Street Roots • Dec. 29, 2017-Jan. 4, 2018
News
Page 5
FCC, from page 4
and produce content. They have competing
or ancillary businesses that may be the
same as my business or your business or
any person’s who is trying to thrive in this
economy. And some of them even own
media companies. So they have content,
these ancillary businesses, they have these
interests that compete with those scrappy
startups, those entrepreneurs in the market.
And if they are allowed to favor their
interest over mine, in terms of access
online, and how I’m treated online, they can
slow down my traffic. They can cause
disruption at interconnection points. If they
can slow down, or throttle, and block and
charge me a toll for access, that’s
problematic, and it’s going to put me as a
competitor at a disadvantage. Because I
don’t have the economic wherewithal to wait
it out. I don’t have the other ancillary
business that I can rely on as a source of
income to pick up the difference.
It leaves all of us who don’t have a lot of
money, who don’t have a lot of resources,
don’t have a lot of business friends or
interests, more vulnerable.
In protesting this vote, you brought up
Ferguson, Mo. I t was a powerful reference to
events that the nation learned o f only through
social media because the legacy news outlets
were ignoring this. I t became a hashtag, and it
took off. What do you think then that this
decision will have fo r not ju st future
Fergusons, or fu tu re ttMeToo movements, but
for all marginalized populations and
communities o f color?
I have to say, though, that because the
decision the FCC made and this past year o f
decisions, for a lot o f people, they don’t have
that faith in the system anymore.
J .Z .:
P H O T O C O U R T E S Y O F C O M M IS S IO N E R C L Y B U R N 'S O F F IC E
FC C Commissioner M ignon Clyburn, holding bullhorn, addresses a crowd demonstrating in
defense o f net neutrality before the Dec. 14 vote.
J .Z .:
M .C.: T h a t ah y o u h a v e to d o , if y o u are
an internet service provider, is to teh me in
the fine print, when I sign up for services,
that I’m going to block, favor or disfavor or
slow down your traffic, and I might not ever
get to learn about the next Ferguson or the
next #MeToo movement, or the next
hashtag. That in and of itself is the risk
here. For people who say these internet
service providers don’t have any incentj;.
do that, if " p a st i-^ p ro lo g u e f i s t r u e , t h e y
absolutely do because they have.
Let’s go back to 2005, because that was a
significant year. Internet service providers,
the FCC and other interested parties knew
there were some issues, that there was
blocking, that there was preferential
treatment. People were complaining that
they did not have the same level of access m
speed, that the companies were playing
favorites. So they came together, and they
crafted internet principles or internet
freedoms. This was a sort of gentleperson s
agreement saying we’re going to abide by
certain rules.
Those rules included that you can use a
device of your choice, as long as it’s not
harmful to the market. That helped with the
competitive forces; I wasn’t tethered to one
or two devices. And it said that when it
came to content online, the ISP cannot
block me, as long as it’s legal content - a
of this prefaced on it not being harmful and
being legal.
And if those principals that were agree
to in 2005 sound familiar, it’s because they
were the basis of what we did in 2015. We
just made the agreement the rule. We saw
too many exceptions going on m terms o
ISPs not abiding by the gentleperson s
agreement. We thought it was significant
enough, and there were enough complain
that came to our attention to warrant what
we did in 2015.
So for those who say we don’t need it, for
those who say that it will stifle investment, I
say show me where that has happened.
Internet service providers, particularly large
other and trying to say we’re not investing.
No, you might not be investing in
infrastructure if you’re buying up your
competitors. We need to put it all on the
table.
ones, have to file with
th e (U.S. Securities and
E x c h a n g e C o m m iss io n )
any type of rule or
regulation
"W e «toa?t bave tbe fin a l
administration that is a
“
“
r business w ord, because lu c k ily , w hen
interests, a barrier to
their earnings or a
barrier to them to
thrive. I have not seen
any of them point to our
n e t n e u tr a lity r u le s, to
it
X
X
. „ <mr
__ SJSteal @1
to
gw erxiii& exttr th e re a re a
if w e d o c e r ta in th in g s , n o t lo o k in g a t w h a t
th a t th is is n o t the f i n a l
w ord. So w h a t s h o u ld
t h e m a r k e ts a r e n o t a d d r e s s in g t h e n e e d s o r
h a v e fa lle n s h o r t, th e n w e fall s h o r t.
people be doing here on
out? W hat’s left to
happen to make it final,
and where can people
get involved?
We’ve got an incredible opportunity, the
five of us, to bridge th e com munications,
technology and opportunity divide. How we
do it, how we approach it based on the
needs of th e com m unities who are without,
th a t’s the key to w hether or not w e’re
M.C.: A number of
parties, grassroots
a c o ae ©I
of last count, at least
18 states have made it
clear they’re going to
challenge, or sue, the
FCC in court. You have
small internet service
providers and
technology companies
that have taken issue
and made it clear that
they might exercise
our open-internet rules, way o r the oilier» T h a t s the
as
ue.il» negative
negauw or
beauty o l th is country, and
as being
being a barrier for them th a t's w hy I re m a in hope lu l
realizing their economic
or investment goals.
Secondly, these
companies have periodic
earnings calls. And
those don’t stay secret. I
have not seen any
reports that pointed to the open-internet
rules or net neutrality rules as being
problematic. In fact, I can show you that for
as many people who say there have been
issues or challenges when it comes to
investments, I can show you counter
examples. Keep in mind, when people talk
about investment in companies, it’s not just
what they spend. It’s what we spend every
month. That is an investment where those
companies have an opportunity to grow
their balance sheet and do other things. You
can’t point at any one particular silo or
economic indicator to say whether or not
something is stifling or even fueling
investment. You have to look at the bigger
picture. And the pundits are out there
pointing at one quarter or one report, or a
couple of companies, and ignoring
everything else that is going on, including
some of those companies buying up each
o r g a n iz a tio n s a n d , a s
--------- C —
LY B Ü
ng
K
F C C C O M M IS S IO N E R
If your school or your library cannot
afford connectivity or broadband, w e’re
supposed to be th e re bridging th e gap. B ut
J.Z.: You’ve very
publicly emphasized
w hole host o f ehecfes and _
balamces to m ake sore th a t
«00
M.C.: I understand. You and I can talk all
day in terms of how some of your readers
and the people you give voice to feel.
But I can think of no one or no
community, speaking in general here, that
can benefit more from broadband
connectivity, telecommunications and
technology inclusion than people of color,
those who are on the other side of the
economic and opportunity divide, and rural
communities. It’s a broad brush because
numerically, it makes up the bulk of us.
We have to look at the objectives of
agencies like ours and what we’re supposed
to do. We’re supposed to be there as an
influencer, as a backstop for markets and
places and things that do not work optimally.
If monies are not flowing to communities,
and they don’t have the opportunity for
broadband infrastructure to be built, we’re
supposed to be there, shoring up the gap. If
there are disconnects between people in
urban communities that need a
communication device, because when was
the last time you saw a pay phone? Maybe
one in the hospital, maybe one on one
corner, maybe one in a museum. We’re
supposed to be there.
their legal issues.
You as an individual are surrounded by
influence and decision-makers - some look
like me; some look like your neighbors.
You’ve got halls of influences all around you.
Individuals can always continue to make
their voices heard to those decision-makers,
those policymakers, those others who may
have the final, final word.
There has been at least one bill, and
there will be more bills, no doubt,
introduced by Congress. There has been
talk of a Congressional Review Act that ,
might be forthcoming. So again, we don t
have the final word, because luckily, when it
comes to our system of government, there
are a whole host of checks and balances to
make sure that none of us veer too far one
way or the other. That’s the beauty of this
country, and that’s why I remain hopeful.
th e needs of th e com m unities are, w here
>t we get a
I ’ll b e th e f irs t to a d m it I d o n ’t h av e a law
degree or a Ph.D., but I have a degree in
human interests. I have a degree in
attempting to do everything I can to close
these gaps. I’ve excelled at those. And so
this is what we’re challenged with. And
those things, I will never allow any partisan
interest, personal prejudices or hang-ups to
come in the way of serving communities
who go without. I will never do that. Never.
J .Z .:
So you’ll be staying on the FCC a little
longer, then.
M.C.: The answer is an interesting one.
My term was up in June, and with
appointments like mine, we can technically
serve until this particular Congress
adjourns, which is December 2018. So I m
here until or unless someone is appointed in
my place - or I win the lottery, whichever
comes first.
I’m not governed by a date or a term of
service. I am wired this way to hopefully do
what I can to be a conduit and a bridge to
opportunities, regardless of my title or
where I work or where I am. I am hard
wired for public service and however long
that I am fortunate enough to continue to
serve, I will, regardless of where I end up.
E m a il Executive E ditor Joanne Zuhl
at joanne@streetroots.org