Minority and Civil Rights Groups Slam Net Neutrality
by Capitol ConfidentialIn a stunning new development that observers say could significantly impact the ongoing debate regarding net neutrality, Big Government has confirmed that sixteen minority and civil rights groups recently submitted a joint filing to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) raising red flags regarding the policy’s potential effects.
The filing, submitted on January 14, represents the collective views of the ASPIRA Association, the Black College Communications Association, the Hispanic Institute, the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the League of United Latin American Citizens, MANA, A National Latina Organization, the National Association of Black County Officials, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, the National Conference of Black Mayors, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation-Black Women’s Roundtable, the National Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women, the National Puerto Rican Coalition, and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
Telecommunications policy experts called the filing “historic,” in view of the sheer number of civil rights organizations participating, but also hard-hitting. The comments, written by David Honig of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, state that “[T]his proceeding implicates one of the most important civil rights issues of our time.”
The comments go on to note that broadband adoption among minorities remains sluggish and that as such, minorities stand to gain or lose a great deal depending on how events play out.
Net neutrality, the filing indicates, could be another example of a policy designed to be neutral, but which impacts those historically disadvantaged much more, and more adversely, than others within the population. Writes Honig, “…even apparently universal and neutral federal programs can widen existing disparities. As we now continue the transition into a digital age, the Commission should ensure that its efforts to promote a free and open Internet for all do not end up leaving minorities and other groups lacking equal access to broadband behind.”
Some minority groups participating in the filing had previously expressed concern about the likely impact of net neutrality on their constituencies, and proponents of net neutrality have sought to portray the development as nothing new.
However, observers say the fact that so many groups are setting off the same alarm bells—and that fact is being publicized— could bring real pressure to bear upon the FCC at a critical time.
The FCC is set to issue its National Broadband Plan next month.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
68 Comments
Would this be considered another hole in the dike? Better get some more bubble gum Prez!
In Sixteen Hundred and Forty-Eight
When England suffered the pains of state
The Roundheads lay siege to Colchester town
Where the king's men still fought for the crown
There One-Eyed Thompson stood on the wall
A gunner of deadliest aim of all
From St. Mary's Tower his cannon he fired
Humpty-Dumpty was its name
Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
If it's not broke, don't fix it.
What the hell is "Net Neutraility"?
It's good to see so many minority groups ready to leave the statist plantation and turn to the free market as the font of opportunity.
Or maybe my interpretation is overly optimistic, and these groups are jockeying for new laws or regulations (laws by bureaucratic fiat) that prescribe some sort of digital affirmative action. I hope this is not the case.
Either way, it's good news for digital liberty. What with so much of leftist politics in the US being identity politics, such a large coalition of minority groups saying no to federal regulation of anything must be a huge shock to the statists' systems. If the later scenario above holds, and their hoping to secure some sort of advantage through regulation, it perfectly illustrates why federal control is anti-freedom and anti-"neutrality."
You know, I hadn't thought of it before, but opposition to the misnamed agenda of "net neutrality" is a natural for minorities in the US. Minority populations are concentrated in urban areas, and these are the places where choices abound in the internet market.
"…proponents of net neutrality have sought to portray the development as nothing new."
It is humorous that the administration that promised the world amorphous hope and change had no freaking clue that they would have to sell their ideas and that each and every "change" would have to pass the scrutiny of many… Of course they've heard it before and there's probably a good reason, like "Johnny don't touch the hot stove, you little moron".
I really do wonder what planet they come from.
No suprise that "HOPE AND CHANGE" might not be what all these groups that got promised everything where expecting. Hope is good, change is hard! And in D.C. Hope is code for "Hope I don't get caught" or "Hope they don't notice" and change is what you get from your buddies to hide in your freezer.
Term limits, 2 and gone for every office form President to Dog catcher.
"JUST SAY NO TO CAREER POLITICIANS"
If you don't vote, don't bitch!
Um, is it just me, or are all the groups that filed suite racist just by simply existing? How up in arms would they be if a group called "The White Institute", or "The National Conference of White Mayors" came into being?
Sorry, but I don't trust these groups that only benifit from from playing to their status based only on the color of their skin. They must be looking for some kind of hand out.
EXCELLENT POST! RIGHT ON THE MARK!
How many times do I have to say this " leave the internet alone" Regulating the internet is a direct assault on personal freedoms of both the end users and also those who provide service. Any attempt to regulate content ( we all know this is where it will lead) is censorship and restriction of free speech. Look, If I want to open an ice cream store, what right does the govt have to tell me that if I sell chocolate that I will be required by law to also sell vanilla, or that if I open a store on first street , I must also open one on Bayshore blvd, or that if John buys a gallon, that I must insure that Jill also gets a gallon? It's ridiculous! There are far more serious issues that deserve the attention of our legislature. This is not one of them. The internet is a beacon of light in the free market system. It works. Unfortunately our govt now contains a radical socialist element that would like to see the free market dismantled, an KEEP THE INTERNET FREE
The FCC is looking for comments on how to make them more open…ect.
"Welcome to Reboot.FCC.gov, the Federal Communication Commission's website for discussion on how to transform the FCC into a model of excellence in government.
The FCC is beginning an overhaul of the way it interacts with citizens, including a complete and comprehensive redesign of FCC.gov and its online systems. The reform initiatives at the FCC expand well beyond the website redesign. The focused attention of these reform efforts will be citizen interaction and participation, usability, accessibility, and transparency across the agency."
http://reboot.fcc.gov/home
Check it out and leave your comments about Net Nutrality.
It's fascinating how the sudden reversal in political fortunes, of those groups who though they had a lock on media and government, are now rushing back to vocally protesting against threats to their constitutional freedoms.
Remember a few years ago when telephone companies began getting into the internet business? It was not to expand market share in the communications industry, it was to have the ability in the future to shut down competitors by controlling access to bandwidth. They could see the writing on the wall and found it easier to stifle competition than go head to head with them. Today we are seeing technology that threatens the huge profits that they have gotten used to, especially in overseas long distance which is still prohibitively expensive.
Net Neutrality ensures the status quo… that some providers will not be able to target content or applications and will be required to provide identical access to all. They will still be allowed to sell bandwidth like they do today, but they will not be allowed to use market position to limit competition.
I don't know who "Capitol Competition" is, but I see what they are trying to do with this article. They are using fake concern for the "underprivileged" to justify killing net neutrality. They have turned freedom on its ear by trying to convince people that preventing telecommunications companies from controlling content will somehow limit our freedom. We shouldn't buy into this weak argument. Follow the money and it will not lead to consumer protection… it will lead to the telecommunications industry pretending to be concerned for the rights of consumers.
I was leaning to supporting this until I saw this list. This can't be a good thing!!!
Strange bedfellows. It's times like these I have to re-evaluate my position.
Whoa, i'm blown away that these organizations are allowed to exist in these modern times. Why still encourage the seperation? Reminds me of the MSNBC Obama 2010 show yesterday, invoking race so often in the questions to the panel and audience, like they wanted to keep the separation and distinction of race/background alive. Strange goings on.
Back on subject, maybe these groups all see what we all see, this is just a way to harness and control freedom of speech, ultimately. Hmmm.
Thank you, thank you! Barrack Obama.
Your silly agenda has put back the red, white and blue back in all things American.
Thank GOD the left is starting to wake up. All I can remind them is that the Dems will eventually be voted out of office and the next George Bush will be left holding all the power Obama is currently grabbing for. If you dont like the thought of Dick Cheney controlling your internet experience then don't support this legislation. Fight IT!
Nice article. Only problem is that you never explained how net neutrality adversley affects minorities, and you didn't explain the gist of their lawsuit. Oh yeah, and you didn't ecplain what "ner neutrality" is all about. Other than that your article was real nice.
"historically disadvantaged"….that's a code phrase for perpetual victimology.
With all the groups listed just in this article, it gives me pause to wonder who is producing anything of value? It seems that the only possibility of any of the people 'employed' by these organizations to get any blisters on their hands would be from stirring up trouble.
We have lost our way.
I'm guessing that he assumes that most everyone here reading this would already know the scam that's called "Net Neutrality". We've been talking about this for well over a year since BoBo's pre-election dog and pony show brought it up.
This is the original understanding of what "Net Neutrality" meant.
It is from SaveTheInternet.com:
Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.
Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.
I'm against net neutrality but this articles says nothing. How is net neutrality going to impact "minorities" who don't even have the money to get he internet? Geez, lets get serious about this terrible idea of net neutrality through well researched ideas, not soundbites…
There's no reason to mess with anything on the net it's doing just fine. Those minority gropes that want to change things just need to grow a brain. Their to stupid to realize that the webb is nuetral. Anyone can use it and if they don't like what other people have to say they don't need to read it ,or view content . They have just as much opportunity to use the net as I do. Every library has access. That's where I go. Oh but wait mabey those groups of people don't know how to read. Well the library is a good place to start. I wish them luck in their efforts to learn how. I leared how in the first grade. It's too bad that their so stupid. I'm the new slave and a minority . Because I'm white, but I don't have the right to complain about anything that they offend me with. They just need to grow up and leave the status quo alone. All they do is screw with real slaves freedoms. They don't even help to make this a better country to live in. All they do is leach off of the real producers in society. A bunch of parasites is what they are.
Just keep the federal government as far away from the Internet as possible and things will be fine.
I dunno. Try searching for a subject, any, in three different seach engines: google, yahoo and ask, to say some, and check out your findings: totally absurd; they differ like day and night. Try searching prices: they differ like d&n. Try information about small countries: they are ridiculously different.
Where is then the actual value of google? Their main result then, is to practically educate us in what they want. With or without intention I don't know it, but their algorithms of search are political. They are not anymore like the NorthernLight search of before; now you have to analyze carefully what's pushing google to show you (or not to show you) the first page or pages. Is becoming harder and harder to live clean.
But the fact that minorities must bear the weight should be undeniable. Who cares. As long as the Middle East's burning, nothing else cares.
Chicago, of course!
It is even suicidal to talk so carelessly about "net neutrality" and "freedom of expression" and even "democracy", and much more so, with this politicized Supreme Court; consider that big money MUST govern is becoming the "law of the land".
Nobody can deny that if you leave society without controls, a Law-of-the-Jungle mentality would rule. The same, with an unregulated Internet, somehow the rich wont lose. If they don't lose, who lose? (hint, grab a mirror.)
If "freedom of expression" has The Powerful better positioned to take advantage of it, you and I, individuals (and minorities), are screwed–not a brainer I'd say.
I wish you were right
But what I see is a bunch of groups that want us to pay for Equal Opportunity
Uranus
If you don't know what side your by now…???
It allows the government to regulate internet content.
It's also the brainchild of several prominent American COMMUNIST groups such as the misleading named "Free Press".
Here Here!!!! The technie definition and the administration's definition are TWO DIFFERENT things.
The government wants to regulate the internet is the Government's definition.
AGREED
If we Survive this
How's this
YOU OWE ME BROADBAND INTERNET
Klingons on Uranus!
I like
Oh yes, the fat lady has certainly not sung yet. Stay vigilant my friend.
Here is my (simple) understanding of what "net neutrality" is: comcast is my internet provider, and google is my favorite search engine. Suppose comcast enters into a financial agreement with yahoo to be comcast's preferred search engine. Comcast could slow my access to google, and then I would be more likely to use yahoo instead. Even a slight difference could persuade someone like me (is their bet). So in this scenario, comcast would be taking my money AND yahoo's money AND manipulating my internet activity to their benefit (and possibly my detriment, since maybe I do not care to do business with yahoo) AND I can't do a damn thing about it because either I have no idea this "deal" between comcast and yahoo has even been formed and/or I don't have another internet service provider available to me in my neighborhood! Net Neutrality would make this illegal: comcast could not favor one source over another, all info has to flow at the same rate.
How this affects minorities more than me is still a mystery. Can't make the connection there.
Your understanding of net neutrality (as originally set forth by the techie community) is absolutely correct.
Unfortunately, in ObamaNation, where Ingsoc has become the guiding principle of the day, net neutrality has been redefined as "left wing websites and entities partial to the Administration=good, right wing websites and entities critical of the Administration=bad". If The One gets his way, "hate speech" (however it is that he and his minions define it) will be deemed to be "lower priority" than "good speech"–and hence, "hate speech" will become ever more difficult to access.
Welcome to 1984–it just took us a couple of extra decades to get there.
More here that might help: http://www.rollcall.com/news/42486-1.html
mryoung, there are multiple proposed rules on net neutrality. This makes the issue more complicated than you describe. The slowdown situation you describe is prohibited by rules 1-4. These rules today as "FCC principles". My understanding is that most of the ISPs have no real issue with these remaining in case.. it is rule 5 most ISPs are unhappy with. This would prevent Comcast from, say, taking money from Blizzard to get your World of Warcraft traffic delivered faster than, say, my Bittorrent download.
How would this benefit minorities? Well, if Comcast is being paid by World of Warcraft on a per-customer basis, it stands to reason that making an additional cable modem sale is more valuable to Comcast.. This should lead Comcast to cut its cable modem prices, because they are making extra margin from Blizzard. (Or we could be talking about Skype.)
Who benefits from this cut in prices? Consumers, especially those who can't afford cable modem service now, but would buy it if it were a bit cheaper. This is why the minority groups are against this.
Why do content providers want rule 5? It prevents them from competing for better access by paying for prioritized content. That is, rule 5 protects content providers from competing with one another.
There is also a question as to whether the rules should be extended to wireless broadband. This is an entirely separate issue than the above. Many comments also deal with this.
Lets find out how upset they would get. Everyone needs to start a group online and name it white something. I'll start the The National White Moms for White Childrens Scholarships Fund and call it a non-profit but write myself a fat paycheck every week. Thats why these liberals have so much time on their hands to conspire against us. If we did something about bogus nonprofits they would all have to get a real job and most of them would shut up for lack of whining time.
Losing Net Neutrality would be like having the internet version of The Fairness Doctrine. Net Neutrality is how Scott Brown got many of his contributions and got elected. The internet is the media to which Conservatives have resorted in order to learn the real truth, aside from Fox News. It is how Conservatives alert each other to the "dirty deeds" of those who would turn our country into another socialist state.
The Progressives/Liberal/Dembulbs can't stand Net Neutrality and want to dismantle it any way they can, because it enables We The People to learn the truth about what they do and say.
It is not just you. I have always marveled that we have a "Black Miss America" pageant, when Black women have won the regular pageant. And that there is a "Negro College Fund," when (dare I say the word?) Negroes receive funding from other sources.
It is racism in reverse. Used to have more validity, but is passe now.
You just got Astroturfed! Congratulations!
Every single one of those organizations mentioned are run by the telecoms or receive significant funding from the telecoms. In fact, if you read the actual submissions, you will find that many were based off of a template where the organization just fills in the relevant details (some actually forget to remove the [ORGANIZATION NAME]).
A quick search will let you find out such details. If you ever expect this site to be taken seriously, do some research.
Seriously? Here some sound advice; before you call anyone "stupid", use spell-check! Ask a friend to check you grammar and PLEASE stop advertising the fact that you ever went to First Grade…no one is buying it!
The fairness doctrine is a positive enforcement of speech. The net neutrality principle simply mandates that people should have access to the information they want, without interference. I think conservatives are wrong on this one. This is a product of adherence to doctrines rather than reason.
I don't know the details of the bill, but I do know that companies are every bit as capable of regulating our lives as the government. Information access should be up to the people. It shouldn't be insidiously forced upon them.
Show the evidence that this is the case and i'll change my mind.
Matthew, Very interesting. I'm just not seeing an intellectually coherent reason to oppose net neutrality. Yes, I think that ISPs stand to gain income by monetizing content. I just don't think that I am paying them to influence what I look at. I pay them to give me access to the internets, period.
Any change is change they are forcing on me. I think net neutrality is a good idea in this case.
[...] » Minority and Civil Rights Groups Slam Net Neutrality – Big … tags: being-paid, cable-modem, comcast cable modem, cut-its, fact, linksys, linksys-router, [...]
That's not net neutrality. Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers should not determine what content people have access to.
This is exactly it Joann! You have to watch these guys. Just like when Nancy Pelosi wanted to call the "Public Option" the "Competetive Option" they frequently employ a Communist Tactic of naming something exactly opposite of what it is.
Net Neutrality is currently a vehicle for the government to institute policy to start controlling free speech on the internet under the guise of making it available to minorities. Twisted times we live in.
[...] as the Jim Crow invocations only hurt the campaign against Proposition 8 in California, I expect minority groups to step up their opposition to the Free Press-Google Net Neutrality as such silly comparisons get [...]
[...] as the Jim Crow invocations only hurt the campaign against Proposition 8 in California, I expect minority groups to step up their opposition to the Free Press-Google Net Neutrality as such silly comparisons get [...]
You hyper-conservatives sure love nursery rhymes.
This proletarian drivel is disingenuous. I've been hearing a lot of it lately.
I guess the left wing groups feel that any public policy that is based on equality of opportunity is racist by nature.
[...] » Minority and Civil Rights Groups Slam Net Neutrality – Big Government [...]
[...] » Minority and Civil Rights Groups Slam Net Neutrality – Big Government [...]
I like what the National Organizations had to say about the government treading carefully before imposing new regulations on the Internet. Like the saying goes, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and the Internet we have today is working just fine. What they say about the possibility of new regulations yielding unintended consequences is very real. All too often government action, even if well-intended, has had detrimental effects on minority communities. And with America’s burgeoning digital economy on the rise, we really can’t afford to repeat any of the mistakes of the past. On average, Black, Hispanic, Native American and certain Asian American populations earn less money annually, lack substantial economic opportunity and maintain less Internet access than our White counterparts. As such, we will have to bear a disproportionate amount of the costs created by any regulatory mandates that require an “equal fee-spreading” for funding Internet access and growth. It’s not fair to tax the least among us, and these National Organizations are certainly right in questioning the FCC’s proposed net neutrality rules.
great post! I really love your nice blog! I also commented at your other post that I thought was awesome. oh and if you can also check out my nursing blog that would be really cool.
[...] from economists warning about a “devastating” impact on jobs and investment. They heard from civil rights groups complaining that Net neutrality would hike the cost of monthly Internet access [...]
… [Trackback]…
[...] Read More here: biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/01/25/minority-and-civil-rights-groups-slam-net-neutrality/ [...]…
… [Trackback]…
[...] Find More on: biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/01/25/minority-and-civil-rights-groups-slam-net-neutrality/ [...]…
… [Trackback]…
[...] Informations on that Topic: biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/01/25/minority-and-civil-rights-groups-slam-net-neutrality/ [...]…
You must be logged in to post a comment.