More notes from RootsCampDC...

 

BEYOND NET NEUTRALITY

(Viewed: times)

 

This debrief will address three different things:

1. Relationship to media consolidation and related issues

2. Can we loop the disparate groups into a progressive coalition

3. Now that democrats are in power how do we build out, what concrete steps do we need to take

 

 

The actually implementation of Net Neutrality is complicated. In some discussions there have been over 150 permuations of rulesets trying to capture what the concept entails.

 

There may well be that there are times and reasons that we want to deliver some packets faster than others, but who gets to decide?

 

Framing: telecoms frame it as the government vs. people deciding

 

Some are worrying about members of congress who don't understand it. Why is this a civil rights issue?

 

We live in a digital age. We need to insure that our rights come with us from the physical space into the online space.

 

Perhaps the government ought to build and run a neutral network?

 

Matt Stoller offers a rundown of the messaging history:

Very early on: this was not an issue that telecoms thought was gonna blow up in their face.

They wanted to pass a bill to allow them to do video franchising, which was a good thing.

What happened was that they slipped in stuff to remove common carriage

We set up the telecoms as bad actors

We have been consistent on message and have won that framing battle.

The problem is that only 10% know about this issue (and they're on our side overwhelmingly).

 

There are some problems: is the solution going to solve the problem

If some of the people that know all about the issue are not 100% on your side--the techies (see implementation discussion above)--is that a problem?

 

LULAC came out against net neutrality (word is they were paid off?)

The other side is using national security and education and healthcare as reasons why they should get to make packet decisions.

 

End point: the government should run open and neutral networks.

Verizon should not exist; we already give them $200M and they never build fiber to the home.

 

The reason we need to broaden the fight is we don't know if net neutrality is a bad idea or not, but we certainly don't want the cable industry to be in charge of how this is resolved.

 

There are international orgs (IANA, ICANN, etc.) that have been good at regulating and standard-setting,

but the US is still at war with the world over internet governance--this is a global fight.

 

Where is the proper place for this kind of regulation to live?

e.g.: US trade rep. pushes for stronger intellectual property in other countries, then when passed, comes home and calls for "harmonization."

 

We want to preserve the value in the new things we are creating, we are disruptive to the telcos and content owners.

 

Other countries already have public investment in broadband

Net Neutrality is not new regulation--this has been the law of the land.

 

MoveOn met with Verizon to discuss this issue. The discussion came down to the fact that Verizon wants to cherry pick who and how they serve.

They essentially say they need to put toll booths on the internet to build more pipes to more places. When offered public funding to do this, they balked.

 

Does Spitzer have a broadband proposal? House Dems have a plan for broadband to the home.

 

Content owners: they want to control the net for copyright reasons.

In some ways, Verizon helped beat the INDUCE act. Sometimes the profit motive is aligned with the public good.

 

In the 30s labor was strong, won the right to organize, and was whittled away at because it was never perceived as a fundamental right. The Right uses constitutional amendments better than us, maybe we need to broaden the discussion to figure out the fundamental right to data.

 

The platform of Democrats is that you don't outsource the public good--it's our philosophy of government and it is intrinsically linked to this issue.

 

Messaging: Connect this to the american dream.

 

This is about freedom or not freedom; something you have now is being taken from you.


Page Information

  • 1 year ago [history]
  • View page source
  • You're not logged in
  • Tags: Issues

Wiki Information

Recent PBwiki Blog Posts