engaged, don't allow just a few people to decide the future of the Internet and how we navigate the information superhighway and close the "digital divide". The older civil rights groups and their leaders like the Rev. Jesse Jackson are speaking out, and as you can tell from the post above, the newer activists are as well.






Learn the issues and decide. That's what I am trying to do, and I feel like I am just scratching the surface.

“One of the issues around net neutrality is whether you are creating different rates or charges for different content providers,” Obama said at a business forum with African leaders.

 

“That’s the big controversy here. You have big, wealthy media companies who might be willing to pay more but then also charge more for more spectrum, more bandwidth on the Internet, so they can stream movies faster or what have you,” he said.

 

“The position of my administration, as well as, I think, a lot of companies here is, you don’t want to start getting a differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to various user,” Obama added. “You want to leave it open so that the next Google or the next Facebook can succeed.”

Ok, so at least I know where the President stands....I think.

*Pics from ColorofChange.org & SFgate.com

 










 

Joe's "Black Card", and Verizon gets ready for a stickup.

Oh lawd, Uncle Joe is at it again. My man made another rather colorful remark (pun intended) while talking to former NBA baller turned mayor, Kevin Johnson, at a Black History Month event.  


Uncle Joe spoke about an old stereotype (not true, Google Chris Andersen or Bobby Sura when you get a chance) and a line from a famous movie, and conservatives are playing political gotcha and wondering why we (see black folks) aren't calling him a racist.


Well, here is why: Joe Biden has a "black card." Hey, don't blame me, that's just the way it is. Black folks have a racism meter, and certain folks set it off and certain folks do not. People like Joe Biden can get away with saying ignorant and uncomfortable s**t  about blacks folks because our gut doesn't tell us that he is a racist.


Black folks see a guy who is comfortable --and feels right at home-- in a church full of black folks on a Sunday morning. For the opposite effect see Bill O'Reilly at Sylvia's Restaurant. Total discomfort, and it shows. Our gut tells us that Billo is not comfortable around black folks, and our gut, nine times out of ten, is right about such things.


But I have a surprise for you Negroes, George Bush never set off my racism meter. I had a whole lot of issues with him as president, but him being a racist wasn't one of them. I feel that way about other republicans as well; the now deceased Jack Kemp and the very much alive Jon Huntsman comes to mind.
But they are in the minority on the right. The folks on the right, as most black folks will tell you, make our racism meter go crazy.


Finally, we all saw this coming; we just didn't know it would come this soon.


The CEO of Verizon is setting us up for the corporate stickup that is sure to follow.


He wants heavier broadband users to pay more for the service. Because, according to him, it is not fair for the poor folks who hardly use it to be paying the same as heavy users.


Well here is a thought Mr. CEO Man: Why don't you charge those "poor people" less money and leave the folks who you are already gouging the f**k alone?


We already pay a higher price for our ISP streaming services and faster Internet service, so why are you trying to rip us off even more?


But I blame the FCC and a clueless Supreme Court for all of this. And sadly, I fear it will get worse before it gets better.


Still, judging from the comments after one Yahoo article, I think that folks are starting to wake up.


"Simpl----               

 

                    

What good is the FCC if this is allowed to happen? They're going to charge the providers of streaming, like Netflix, to carry their stuff, and then they're going to charge the end users more to get it? Talk about double dipping. I guess now that they've offshored everything that can be offshored, they're running out of ways to keep bringing in big profits, so now corporations are going to start feeding off each other, while, of course, they continue to dangle the consumer upside down to shake every dime out of our pocket. "

John---

                    

This is absolutely INSANE and another milestone in how despicable and disgusting corporate greed is and how much it is getting out of control. Burden the cost? Um, I already have to pay for the speed that my connection gets, now you want me to pay more to use it? I don't always have control over the garbage that comes down the pipe such as video advertisements and other nonsense. The content provider is already paying for their connection too, so your goal here is to have us pay to connect, pay more for our speed and

Phillips- ---

                    

The core of this problem is the fact that the FCC has no legal right to regulate Cable, Fiber, or internet services. They can only regulate the copper phone lines for phone service. As most folk now know, the future is high speed data. Not the phone. If the FCC is not given the power to regulate these other providers, then they will have free reign to pretty much charge what they want, when they want, and limit who can see what. Comcast already set an agreement to charge Netflix to use their service"

Mr. McAdam should have worn a mask in that picture.

   

















   


  

No more "net neutrality". Another victory for the big guys.

Over the past few years I have been fortunate enough to establish a relationship with some smart people who taught me a lot about the importance of sufficient broadband bandwidth and Internet access to underserved communities and the public at large.






Broadband is of course how major telephone and cable companies sell their "high data rate products" for Internet access to the public at large. If you live in a major urban area like I do, you pretty much understand that there is a monopoly on this type of service. In my case it's Comcast. But the same can be said for COX, Verizon and other behemoths in the communications industry.


Most of you reading this are probably not aware that a U.S. Appeals Court struck down FCC rules that apply to net neutrality on Tuesday.






This, my friends, is some truly messed up stuff. A bunch of clueless guys in robes --who probably only use the Internet when they play with their grandchildren-- telling us that we can't have equal access to lawful content on the web "without restrictions or tiered charges." They claim that this will give us more choices. More proof that they do not reside on the same planet with the rest of us.






All you need to know is that Verizon challenged the FCC rules because they claim that it was a case of government overreaching. And of course now that corporations are people they also claim that it (net neutrality) violated their free speech. They won. Those of us who understand that money talks and all else walks in America are not surprised. The little guys never had a chance.




"The ruling is a victory for Verizon and other broadband providers, who saw the FCC rules as government overreach into how they operate their networks.


The largest providers on Tuesday pledged that they would not restrict customers on the web, but consumer advocacy groups worry that Internet network owners may begin charging content providers such as Netflix Inc, Facebook Inc or sports broadcaster ESPN for faster Internet speeds."






The battle might not yet be over. The FCC needs to reclassify some of these broadband providers to get authority over them. (They are not "information service providers"; they are "telecommunication providers".) And there is always the supremes.






Sadly, as is to be expected, the republicans and their friends on the right chose to side with big business over John Q. Public, who just wants to have fast and free Internet access.






"Unless Congress acts, we should stay our hand and refrain from any further attempt to micromanage how broadband providers run their networks," Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai said.




Folks, this is just the beginning. If you think that you are paying a high price for Internet and cable access now, just wait and see. You will soon look back on this as the good old days.






Now for some words from "ralph mouth" commenting on Yahoo:




"So another clear sign that the U.S. is being pushed by the 1% away from democratic principles, toward a Corporatocracy where your life will be controlled by a few rich and powerful who use their corporate coffers to buy undo influence in the rules of government to increase their own profits. Thanks to the "Citizens United" S.Court. ruling (by GOP appointed judges) allowing unlimited Corporate election funding on the grounds that Corporations (legal entities) have the same rights as individual citizens, which reversed sixty years of case law regarding corporate influence in the electoral process. Check back in ten years, if voters do nothing, it's only going to get worse. "




Pass me a pitchfork.

A couple of days in D.C.

So anyway, I am here in D.C. for this broadband conference and I am surrounded by all these powerful and influential people. The conference organizer is a very smart and hard working guy named Dvid Honig (Georgetown Law the whole nine), and he has done a wonderful job of bringing together everyone with power, money, and influence in the Internet and telecom industry. David is very committed to making sure that poor people and people of color have high speed Internet and broadband access. Right now I am listening to some dude named Aneesh Chopra who is O's director of technology in his Office of Science & Technology Policy....or some such thing.

Anywhoo, now I know why O fails to connect with us folks out here in the real world on so many levels. He has all these smart people around him with all these really great ideas, but they don't really know how to put the nuts and bolts together. They seem to lack street awareness and know how. Just my two cents.

I sat next to Marc Morial at lunch. He seems like cool people, and he gave a really nice speech. Just to make conversation I told him that I would like to interview him for the blog sometime, and he said cool. I felt bad about lying to fam because I really don't interview people. But it's all good. He will forget about his promise by the end of the day. He has much more important things on his plate right about now. I wonder if either him or Ben Jealous will ask O why he is meeting with my brown brothers and sisters and not us black folks?(You Negroes can be so Jealous.-no pun intended-)

I am listening to some brother who sounds like the dude who told Axel Foley that he is not falling for the "banana in the tail pipe" trick in Beverly Hills Cop, and he is going on and on about opportunities for entrepreneurship and innovation in the broadband industry: Blah blah blah blah....I know that there is a point to all of this, but I just haven't figured it out yet. I mean unless your name is AT&T, Verizon or Comcast, I am not sure how you can really be a player here in Washington. Uncle Rupert sure figured it all out. But when you have loot like he does you can start on third base.

Still, it's nice to see that Honig is bringing in all the big boys to make them accountable. Not to mention the fact that he is keeping the spotlight on the FCC so that they don't renege on all the promises that they made to us about minority inclusion when it comes to media ownership.

Anyway, I want to own a radio station. The call letters would be WNOJIG. So let me look around while I am here; I just need some investors to get that bad boy off the ground. "Hello sir, I was noticing your name tag, The Field Negro. Hmmm very provocative. We might have talk about that."

OK, maybe I have to lose the name tag, first.      



               

Haley, Rogerio, and the FCC.

*
Who says Haley doesn't have Negro friends? There he is, right there, with a Negro.

Anyway, I am going to leave Haley alone tonight. He is what he is: a good ole boy from another time who happens to be still with us, and who holds a considerable amount of power and admiration from his fellow southern whites; members of his conservative gang; and certain black apologist here in A-merry-ca. Yes, he made a racial gaffe, but it was only a gaffe because he said it publicly. We all know that what he thinks he says privately, like so many folks in the majority population, (present company excluded of course) is much worse.

Folks in the National media are already writing off this latest little verbal faux pas and they are saying that it should not have any effect on his 2012 run. (I don't know who I want to come out of the republi-clown primary more; Haley or Sarah.) Good luck with your run Haley, you will be just fine.

Hold up, did I read the following headline correctly?:

"MAN KILLS BRIDE, BEST MAN, SELF AT WEDDING."

Yes, I think I did.

"RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- A bridegroom fatally shot his new wife, his best man and then himself after announcing to horrified guests that he had a "surprise" for them, authorities said Monday.

Witnesses reported that 29-year-old Rogerio Damascena, a sales manager in Camaragibe, outside the northeastern Brazilian city of Recife, did not give any previous indication that anything was wrong at his wedding reception, police investigator Joao Brito said.
Brito would not speculate on a possible motive, saying family members were in shock and he had not interviewed them yet.

Brito did say the killings are believed to be premeditated because of the groom's announcement and because he had hidden a gun in his father's pickup truck.

Twenty-five-year-old bride Renata Alexandre Costa Coelho and best man Marcelo Guimaraes were both killed in Saturday's murder-suicide. A brother of the bride was treated at a hospital and released.

The website Globo.com quoted a sister of the bride who left before the shootings as saying she didn't believe it was a crime of passion.

"My sister was a wonderful person who loved and wanted to be loved," Lucia Helena Coelho was quoted as saying.

"He was happy, she was happy, the party was beautiful. His family adored her and doesn't understand this," Coelho told Globo.com. "He revealed himself as a sociopath who fooled the entire family and killed his best friend, who was ... the best man."'

Maybe the poor guy was a New York Giants fan.

Finally, I see that the FCC passed some form of "net neutrality" rules today. I am still not sure how I feel about this latest move on the part of the feds. I know that wingnuts are against it so it can't be all bad, but then there are some folks I respect who are on opposite sides of this particular issue.

I should really care more and do a better job of educating myself about this subject because I stay on the Internet. I have been sitting on the sidelines and letting other folks fight this particular battle because, quite frankly, a lot of this stuff goes right over my head. But I am getting better thanks to some really smart folks on this subject who keep me in the know.

Still, It looks like his O-ness and his people had some kind of compromise (What else is new?) and decided on the something is better than nothing approach.

We will see.

Some Quick Thoughts.

Thanks to Rolling Stone Magazine I am thinking of some numbers:

260: The Amount of times the frat boy lied about Iraq in his pre-war statements.
$1.43 million: The amount the FCC is fining ABC for showing a woman's backside on NYPD Blue.
$75,000: The amount of profit Exxon Oil made per minute this past year.
$145 billion: The amount of money this Democratic congress spent on the war since 2006.
1,120: The amount of American soldiers who died in Iraq since the Democratic congress took over in 2006.
7,359: Soldiers wounded in Iraq since 2006.
3 of 18: The amount of political bench marks that have been met in Iraq after the surge.

And a quick trip to the men's room today had me thinking of some "man rules":

When taking a wiz in the urinal please keep your head forward. Do not look to your left or to your right, and definitely do not look down.

When entering the bathroom to relieve yourself, if there are other urinals available, do not go to the urinal right next to someone who is already utilizing the...ahem, facilities. This is not a good thing, as it could lead to a Larry Craig type misunderstanding.

And finally, what happens at the bachelor party stays at the bachelor party. No telling your wives, girlfriends, or significant others about the stripper that was all over the groom.

I thought about that because I have one of those coming up as well.

I'm out.