Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Black Stake in the Internet

By Bruce Dixon, The Black Commentator. Posted May 17, 2006.


Cheap, ubiquitous and comprehensive broadband access is as necessary to the economic well-being of African-American communities as good streets.
Advertisement

America's black misleadership class, which is nearly indistinguishable from its black business class, has struck again. In a stunning coup, a mainline African-American voting rights group has been enlisted on the side of AT&T and other telecom monopolies in their legislative push to privatize the internet and roll back hundreds of agreements with local communities that force these monopolies to extend internet and cable service to poor and rural communities around the country.

A time-worn corporate technique for dishonestly manipulating public opinion is to create what are called in the world of public relations, industry-funded organizations and front groups. The indispensable site SourceWatch.org spells it out like this:

"An industry-funded organization receives funding from a company or industry and often acts as a mouthpiece for views that serve the industry's economic interests … Industry-funded organizations come in many shapes and sizes … trade associations, think tanks, nonprofit advocacy groups and media outlets. Some of these organizations serve as 'third parties' for public relations campaigns. The third party technique has been defined by one PR executive as 'putting your words in someone else's mouth.'"

"A front group … purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third-party technique. For example, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) claims that its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, CCF is a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide all or most of its funding …"

For this legislative sales season, the telecommunications monopolies have created a deceptively named corporate mouthpiece called Hands Off the Internet. Its chief public spokesman is former Clinton White House official Mike McCurry. A look at the Hands Off member organizations reveals a list of the usual suspects like the American Conservative Union, the Center for Individual Freedom and the notorious National Association of Manufacturers. As bankrollers and hosts of the party, one expects to see AT&T and Cingular listed, and they are.

Renting black Republicans is neither a new nor a big deal, so the National Black Chamber of Commerce, which recently fronted for the proposed privatization of Social Security on the grounds that fewer African-Americans lived to collect it, is along for the ride too. In their attention to detail, the telecom monopolies have even rented the traditional contingent of black preachers, constructed them a website and bestowed upon them the title of Ministerial Alliance Against the Digital Divide.

We were quite surprised, however, to see one of the mainstays of black voting rights activism listed among the members of the telecom astroturf group: the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation. How and why did this happen? What does it mean for NCBCP and for what remains of the civil rights movement?

Why network neutrality is a black issue

On April 27, The Black Commentator published two stories about CBC member Bobby Rush's sponsorship of this year's noxious telco legislation. We explained how the Rush-Barton Act, also called the COPE Act or HR 5252, would kill off public access TV, strip towns and cities of the right to force cable monopolies to serve blacker and poorer areas in return for being able to do business in the wealthier parts of town, and allow companies to charge websites like this one for allowing content or email to reach users.

We called attention to the acceptance of a $1 million donation by a tentacle of AT&T to a not-for-profit organization associated with the congressman. All this earned us a call that morning from a Chicago-based defender of the congressman.

We were making a big mistake, the caller told us, by leading with the issue of network neutrality. Our deeply misguided caller accused us of playing into the hands of white media activists. Network neutrality, she said again and again in the course of an hour-long conversation, was just not "our issue."

But when a black member of Congress accepts a $1 million telco donation for a supposed community-based project in his district and turns up as co-sponsor of telco legislation to redline and disempower black communities nationwide, along with suppressing everybody's freedom of access to the internet, it is indeed a black issue. When AT&T rents black ministers and black Republican sock puppets like the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and even recruits the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation to its team, network neutrality has very definitely become a black issue.

The incongruity of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation finding itself in bed with AT&T, the American Conservative Union and the National Association of Manufacturers is downright striking when you look at who serves on the NCBCP board of directors. To start with, there's Howard Dean, whose campaign for president would have been impossible without a free and open internet. There are luminaries like Joseph Lowery and Ron Walters of the African American Leadership Institute. We counted at least a dozen representatives of labor unions, including an assistant to AFL-CIO president John Sweeny, the UAW and UFCW, AFCSME, SEIU, and both national teachers unions and the A. Philip Randolph Institute.


Digg!

Bruce Dixon is editor of The Black Commentator.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
cheap and free
Posted by: rsaxto on May 17, 2006 3:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need cheap and free wifi for everyone of every race or persuasion. Big communications corporations who want high-priced and strings-attached internet access are enemies of all the people including the business community which will benefit from the universal access. Impeach the dumbos in charge and get a government that will benefit all of us. Free internet uber alles!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: cheap and free Posted by: BJT
» RE: cheap and free Posted by: SDres11
» RE: cheap and free Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: cheap and free Posted by: bornxeyed
Good article
Posted by: hagwind on May 17, 2006 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good piece. Among other things, it's a solid reminder not to get pulled into the temptations of "it's not our issue" or "my enemy's enemy is my automatic ally" (and "my enemy's enemy's enemy is my . . . ?").

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's about boundaries of ownership
Posted by: BJT on May 17, 2006 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's an interesting article about "net neutrality" here.

And frankly, however you "color" this debate, the fact of the matter is that if you let government regulate the Internet the way the FCC "regulates" the airwaves, all you will accomplish is the conquest of the Internet by the Big Few media corporations. The biggest thing the FCC has done in TV and radio broadcasting is raise the bar of entry.

If you really cared about America's poor getting access to the Internet, you'd let the market do its thing. Early radio looked a lot like today's Internet until the FCC ruined the party. Giving the FCC authority over the Internet and the private property that runs it could scuttle the Internet as we know it. It would just become another way to watch Fox News. And I know you don't want that.

Either way you look at it, we KNOW that government regulation and confiscation of private property has not helped us on the broadcast media front. Why, then, would you suggest it for the Internet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not in my best interest
Posted by: solrev on May 17, 2006 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Telecoms have an opportunity to make some bucks and they are going after it. What is new in corporate America? The fork tongue politicians have a big interest in getting the middle class off the Internet. If the middle class decided that, enough of the two party system is enough. The Internet would be the place to organize a new political party in a heartbeat. A national party for speeches and platforms would be obsolete. Platforms could be established instantaneously with real participatory democracy on the internet using real people not delegates. The Internet is the greatest threat to their way of life if left in the hands of the masses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RACE GENDER RACE GENDER RACE GENDER
Posted by: cry0fan on May 17, 2006 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PUMP OUT THAT IDENTITY POLITICS!

Like a GOOD little overclass tool! If you can somehow get it into the minds of white majority Americans that wireless broadband is something for minorities and the inner city poor and some sort of Affirmative action based on race, then you will be doing the overclass and especially the telcos and cable companies a HUGE favor.

Say,was this article funded in any way by the telephone or cable companies that will be badly hurt by wifi competition?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You pay to get good service
Posted by: Poe on May 17, 2006 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The service you get for $10,$20, $50, unlimited time, tech support, plenty of space to put up your own personal websites is a bargain.....and as another post mentioned, you can get free access in so many other ways.


Poe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Priorities also
Posted by: Poe on May 17, 2006 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People also need to be smarter about their income and spending habits.

I deal with the inner city population just about everyday. I have tenants that are "working poor" and I'm telling you they have more gadgets and toys and "bling" than I've ever had. If these "working poor" can afford 51 inch TV's with 250 cable stations going or a dish.....keep the furnace up to 80 in the winter.....gold on every appendage.....cell phones for their 7 year olds.....they can afford a used computer and internet access.


Poe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Keep up with what? Posted by: BJT
» What priorities? Posted by: SDres11
» RE: What priorities? Posted by: Poe
The Death of The Internet?
Posted by: Rshaw on May 17, 2006 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Telecoms are trying to make the Internet into a private network!

Check this short online video out: The Death of The Internet?


We need to pass this thing around!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Death of The Internet? Posted by: nickprogresss
gonzomax
Posted by: gonzomax on May 17, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually they are adding nothing to the internet. The internet exists.What they want to do is charge sites more for better access and faster connection.This is like ransoming it off. You can imagine the problems for small and poorly funded organizations.This two,tiered ,at least, prooposal will make it possible to reject sites which would be critical of their policies. It is esy to see it can evolve into censorship.This might be the real intentions anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hear a lot of snarl words
Posted by: BJT on May 17, 2006 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen plenty of negativity here regarding the HandsOff campaign, and snarl words in the article about its constituent companies, but I should very much like to see someone take on its stance based on its fundamental ideas.

Should the interested parties pay for and control the Internet? (hands off policy)

Or should government control America's internet access and give taxpayers the bill? (net neutrality)

These are what you are choosing between. Which one do you want? And do you have an answer as to why that doesn't involve subjective negative judgments?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I heard a lot of gnarled words Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: I hear a lot of snarl words Posted by: GreatHeights
After imitating the caste system against the American people,
Posted by: NDnative on May 17, 2006 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the last thing the American people need is an Internet caste system against them. And this is the mess America will be stuck with when big business, especially telco, and government unite against the American people with these kinds of disgusting regulations. It's bad enough that the BIG BROTHER ACT of 2001 allowed entertainment industries to harass and slap frivilous lawsuits against customers and file-sharers who were fed up with and retaliated against unethical business practices. And now, it's truly disgusting that these government and business elitists have to stoop so low by lying about promoting "freedom" when in fact they're promoting even more tyranny for political/power expediency. Tyranny is tyranny no matter who does it. Corporations that imitate tyrannical regimes in any manner are not worthy of any respect or sympathy whatsoever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]