Let us give props where props are due. Federal Communications Commissioner Mignon Clyburn spoke last Friday before the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC). This is a group that on one hand could provide her a sympathetic audience, were it not for the fact that their stance on Net Neutrality has tended to embrace the talking points for the telephone and cable companies.
In comments in the Net Neutrality docket, MMTC and other organizations put forward the industry talking points that an open and non-discriminatory Internet could raise prices for consumers (citing a Bell front group as evidence). Then the groups raise the spectre of regulation of search engines and other applications, justifying this intrusion into the Internet as grounded in civil rights law, filtered through the prism of making certain that search engines don’t harm minorities. Of course, this attack is one that AT&T, which generally disdains regulation, has put forward for years as a means of attacking Google.
It’s true that Public Knowledge raised questions about Clyburn’s readiness to back a Net Neutrality agenda. And PK is pleased to say that our questions have been answered with all doubts dispelled. In her MMTC speech, Clyburn answered them emphatically, not only delivering a strong statement on behalf of a free and open Internet, but calling out minority groups for remaining silent or expressing wariness at new government regulation.
Noting that Web entrepreneur Jonathan Moore, a Net Neutrality supporter was able to start his Rowdy Orbit site with minority content for little investment, Clyburn noted: “Had the costs of access been much greater, however – say if he had to buy his way into priority status on one or more networks – Rowdy Orbit may never have seen the light of day.”
She continued: “So in addition to the issue of how we tackle broadband adoption in communities of color, another central question we must answer is: How can we ensure that our communities can take advantage of this emerging economic force? And relatedly, how can we ensure that the current low barriers to entry remain low in order to prevent yet another communications model that has people of color once again on the outside looking in?
“To my surprise, most of the filings submitted and public statements issued by some of the leading groups representing people of color on this matter have been silent on this make-or-break issue. There has been almost no discussion of how important – how essential – it is for traditionally underrepresented groups to maintain the low barriers to entry that our current open Internet provides. I have seen virtually nothing on how important it is that we not allow what is today our Internet become theirs.” Clyburn then quoted from comments submitted by the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which does recognize the importance of Net Neutrality. She quoted NHMC, saying that high-speed Internet access is essential for small business owners to reach customers, to journalists and to content creators. NHMC’s comments were strong and direct.
Here’s one part that Clyburn didn’t quote: “These (Net Neutrality) principles are necessary to ensure that all people – especially people of color, who have been traditionally under and misrepresented on mainstream media – enjoy opportunities to share their stories fairly and accurately. The Internet is one of the very few places where Latinos can respond to the vitriolic anti-Latino rhetoric that airs unopposed on some mainstream media outlets.”
Clyburn also smartly linked the idea of a free and open Internet to MMTC’s signature issue – minority ownership. She noted that MMTC has worked for 22 years to make certain that people of color “will have every opportunity to participate as owners, employees and suppliers in the electronic media and telecommunications industries.”
She added: “These words, I believe, should apply directly to the Internet as well. Together we must ensure that people of color – and all Americans – can “participate as owners, employees, and suppliers” on-line. That cannot happen, however, if we passively permit a new set of gatekeepers to erect yet another set of barriers to entry.” Clyburn also pointed out the danger of using another Bell argument – the “unintended consequences” of government regulation: Some of you have expressed a concern that we must be wary of open Internet rules because of the potential for “unintended consequences.” But the same argument can be made for any government regulation, especially those rules many of the folks here have sought on the media ownership front.”
Considering the subject matter and the venue, this was as impressive a speech as an FCC commissioner can give.
Comments:
By posting, you agree to our Comments Policy.
Reply
Art – I just saw your commentary attacking MMTC and implying that we are simply regurgitating industry talking points on net neutrality.
While you might have used this tactic to beat others into submission, it will not work on MMTC.
I want to remind you of our record – for example, how we fought for content nondiscrimination - the first NN principle - in 2008, led 34 organizations in opposition to the Bells on video choice in 2006, and waged war on redlining throughout the 1990s.
Since our founding in 1986, MMTC has practiced coalition building, Art. We were there with you in force on media consolidation and LPFM. And when you disagreed with us on some aspects of NN, we never questioned your integrity.
Take a closer look at the net neutrality comments we filed for 16 national minority organizations. You’ll see that we rejected the carriers’ argument that content discrimination isn’t a potential issue because it is rare. You’ll see that we outright endorsed the first and sixth principles, indicated we’re still studying principles 2-4, and raised concerns about #5. And that regarding search engines, we held back and asked for a more complete record.
Now show me three ways your comments differed from those of Google and Yahoo.
You objected to two studies we cited, in our over 100 footnotes, because they were written by industry groups. Your comments also cited industry studies, which is fine. If a study is substantively flawed, tell us why. But if it raises valid points, who cares who wrote it?
Our main point was that the FCC could draft and implement rules in a manner that could disadvantage minorities. Art, you know – and I wish you would write about – how the FCC has failed minorities and women repeatedly over the years – with the EEO rules, the designated entity rules, the multiple ownership rules, LPFM and more. And might do it again with the National Broadband Plan, for which the December 16 Framework didn’t even mention minorities or the digital divide (the 8th floor is correcting that boneheaded mistake). If you were in our shoes, wouldn’t you be just a bit concerned that the FCC might screw NN up too?
And before you try to wave the civil rights banner again, you might consider showing more humility and less hubris. Where were PK and Free Press in 2008 when we were trying to get minority businesses into the broadband stimulus? Or on the non-enforcement of EEO that has gutted minority radio employment? Or on multilingual EAS? MAP, UCC and Benton were arm and arm with us on all of these and more. But not PK and FP. WHY?
Looking inward and answering that question would be much more constructive than attacking us for thinking for ourselves, even if it means that we might once in a while disagree with you.
Yours in brotherhood,
David Honig President and Executive Director Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
Reply
Art,
I was present at Commissioner Mignon Clyburn’s speech to a largely uneasy crowd at MMTC (based purely on the awkward body language I observed with glee).
The commissioner eloquently expressed how and why Internet freedom was so well aligned with social justice principles — not of so-called “minorities”, but of communities of struggle, especially Blackfolk, which both she and I identify as.
On a related note, as an individual of color deeply involved in the progressive netroots community and in local politics, I neither agree with nor accept the antiquated, inaccurate and fairly useless “minority” label which still sadly lingers in DC, commercial media and elsewhere.
“Minorities” are not a monolith as the imprimatur suggests. This label lacks dimensionality and depth of meaning in 2010. It basically includes all people of color, suggesting that all people of color are definitively disadvantaged (or in the same proverbial boat) simply based on the fact that they are considered non-white. However, in many important instances, various non-white ethnic groups are OVER-represented based on wealth, income, education, occupational prestige, business ownership, etc.
That is not to say that this subset of people of color do not experience persistent forms of racial discrimination. However, the monolithic “minority” moniker over time has over-simplified the complexities of racial identity, racial inequality and the varying landscapes of opportunity that exist within this collective of communities that must be substantively addressed.
Lastly, all the industry-generated anti-net neutrality talking points that abound at various conferences on broadband that focus on “minority” issues have been created for just one unifying purpose: to obstruct any federal measure or policy that will (or is feared to) hurt the stock prices of publicly traded telecoms.
Irrespective of who deems themselves the truest champion of social justice or what’s best for communities of color, we must not be distracted from the simple fact that whatever the stance or the talking points, ANYTHING that negatively impacts shareholder value — even if it’s only for one solitary quarter OR is undisputedly in the best interest of the American people and a strengthened democracy — will be opposed by the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who have no responsibility that trumps maximizing PROFITS.
Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court may believe corporations should have the same (or more rights) than human beings, but that doesn’t mean we do when fighting for non-discrimination by the gatekeepers to the Internet — a revolutionary medium that should be a universal and public utility, not a segregated digital province manipulated by AT&T, Comcast & Verizon.
This is clearly something Commissioner Clyburn understands fully, and why I am heartened by her strong stance in support of Internet freedom, non-discrimination and social justice in this digital era.
Bravo, Commissioner!
Respectfully,
Chris Rabb Philadelphia, PA
Reply
I’m so glad to hear David and MMTC speak up. This is not the time to play it cool and let someone else, like Public Knowledge, give the answers to minorities questions or suggest solutions to minorities problems as they relate to broadband.
Few groups other than MMTC and those they represent seem to be stepping up to challenge groups like Public Knowledge to take a critical look at how net neutrality will operate in the real world with real people. Not to mention, it seems some are afraid to step up and challenge this notion that net neutrality is needed by minority communities. What minority communities need is access to broadband, not more misapplied FCC regulations.
He may mean well, but I really don’t think that Art “gets” the issue. Public Knowledge has been bantering around phrases like “free and open internet” and “network management” for so long that they can’t step outside their niche to see how this issue affects the people as a whole, not just those who already have broadband access. Though Art tries to pitt MMTC against NHMC, this really isn’t about minorities taking sides, its about minorities speaking up for their communities needs. They need broadband because the internet is not “free” or “open” if you never had access to it.
Alton E. Drew The Alton Drew Group www.altondrew.com
Reply
I admire the work MMTC has done over the years to increase minority particiipation in all media. I meant no disrespect to the organization, and am very sorry if my comments were interpreted as such.
My disagreements are substantive. AT&T in its Net Neutrality policy position advocates a policy that, we believe, could restrict the opportunities for small businesses and consumers online. MMTC has made a judgment that it is possible, even likely, that Net Neutrality could hurt minorities. I respect your position even though I disagree with it.
Google, on the other hand, has argued for an open Internet. We agree with that view, because we saw first-hand the benefits of an open environment as the Internet developed. We do not agree with Google on every issue, as Public Knowledge’s comments in the Google Book Search issue will attest. (Yahoo has not participated in the Net Neutrality debate.)
Let me address a couple of other points that David mentioned in his thoughtful letter and that the other commenters raised.
First, our role in the stimulus legislation was to persuade Congress, successfully, I might add, to make certain that any networks built with stimulus funds be open so that others could offer services over them. Minority businesses, or other innovators and entrepreneurs, are more likely to have an opportunity to create a new business online in that type of environment rather than in the current closed network.
Second, we agree with you that the National Broadband Plan has its deficiencies. We said as much last year publicly last year when we said we were disappointed with the plan. That certainly did not make us any new friends at the FCC, but we felt it had to be said.
Third, I have no intention of pitting one group against another. Interested observers can read the filings of any group and compare and contrast as they will against the filings and policy positions of others.
Finally, I note that the issues of Net Neutrality and broadband deployment are related issues, but different. One deals with how those not privileged to own a telephone, cable or wireless network would gain access to that network to offer services or applications to the public, and what rights consumers have in such an environment.
The other deals with how the broadband service is deployed so that everyone can take advantage of its benefits. This discussion revolves around the first issue. In our comments on the National Broadband Plan, Public Knowledge proposes policies that we believe will result in greater opportunities for all. Commissioner Clyburn’s excellent speech, which was the subject of the blog post, was on the topic of an open Internet, which is why I focused on that issue.
Thanks to everyone for their interest.
Reply
However issues of discrimination are portrayed, some have little or no relation to entry barriers associated with price, and to this exent are generally not associated with issues of net neutrality.
Specifically, broadband in the US is already grossly overpriced, especially considering the low speeds relative to other countries, and AT&T’s threat to raise prices even higher due to bogus cost increases associated with net neutrality, represents a price imposed entry barrier that already exists, just worse.
However, this use of price to bar entry is not necessarily discriminatory, at least in a net neutral context. Prices can be very high and include for example, forced bundling with other services, but not be discriminatory in the sense that everyone has to pay the same price for quality-equivalent bandwidth speed, whether as a stand-alone price or otherwise.
This is effectively the threat by AT&T, that if net neutrality is enforced, AT&T will have to charge everyone higher prices, rather than discriminate across customers, applications and networks by price.
It has little or nothing to do with “cost caused” by net neutrality, which is bogus, rather some who would have paid selectively lower prices, will pay higher prices under net neutrality and vice versa for those who would have paid the highest discriminatory prices, where AT&T will emphasize the former and deny the latter in order to push the bogus “cost” claim.
While Clyburn correctly countered AT&T’s threat on those discriminatory grounds correctable with net neutrality, substantial barriers to entry remain due to sheer market power to raise prices in the absence of competition, which are not necessarily discriminatory. That’s why prices are already as high as they are, many already in clear conformance with any reasonable constraints imposed by net neutrality.
Therefore, assuming that prices are already as high as they can be to maximize revenue, a reasonable assumption, AT&T’s threat is a bluff, at least for current prices and bandwidth options considered already in compliance with net neutrality.
Formalizing net neutrality as codified regulation simply prevents the introduction of the intended discrimination, so the correct comparison of the “cost” effect of net neutrality is between the current prices and terms of service, versus those in effect under net neutrality, which should be negligible in these cases.
AT&T’s current market power is threatened not one twit with net neutrality, which only prevents the extension of that market power into new realms of discrimination, price or otherwise.
If AT&T insists on playing games with “cost” imposed due to net neutrality, particularly in terms of lost benefits, then it needs to lay out the winners and losers under its intended regime of new discrimination, and demonstrate not just who is better off, but who is worse off because of it, including a comparison of its own added revenues, to that of other revenue streams generated in the presence of sustained net neutrality.