[FXP Editors Note: This week is NAACP Week on FXP. Founded Feb. 12th 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is the nation's oldest, largest and most widely recognized grassroots–based civil rights organization. The NAACP is hosting their 101st convention this week in Kansas City.]
Net neutrality is a civil and human rights issue which impacts everyone. Yet what has lacked worthy attention is how the matter uniquely impacts people and communities of color beyond the traditional idealism of being able to access information online.
Most of us are familiar with the condition known as “the digital divide.” We think of it in terms of access to technology- something the NAACP has historically worked to combat. Yes, access to hardware for poor people is always going to be a challenge. But the digital divide is no longer (just) about whether computers, their accessories and software are affordable for people to obtain.
Now the digital divide has grown to include the internet- and not just the ability to get online. What many of us do not consider is the internet is probably one of the last frontiers in terms of creating, establishing, and maintaining control over one’s identity.
As people of color we know beyond a shadow of a doubt the way we are portrayed in the media is more about stereotypes than truth. It’s not just news media but entertainment media as well. Those in control of the images and information we consume don’t care to accurately portray people of color, or see the importance in empowering said people to help paint the fuller picture- also something the NAACP has historically battled against.
The internet on the other hand, is different. Look no further than the FXP and its vast networks of Black writers sharing perspectives, opinions and truths the consumer couldn’t get anywhere else.
Ask yourself how you would feel if your internet service provider decided it didn’t like the FXP, The Sable Verity, or some other site, and prevented you from being able to access that information.
Now take the power to prevent you from accessing information and apply that to anything and everything important (or even trivial) you’ve ever seen on the internet:
The Oscar Grant shooting video.
Video of members of our own military killing civilians oversees in zealous fashion.
Voter registration information.
Access to family planning clinics.
Anything. Everything.
This is already happening. Internet service providers have denied users access to information or content they found objectionable, like information on family planning services, or controversial comments made by a music group about former President Bush; content that may be objectionable for personal reasons but by no means is illegal (like child porn).
ISP’s can also discourage its users from accessing information by making the process difficult- like reducing download efficiencies for large amounts of data. Efforts by these companies to block or otherwise reduce your ability to access all information equally, is a quintessential example of discrimination in today’s society.
What has become clear from these incidents is this: the probability for denying consumers information- and the power to generate information- is very real, and very dangerous. As a result, the internet has the potential to become another wasteland of inaccurate, limited information and narrow perspectives about people of color- we could lose the power to self-define- something we have fought for since the movement began.
The FCC is in the process of determining whether to officially regulate broadband as a telecommunications method. Doing so would strengthen and indeed restore the ability to access and generate information unfettered by big business. To that end, there is no question regulation is in order. Internet providers are against it.
The NAACP has put itself on the wrong side of keeping the internet open and free to people of color. It’s a position they should immediately and publicly reverse.
From ColorofChange.org:
The main argument put forth by these groups is that net neutrality rules could limit minority access to the Internet and widen the digital divide. They say that unless we allow Internet service providers to make bigger profits by acting as gatekeepers online, they won’t expand Internet access in under-served communities. In other words, if Comcast — whose broadband Internet business was recently earning 80 percent profit margins — can increase its profits under a system without net neutrality, then it will all of a sudden invest in expanding Internet access in our communities.
Expanding access to high speed Internet is an extremely important goal, and we are fully in support of it. But allowing the phone and cable companies to make more money by acting as toll-takers on the Internet has nothing to do with reaching that goal. Businesses invest where they can maximize their profits, period. Internet service providers are already making huge profits, and if they believed that investing in low-income communities made good business sense, they would already be doing it.
Access to broadband -or redlining access to information- does impact the digital divide, no question. But its expansion- or lack thereof- has nothing to do with whether or not the Federal Communications Commission regulates the internet in order to keep it open and free; to make sure all information (particularly information we create) is equal.
The idea ISPs will invest more in communities of color if allowed to reduce or deny access to information is a falsehood. It is also a talking point created by those ISP companies against regulation- the same companies who donate millions of dollars to the NAACP and other civil rights organizations which, coincidentally, have taken the side of big business and come out against net neutrality and regulation.
For its part, the NAACP has said its position has been misinterpreted; they are neither for nor against net neutrality. Many higher-ups have said their focus is on broadband expansion and access. But this is not a case of whether to address access to broadband or access to information and the power to create content- it is both at the same time.
The NAACP’s attempt to clarify its position on FCC regulation is actually nothing more than an effort to straddle the fence rather than aggressively advocating for what is right.
It is also an issue that exposes the ongoing division within the organization itself; many local and state chapters of the NAACP openly and actively advocate for net neutrality on their own- while the national office does nothing.
The organization’s position doesn’t just complicate the already convoluted political and grassroots efforts to keep the internet open and free to everyone. To maintain a non-position on the issue is tantamount to misleading the thousands of members the NAACP claims to work in the best interests of. Certainly many members understand these kinds of issues through the organization, thus the people are being mis-educated and mis-led.
The NAACP should openly and loudly reverse its position on net neutrality and federal regulation; there is no greater opportunity to protect and advance the people- or the struggle for progress- than the information super-highway.
Article by Sable Verity
Sable Verity is a reporter and commentator based in Seattle who covers social and political issues for KBCS Radio and a number of online and print news outlets. Her work can be found at sableverity.com
Sable has written 50 article(s) for us.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
"Internet service providers have denied users access to information or content…that may be objectionable for personal reasons but by no means is illegal (like child porn)."
Ummm, child porn IS illegal and as such ISPs have the legal obligation to block it's access or to cooperate with authorities in investigations into who accesses or distributes it. I agree with you in premise on the importance of net neutrality as a solid policy, but kiddie porn is NOT the argument to help you make that case.
lol. uhhh yeah.
What that says is, child porn IS illegal.
There would be no reason to add child porn in the way you suggest I did. Re-read it.
Posts like this make the internet such a terasure trove
Excellent article and analysis of net neutrality. The major internet corporations must have missed the memo: Black folks do not give a shit about the NAACP anymore, especially us millenials who actually give a damn about internet access, so there is no real point in buying the old Negro relic to gain its support to sway the Afro masses so that we will give up our freedom to create blogs, ezines, and other material about how difficult it is to find a mate that is not bougie, crazy, lazy, fat, gay, uneducated, unemployed, underemployed, a bitch, or a pussy ass negro. GIVE US OUR FREE to discuss such things!
"ISP’s can also discourage its users from accessing information by making the process difficult- like reducing download efficiencies for large amounts of data.
is the real issue. blocking editorial content is not likely effected especially if you have money as big business can care less about whats said long as they get paid.
but yeah. im for net neutrality too. internets should be treated like a public space, not a private one.
Great article. I've actually worked on a couple of issues regarding expanding internet resources (broadband) in urban communities and it is a challenge. The internet is the one tool used by so many of our young people and is the only 'real' resource that forces them to 'read' outside of traditional methods such as newspapers/books/magazines. A flip side to this article would be to look at the usage of the internet amongst cell phone users. An article I read recently rated African Americans as the number one user of internet based cell phones and consumers of PDA phones in the country. This puts a different spin on how we 'access' the information highway and the amount of time spent online. Furthermore…I'm not really sure how I feel about the NAACP's role in this issue. To be honest, they haven't finished fighting some of the more important battles facing our people today. Maybe I misread their intentions or lack-there-of…but it seems a little late for them to care one way or the other.
This doesn't really surprise me that much. I've heard from former executives and chairmen that the organization has become too entangled with a government agenda to remain a viable agent for progressive change. That's the NAACP for you though. If it could benefit them to shut up, they usually opt to keep their mouths close. It is sad to see such a powerful institution in the black community not stand up and fight for something that doesn't benefit them but the people that claim to serve. Then again, I'm sure I say the same thing to pretty much every bglo…
-Jayar (Spr. 2004) Alpha Phi Alpha
Interesting article. The debate with net nuetrality is how much people want to pay for access to ALL information, as well as how much will the gov't allow US to access. I bet the NAACP doesn't even know the whole issue, well at least until they read this article…
Honestly Star, I DON'T think the NAACP has a full understanding of NN and how significant it is to the Black community. Once they opted to side with big business, it seems they stopped caring. Now, they have stopped publicly denouncing NN ('we won't oppose but we won't support) but that's not enough. They position is wrong and they should correct it. Not just for the merits of the issue, but for their own respectability.
NAACP has missed the issue on net neutrality, but I don't believe its a reason to call into question the relevance of the institution that has supported and triumph for the black community for over a century. There are many important issues it stands for, not just the subject of net neutrality, i.e. the band on death penalty that disproportionately effects African-American men, among others. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and say what it is or is not, particularly, if you are not involved in the organization. The way we all need to write our congressional leaders and voice our opinions, concerns, or positions is the same way we should approach a nationwide, and dare I say worldwide, organization like NAACP. Help the organization learn about the issues and make the right decisions.
While we are young and up on current trends, we also sometimes lack the patience to thoroughly vet an issue and understand all facets of it as older institutions like the NAACP can. This rush to buy what Color of Change is selling is an example of how we jump on bandwagons without understanding all of the implications of doing so. To the contrary as proposed in this article, network neutrality has nothing to do with helping out persons of color. Rather, it is about those largest content companies like Google, Amazon.com and others who want the ISPs to NOT charge them for the tremendous amount of bandwidth that their customers use while on the ISPs networks. They'd rather pay a flat or significantly reduced price and have created this whole campaign to use netroots groups like Color of Change and Free Press to sell you all on their campaign. And from the looks of these comments and post, it's worked!
But what would happen if ISPs are not allowed to manage their networks so we all have a seamless experience is there will be an increase across the board for all users. What will happen then is that low income and minimum bandwidth users who just use the internet to surf and maybe send email, primarily people of color, will be the ones subsidizing those high bandwidth users. Currently, 20% of those on the Internet use 80% of the bandwidth. More often than not, that 20% include include wealthy kids in the suburbs downloading games and movies on line or gaming. It has already been established that upwards to 70% of the peer to peer content downloaded is pirated movies and other copyrighted content.
The NAACP was right to not get hoodwinked into letting its constituents get used by big businesses this way. How about we focus on the FCC enforcing its EEO rules for broadcasters which is hasn't done in over a year, or working on enabling more minorities to own media properties; or implementing subsidies so that more people of color can afford broadband? It's a distraction to the real issues that matter most to our communities.
If we, as consumers, are prepared to pay for service based on our budgets and projected amount of usage, why shouldn’t content providers pay to distribute their content via the Internet based on their budgets and projected usage? It makes sense to me.
The only thing that net neutrality will bring consumers is higher prices at best and no service at worse. Internet traffic is increasing and as more people access the Internet, the potential for congestion increases. If content providers are not going to pay for the congestion, then who will?
The NAACP knows this. Because they are aware of the potential negative price impact of net neutrality on the minority community, they have taken a position that net neutrality should be thoroughly scrutinized. The NAACP should continue taking this position.
I cannot easily discern if this piece is advocating for net neutrality or if it is a condemnation of the NAACP and its "convoluted politics." Either way I would like to applaud the NAACP for not so readily drinking the net neutrality kool-aid; as for the kool-aid laden stance held by The Fresh Xpress, I see no validity in it. How would you like it if xyz ISP decided it didn't like your favorite websites? This hypothetical question (as it could be no more than that) sounds to me like a high school newspaper gossip column. But to answer the question; I don't know, maybe I wouldn't purchase their services – I would look for a new ISP. This industry, these markets have been alive and well, thriving even, for almost 20 years! How is it so suddenly – that we are calling out 80% profit margins and labeling ISP's evil monopolizers who want to degrade users connections on a whim? They wouldn't, they couldn't. FXP calls out Comcast,well Comcast's services are available to me; yet I do not use them. Suddenly the internet threat matrix seems a lot less perilous, right? FXP highlights ISP contributions to the NAACP; well who do you think is supporting the publishing real estate of net neutrality supporters? There advocacy is not being paid for in righteousness. Ahem, Google raises hand. It certainly is being funded, just as the ISP's, or any other lobby for that matter. So to FXP I say, here is a challenge to you: come down from your presupposed high horse, and before you start serving up your net neutrality kool-aid please offer evidence to validate your accusations.
UK royalties collector PRS For Music has resurrected the idea ISPs should pay for copyrighted content that their networks transfer without authorisation.
“With the introduction of the Digital Economy Act, the harm caused by the problem of piracy has to be measured, and if a problem can be measured it can be priced”
http://www.themusicvoid.com/2010/07/isp-music-lev…