Who should we trust when it comes to Net Neutrality?
Thursday the FCC voted to conduct data gathering on the net neutrality issue. You can see it here.
If you are not sure what Net Neutrality is then in layman’s terms, net neutrality is about the politics of envy: if a website cannot afford certain bells and whistles, then its rivals should not be allowed to acquire such enhancements. In economic terms, net neutrality represents the prohibition of any contracting for enhanced service or guaranteed quality of service (QoS) between a broadband service provider and an Internet content provider.
Now that sounds like a great deal on the surface but in reality it’s much more complex. The claim is that prescribing rules and restrictions on how content is accessed and transmitted on the Internet is the singular path to a “free” or “open” Internet. However, I would argue that before the Internet can be truly “neutral” there has to be equal access to it, and these regulations do not support that goal. We still do not have full deployment of broadband Internet to underserved communities, which are disproportionately rural, poor, and/or minority communities. We need to have digital literacy programs that educate these communities on the uses of broadband so their members are aware of the opportunities it offers them. We cannot allow the playing field to be limited. Making sure these communities have access in the first place should be a higher priority than trying to limit it in any way. And there are currently several organizations who claim to exist to “educate us on this issue but are they taking our issues into account? Here is an example of one.
Public Knowledge, an organization representing what I would call “digital elites,” has joined with other elite activist groups to push the FCC to adopt so-called Net Neutrality rules. To do this, Public Knowledge uses carefully chosen words like “neutrally,” “openness” and “discrimination.” I find myself wondering whether they have any idea what these words mean. As they insist that net neutrality will benefit minorities, I have serious doubts.
First, Public Knowledge suggests that our civil rights leaders and minority elected officials are not intelligent enough to think for themselves. Public Knowledge has questioned our leaders’ desire to ensure that our communities have access to and beneficial use of broadband services. With African American unemployment at 15.4%, Public Knowledge mocks their concerns that minorities without broadband access can’t compete for jobs. When the African American broadband adoption rate is only 2/3 of that for White Americans, Public Knowledge dismisses our leaders’ support for a National Broadband Plan focused on increasing adoption and use. With African American men earning 25 percent less than their white counterparts, Public Knowledge scoffs at our leaders’ desire to ensure that public policy promotes affordable broadband. When our leaders ask legitimate and respectful questions about the possible unintended consequences of net neutrality rules, Public Knowledge shows them the back of their hand.
Public Knowledge even suggests that the concerns of all minorities are only directed at, or merit the attention of, the “African American” Commissioner Mignon Clyburn. This statement reminds me of a time in our past when outright racial appeals and stereotypes polluted the stream of public discourse. This should not be tolerated.
I believe all of the FCC Commissioners respect and share the concerns of minority elected officials and civil rights leaders. I’m confident that they will respond by addressing our leaders’ request for full research and analysis before any rules are adopted that could have adverse results for broadband adoption.
I also applaud African American leaders and scores of Democratic members of Congress who had the wisdom to flash a “caution light” about the unintended consequences of net neutrality rules. And I detest the effort by Public Knowledge and its allies to brand them as “deserters” and “unAmerican” because their views are not in lockstep with Public Knowledge.
The really ironic thing about Public Knowledge’s insistence that questions must not be asked about their demand for new Internet rules is this: How does the public obtain knowledge if it cannot even ask questions? I want to see Public Knowledge and its allies drop their presumptuousness and stop pretending that they speak for our communities. Our diverse public has the knowledge, and the right, to speak for itself.
Let me restate our concerns:
- The risk that a regressive pricing mandate that net neutrality rules could impose will shift online costs to the poor is real.
- The risk that over-regulation will depress deployment and access is real.
- The risk that restrictions on network management will reduce the quality and reliability of Internet service for light users — students, the poor on fixed incomes, the elderly, and community organizers who rely on Internet access to reach their communities – is real.
Net neutrality advocates would serve their cause well if they would stop attacking the intelligence and integrity of minority and other Democratic leaders, and stop writing off genuine disagreements or concerns about the potential effects of these regulations. I ask net neutrality advocates to pause for a moment, start listening to what minorities are saying, and then consider how best to close the digital divide. They should humbly reflect on whether or not net neutrality could be implemented in a manner that is certain to close the digital divide and not just feed the bandwidth desires of the digital elite, a move that would shift costs to low-volume, low-income consumers.
Low barriers to entry are what make the Internet fertile ground for entrepreneurs and activists to disrupt the landscape with new ideas. We cannot raise these barriers before disadvantaged populations, who have been historically disenfranchised, have the opportunity to enter the field. I would not have had the success that I’ve had in my life had the Internet not been available to me in the way that it is now. And I would be doing a disservice to my community if I did not work to make sure it stays that way.
The public has the right to know the answers. That is what we mean by “public knowledge.” I urge the organization with that name to behave like they mean it.
About the Author Navarrow Wright is the CTO of Interactive One, Interactive One is a digital and print media company focusing on the African-American and urban market. As CTO Wright is responsible for the technical strategy of all the Interactive One online properties which include Hellobeautiful, The UrbanDaily, NewsOne, Elev8 and BlackPlanet. He is also responsible for the technical management of the Radio One Network’s radio sites Navarrow was formerly the President of Maximum Leverage Solutions ( http://maxlevsolutions.com), An internet technology consulting firm. Wright is the Co-founder of Globalgrind.com with Russell Simmons and The former CTO of BET.com. Navarrow blogs about issues in technology that affect entrepreneurs, minorities and urban youth on his site at http://www.navarrowwright.com
See all posts by navarrow wright.
Thought you might find this article interesting if you haven't read it.
After net neutrality, will we need “Google neutrality?”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10…
Thought you might find this article interesting if you haven't read it.
After net neutrality, will we need “Google neutrality?”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10…
Lauren,
I agree that an important conversation on how the future of the Internet should be built out and what it looks like is critical. But my frustration is first the initial blog post starts with an attack on an important (yes flawed) organization that does research and advocacy for people of color.
And it purports to ask questions on how we have openness and universal access, even as all the academic research shows that openness leads to more access.
It does this all in a post that mimics the language used by telecommunication lobbyists.
ICANN, Google preferential treatment, how we get access that is affordable are all important questions. They don't however fall into the questions around Network Neutrality.
The do fall into the FCC's development of a National Broadband Plan that I encourage everyone, but especially People of Color to get involved in.
http://broadband.gov/workshops.html
THIS is precisely the kind of lively debate that has been missing from net neutrality space for so long. We all have ideas and opinions that truly need to be fleshed out to make this a better process. Hopefully, we won't keep dialogue confined to theoretical space and we'll take advantage of the FCC comment period. They've made it real easy this go round (at least for those of us who have Internet access) to comment using the OpenInternet.gov site.
MyBlack, very good point, “two wrongs do not make a right.” My fear with ANY policy decision is that those whose voices are not fully mobilized get ignored. On this issue in particular, we can't just be about pointing the blame at one party over another. I think we need to holistically look at the various bad practices that can negatively impact consumers and Internet users, and make adjustments accordingly. The blame game rarely works, and estimations about who the 'bad actor' may be are often ill-conceived, particularly in business-related transactions.
Jordan, I think we really do owe it to ourselves and our country to get this thing right, and it requires a confluence of voices representing a variety of perspectives. More importantly, however, we have to be able to respect disparate voices enough to consider that their arguments may actually have merit. To totally disregard as false a different opinion without considering our views through an alternative lens only lends to the further perpetuation of ideologies of ignorance.
I am sorry that Navarrow Wright you know so little about Net Neutrality yourself. The term wasn't created by politicians but technology specialist Tim Wu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
That is the first of many things you get wrong. Maybe you should take that digital literacy class.
Second the idea that openness and providing more access are in opposition isn't just a false dichotomy but false based on ALL the research.
The research shows that when the Internet is as open as it is now there is actually MORE investment by ISP's to under-served communities.
http://www.freepress.net/files/Finding_the_Bott…
Finally why should people of color have access to an Internet that only provides the sites pre-approved by COMCAST or AT&T?
Is that what you want for our community access to an Internet controlled by Internet Service Providers while wealthier communities have access to the whole Internet?
You are literally proposing separate and unequal as a strategy for our community.
I am sad that you are willing to defend corporations with this line of clearly false reasoning, while exploiting our economic struggle.
Please do some research before posting something this horribly uninformed and harmful.
You are right.
I'm glad we are all talking…but you are wrong that the take away is that there is no clear explanation of what Net Neutrality is…also you are wrong that the idea of a neutral network is new. That is absolutely not the case.
In fact due to common carriage rules the Internet has existed as a “neutral” network for a much longer time than it has operated without those protections.
Dial up happened over the phone lines which already had clear non-discrimination pro competition rules. Where we got in trouble was with the cable delivery of DSL and Broadband. The telecoms spend a lot of money to try to remove those rules from these new services so they didn't have to compete and they were almost completely successful.
It's very interesting when you look at how we compare with the rest of the world, you can plot our loss of broadband competitiveness to the removal of net neutrality type protections through the legal kerfuffle’s that lead up to the Brand X case.
So the idea that these rules and regulations are “new” is wrong. The idea also that the Internet is somehow “unregulated” right now is also wrong. Right now the Internet is very regulated but it is regulated to prevent competition and to protect the incumbents. The reason why regulations need to be changed to protect the public is because the country that created the network is now a mid level performer and dropping in all measures of second-generation competitiveness. Doubling down on the strategy that is leading us to fail is logical only to those who financially benefit from control of a failing network.
Hmmm who would that be?
Great to see such spirited comments on this issue. While there are varying degrees of accuracy in any comment. The positive thing is that we thinking about this issue. But all comments prove that there is no clear explanation as to what the “NET Neutrality” is or will be for sure. That is one of the big issues and the audience of this blog is active on the internet so imagine the lack of understanding among people who are not or more importantly the people who make up that huge percentage of African Americans in the PEW study who have are not a part of broadband adoption at all. Politicians are great at naming things to make you believe at first glance that it is going to help you. But in reality it opens the doorway for them to control things in the future. You are also right that the arguments have been clearly one sided till this point. The other question is why now? Why do they think all of a sudden that there needs to regulations put in place on something that up until this point has enable people fairly equal access to things? There's a lot we can talk about so let's keep talking
Lauren, what are you talking about? “Separate but Equal” is what the telecoms are offering.
It is the exact opposite of Net Neutrality. Separate but “equal” is a tiered network it isn't an open network. In an open or neutral network The same is equal.
I also don't understand your tax section where you imply that because poor people pay a larger percentage of taxes, and because broadband for everyone would cost a lot of money, we shouldn't have it… or we should just let the telecoms give it to us as if somehow having the telecoms give it to us in an environment without real market competition wouldn't in fact be the most expensive option. It would. When you compare broadband systems around the world with the offerings in the US what you find is that systems which have these types of open access protections like unbundling and colocation requirements actually have much faster speeds, greater penetration levels and much, much lower prices.
It's as simple as this… Do you like Skype? It's pretty cheap. It really gave the phone companies a run for their money price wise for international calling…
If it were up to the telecoms to decide whether we could have Skype, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have it. And if it wasn't for Skype, Comcast wouldn't be offering you VOIP along side your cable or internet offerings. True market competition in an open internet environment created the competition that allowed for innovation and real reduction of prices for folks of every race, class, gender. You should ask yourself what other types of innovations that could solve the cost, speed and penetration problems for poor folks in the US and the world won't happen in a closed environment where incumbents decide the winners and losers and aren't forced to compete with one another…much less the rest of the world.
To date, the net neutrality argument has been very one-sided. There seems to be this constant concern about ISPs controlling the Internet. Yet many are oblivious to, or are unwilling to consider, the role of the sleeping giant in this whole net neutrality equation.
We vilify ISPs, without which there would be no network in the first place, and yet we willingly yield to the cult of Google without a second thought.
Check out this statement that appeared in a recent Fortune article: 'If Google delivers a search result in the top position, we click on it. If it's buried, the site might as well not exist. “We won't (and shouldn't) try to stop the faceless scribes of drivel,” Jonathan Rosenberg, a senior vice president at Google, wrote on one of the company's blogs earlier this year, “but we can move them to the back row of the arena.”' http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/technology/obam…
Google is all about content filtering–that's the company's business model. From blog posts to YouTube to whatever content you might find on the Internet, Google filters everything we see and receive. If the concern then is really “neutrality,” why should the burden only fall on ISPs? They are not the only gatekeepers to the provision and receipt of online information. The reason that nobody complains about Google though is because we tend to value applications over infrastructure. But here's the reality, some level of filtering and management of networks is necessary for any system to survive. It's kind of like why we wait in lines at the grocery store–if everyone ran to the register simultaneously, people would get trampled, some wouldn't be served, goods (and people) would be injured, and no one would enjoy a trip to the grocery store.
If net neutrality is truly the goal, we have to make sure that before formal regulations are codified that 'neutrality' is actually the practice being employed. Under the currently proposed set of rules, the burden of neutrality falls solely on ISPs, who have already been adhering to principles of net neutrality since the FCC introduced the Four Internet Freedoms under then-Chairman Michael Powell.
Here's another bit of food for thought–the FCC estimates that it would cost $350 billion to provide all Americans with the highest levels of broadband capacity possible. It would take $20 billion to just provide basic broadband service. In either scenario, where do we think the money is going to come from to get broadband to the masses? The one-time contribution of $7.2 billion that the federal government set forth in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is not going to get the job done. Assumedly then, the lion's share of infrastructure investment will come from private industry and tax subsidies. Who is the most impacted by taxes? Let's try people living in low-income, underserved communities. It's a simple math equation. If we want the service, someone has got to pay, and historically, poorer communities, people living in rural America have been the ones to pay the most for the benefits that inure to the rest of society.
Navarrow's point is a good one–the assumptions about what net neutrality is and isn't has to stop. There is never one side to an argument, and this issue is no different than any other. When those civil rights groups, or anyone for that matter, questions the possible impact of pending legislation and regulations, instead of attacking them, we should take the opportunity to better educate ourselves. Instead of being spoon-fed information or co-signing onto the party line just because we like the way something sounds, we have an obligation, as CONNECTED individuals, to learn the facts and engage in real dialogue so that the interests of those who are not yet online can be accurately and thoroughly represented.
Some people thought that “separate but equal” sounded good too, and we all know how that turned out.
There are a lot of myths and misunderstandings out there about Net Neutrality; this notion that would would actually results in less broadband buildout is one of them.
See here for the facts:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/09/10/22/qu…
Relevant quote: “all available data shows that Net Neutrality will not have a negative impact on investment, and will likely encourage it as it will preclude providers from profiting from artificial scarcity. Back in 2006, AT&T was required to respect Net Neutrality as a condition of its merger with SBC. In the next two years under Net Neutrality, the company’s overall gross investment increased by $1.8 billion — more than any other ISP’s in America.”
Well said, Elbert. I wish more people would realize that 'net neutrality' isn't about government controlling the internet, censorship, etc. It's primary purpose is to prevent ISP's from controlling the internet. It's a question of huge telecom companies deciding what heavily trafficked sites are more valuable to charge premium rates for you to access, or what they can block because it 'strains' –>their<– infrastructure. Which, of course, much of which was heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
The problem with it all is that those in power either do not understand these things, do not know, or simply don't care. Point in case: John McCain's recently introduced “Internet Freedom Act of 2009″, specifically to prevent the FCC from enacting net neutrality rules. John McCain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNehRSWmvJM. If you don't want to watch that, it's him responding to the old question “Mac or PC?” with, “Neither, I am a illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get.” This man has no business voting on such an Act, let alone introducing and sponsoring such a thing.
People need to enlighten themselves on this subject and speak out. Also pay very close attention to the sources of information claiming that net neutrality is somehow the government taking control of the internet, regulating it, censoring free speech, and so on.
Anyways, I'm tired from biking in the freezing cold. Blah.
Good afternoon, I do not believe there is a set agency, company, or governing body that we can trust. However there are a set of standards that which we should look for and demand that exists for the benefit of all since the Internet has become an important resource to conduct business and communicate globally. We need to be informed and educate others so that folks don't get “hoodwinked”. I am still reading up on the subject so I cannot elaborate further. Here is one research paper that I came across that I an now checking from Syracuse Univ and The Internet Governance Project (IGP).
Network Neturality as a Global Principle of Internet Governace. (PDF)
http://tinyurl.com/yjxa9dg
The Internet Governance Project (IGP) is an alliance of academics that puts expertise into practical action in the fields of global governance, Internet policy, and information and communication technology.
http://www.internetgovernance.org/
Regards,
Pablo
Okay, I’ll bite. I don’t know whether this article is merely intended to spark discussion (a la Devil’s Advocate) or actually reflects the true beliefs of its author. I prefer to believe that the Black Web 2.0 audience is far too discerning to accept this as anything other than one person’s editorializing.
First, the concept of “net neutrality” is no more concerned with the politics of envy than was Brown v. Board of Education. Net neutrality is much more concerned with the principles of equal opportunity for all and freedom of expression. Like the opponents of school desegregation, the author suggests that net neutrality would lower quality for all by requiring a more equitable distribution of resources. Segregationists claimed that if a Black neighborhood or community lacked the resources to purchase modern textbooks, a court or government should not intervene in a manner that would “socially engineer” improved access to quality resources. The bottom line is that any program supplying “access’” to broadband Internet that does not guarantee the flexible bandwidth required to utilize it is tantamount to access to a public education that denies the books required to actually become educated.
Secondly, the author assumes that restrictions on network management will reduce the quality of service for those he champions. Why? Is it because he assumes they are (and presumably always will be) relatively light users compared to others? This makes no sense. If broadband service holds the potential and significance the author claims, it is because usage will increase with access. If access lowers the barriers to entry to entrepreneurship and activism as stated by the author, why wouldn’t bandwidth requirements of these communities begin to at least mirror those of other communities?
Third, the author argues that net neutrality will result in a regressive pricing scheme whereby the usage of the digital haves are being subsidized by the digital have-nots. Ironically, this risk with which the author is concerned is a reality for nearly all universal sales “taxes,” including those of many public utilities. Check your utility statements and you will find many “fees” that are not tied to actual usage and are applied uniformly. More importantly, the economic arrangement by which society chooses to pay for net neutrality has not been decided. Many ISPs and utilities have been heavily subsidized by taxpayers, and they are reasonably required to act in the public trust. However, the government, and in this case the FCC, reserves the right to intervene to ensure the public trust is served. Affordable access and neutrality are complementary, not mutually exclusive, and public officials should be held accountable for both. The author seems obsessed with a false dichotomy.
Finally, the author asserts that net neutrality is the primary concern of the “digital elites.” He admonishes organizations like Public Knowledge to “drop their presumptuousness and stop pretending that they speak for our communities.” Okay, wait a minute. Isn’t that what you are doing too? I would like to ask the author to pause for a moment, start listening to what some minorities are saying, humbly reflect on the purpose of net neutrality, and consider that closing the digital divide may require ensuring access and neutrality.
Seriously? This is entirely missing the point of what 'net neutrality' is. It's definitely NOT about race, and for that matter it's true that most of our nation's leaders are completely clueless about it. But hey, let's just put our faith in ISP's. They know best. They're also really good at monopoly.
Don't forget about 'bout pictures of big black booty.
N.I.G.G.E.R complaining 'bout not having chicken and watermelon.
* The risk that a regressive pricing mandate that net neutrality rules could impose will shift online costs to the poor is real.
The only costs being shifted to the poor are the costs of American companies being more concerned about gaining profits and getting monopolies on local area’s internet than upgrading and expanding their networks to include those that are less profitable to serve.
* The risk that over-regulation will depress deployment and access is real.
America doesn’t even rank in the top 20 of internet speeds and availability. Our Internet Service Providers are already falling behind and looking for things to blame.The ISPs are cutting corners by filtering your traffic, hijacking advertisements and capping your bandwidth. Net Neutrality is an effort to stop the degradation of your internet but greedy companies that answer to no one.
* The risk that restrictions on network management will reduce the quality and reliability of Internet service for light users — students, the poor on fixed incomes, the elderly, and community organizers who rely on Internet access to reach their communities – is real.
I don’t agree here. These groups are really suffering because they aren’t very profitable to serve. Should an Isp spend 1 million rolling new technology out to serve a neighborhood that will only give them 2 million in profits due to then having to lower their prices to get them to purchase their service? They would rather go to a neighborhood that they people will pay more in.