Are Open Internet Policies Essential to Minorities?
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn told a minority media conference audience Jan. 22 that network neutrality is not a threat to minority advancement but smart regulation that will help avoid the "damage" done to diversity by radio and TV deregulation. But is that actually true?
The FCC's Democratic majority is backing a proposal to expand and codify the FCC's Internet openness principles. Since the Democrats have a 3-2 edge, some version of that proposal is likely to pass.
The minority community has been divided over the issue of network neutrality, with a number of groups cautioning the FCC, and more recently the White House and Congress, that network neutrality rules could widen the digital divide by discouraging the private investment necessary to get broadband to the poorer and minority communities that are currently unserved and underserved.
Clyburn made it clear she sided with those who saw the rules instead as a way to prevent "[ceding] control of the most significant communications advancement in our lifetimes."
"Together we must ensure that people of color--and all Americans--can 'participate as owners, employees, and suppliers' on-line," she said. "That cannot happen, however, if we passively permit a new set of gatekeepers to erect yet another set of barriers to entry."
Of course, there are many who disagree with Clyburn, arguing that net neutrality is not all proponents are making it out to be. And given the White House push for a National Broadband Plan, economic realities may trump the impassioned pleas of those sitting on the FCC.
While broadband adoption has been the focus of much attention in terms of enfranchising the minority community, Clyburn said closing the digital divide was about more than that.
"[W]hen it comes to communities of color--and other traditionally underrepresented groups--the broadband story does not and cannot end with adoption. Broadband is not simply a one-way challenge limited to finding ways in which individuals can obtain meaningful high-speed Internet access."
While network neutrality proponents like Clyburn want a fairly narrow definition of acceptable network management, others are arguing just the opposite.
Comcast, fresh off a strong performance challenging the FCC's network management finding against it in Federal Court (the BitTorrent case), echoed its arguments there by telling the FCC late Thursday that it must compile evidence and establish statutory authority before it adopts any rules.
While Comcast maintained it shares the goal of an open Internet and applauds a fact-based approach to the rulemaking, it also said that evidence collected by the FCC for its broadband plan raises "serious concerns" that the network neutrality regulations as currently constituted "would put at risk the continued investment and innovation in broadband networks needed to meet those goals."
The nation's largest cable operator noted that rules should only be adopted based on real "not conjectural" harms and benefits, and only if addressing both outweighs the risks to innovation and investment. Comcast added: "To date, there is no such record."
Comcast also said that since there is no express grant of Congressional authority the FCC is relying on the ancillary authority it says must be tied to specific statutory provisions, with a justification for why it is "reasonably ancillary" to that authority.
Taking a far more proactive regulatory stance was the American Cable Association, which represents over 900 smaller and medium-sized cable operators. "The proposed regulations do not go far enough."
ACA asked the FCC to extend the open Internet regs to "all providers" of broadband content, applications, services and devices." ACA said that all those play a key role in either shaping or distorting "the internet experience." ACA took the opportunity to continue its campaign against ESPN360, saying it was one of those content providers blocking access.
As the debates rages on over the extremely important issue, we'll keep you informed!