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.