Hundreds of groups sign digital champion pledge calling for equal access and open networks

02.10.2010 – On the heels of Google's groundbreaking announcement of its plans to build a high-speed open network, local advocates and community leaders of the Media Action Grassroots Network (MAG-Net) are asking Congress to protect the principles of an open internet, while dismantling significant barriers to broadband adoption in un-served and underserved communities. These advocates say if the FCC's National Broadband Plan extends the existing Universal Service Fund rules and resources to broadband and mobile devices, and Congress supports action to protect broadband networks with strong net neutrality rules, it will give millions of poor people and people of color the chance to not only log-on to the internet, but log-in to democracy.

Continue reading at Waves of Change…

In the last three years, the Media Action Grassroots Network (MAG-Net) has grown to become one of the leading grassroots media policy advocacy networks.  Today, we have more than 100 organizational members. Our members are grassroots social justice, media activist, and production organizations working together for social change through the critical use and transformation of media.  Together, we are developing advocacy strategies to improve media conditions and secure communication rights for communities of color and the poor.

Why is this network so critical?  Because we know that media shapes the conditions we live in everyday, and that as much as media can exacerbate conditions of discrimination, exclusion, and inequity, it can also be an opportunity to change the game if we transform the rules.

Since 2008 MAG-Net has:

• Partnered with the Leadership Council on Civil Rights to connect thousands of people in marginalized communities to information and services during the digital television transition
• Partnered with the Consumer’s Union to pressure electronics retailers across the country to provide no cost converter boxes- and won!
• Amplified the demand for a socially responsible digital television transition in dozens of news hits reaching thousands of people!
• Hosted two Media Justice Leadership institutes– with workshops on community organizing, media policy, popular education, and strategic communications
• Conducted our first ever grassroots policy day in the DC beltway, where we met with national civil rights groups, the Federal Communications Commission, and Congressional representatives to discuss the need for an affordable, accessible, and open Internet
• Launched a national media justice learning community, with monthly calls for our network members to learn about universal service, network neutrality, how to conduct effective actions, and more!
• Convened racial justice policy allies to partner for open Internet protections, and submitted joint comments to the FCC!
• Conducted online and phone actions to provide our FCC Commissioners with the grassroots support they need to hold big media at bay and pass rules to expand and protect high speed Internet
• Created and distributed dozens of popular tools to educate our communities about universal service and network neutrality
• Provided nine leading regional media justice organizations with the financial and strategic resources they need to increase the impact of regional organizing and alliance building for media change through our Regional Hubs Initiative
• Launched a brand new website with info, forums, photos, features, and more!

Our media systems are undergoing a massive global restructuring, and all forms of media are moving to digital platforms. While the Pew Research Center reports that 63% of U.S. adults have broadband in their homes—the 37% who remain “disconnected” are disproportionately rural, people of color, poor people, migrants and refugees, and speakers of languages other than English. We plan to get in where we fit in- and where we don’t, we will create new opportunities to ensure that your voices are heard in the debate on digital inclusion and media justice. Media Justice includes a new understanding of digital  “rights, access, and power.”   And as history has taught us, transformative change is a long-term project!  Using a communication rights platform coupled with grassroots organizing, MAG-Net will:

1. Develop the leadership, capacity, and relationships our members need to effectively engage in the fight for media justice and digital inclusion at home and in the DC beltway
2. Ensure the participation of stakeholders at the margins in policy fights for digital inclusion through regional organizing and national advocacy
3. Expand the media justice sector to include new voices and stakeholders from the social justice, journalism, and arts community through regional and national alliance building

Beginning in 2009 and going through 2012, MAG-Net will focus on advancing a policy agenda for digital inclusion that amplifies the voices of those pushed furthest to the margins of public debate, and advances the goals of movements for racial and economic justice, as well as advocating for a new digital infrastructure that provides our communities with:

• Full employment
• Safe and affordable housing
• Quality education, and
• Content that is relevant and useful to our lives and goals

To date nearly 150 organizations that care about economic empowerment for marginalized communities and small businesses have taken our Digital Inclusion Pledge, and you can too!   On February 15, 2010 hundreds of grassroots organizations will participate in our National Day of Action.  In eight regions nationally, MAG-Net will conduct in-district delegation visits with congressional reps, participate in direct actions and community events, and hold press conferences to highlight the need for affordable access and open Internet rules that will ensure the Internet remains a level playing field where every voice and idea has a chance.  You can take action too!

Join the conversation and the movement for a healthy digital ecology— a digital ecosystem that is community-based, people-centered, and supportive of political, economic, cultural and technological justice. Good, comprehensive digital policy can connect rural and urban concerns and ensure that human rights are secured in media policy.  Let’s fight for our media and keep our communities informed and connected!

Much like the innovation of an open Internet, Obama’s 2008 campaign mobilized communities across the U.S. to engage in the democratic process in ways never conceived before.  Excuse the Sinatra references but the problems of a deregulated Internet haven’t gone kerplot.  Despite the “hope” offered by President Obama’s promise to ensure an open Internet, the “change” we expected is being threatened as we speak.

According to a recent article in the Washington Post, the FCC may leave the decisions regarding access to the Internet mainly in the hands of the phone and cable companies.  Doing so essentially means abandoning net neutrality and other consumer protections.  This possibility is the result of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia’s recent decision, which further questioned the FCC’s authority to regulate Internet service providers.  The court left the FCC with two options.  One is the use of ‘ancillary’ jurisdiction, which the Washington Post reports is the favored option, right now.  The second option would be the reclassification of the Internet from a Title I Service to a Title II Service.  The argument against reclassification is that it could impose overly burdensome regulation on carriers, and might deter investment.  

The various sides involved in this heated debate would have you believe the question around private investment is the proverbial tipping point.  Certainly this is true for the Telco’s—though its clear that their commitment is to increased connectivity that builds an ever-expanding profit margin, rather than connecting the poor.  From our perspective, as people who live and work in marginalized communities—it feels different.  For our communities, a lack of investment on the part of Internet Service Providers has always been part of the problem—rarely the solution.  We believe that Net neutrality and a reclassification of the Internet merely reflects the evolution of a service essential to our democracy.  Further, it ensures the Internet remains the most transformative communications network ever created.  Without this, the Internet’s historic role in helping maintain an informed democracy diminishes, as we begin to divide along newly established digital-citizenry lines.  

As Latinos, we understand the harm caused to our communities when we are treated like second-class citizens, we need only look to Arizona.  Our community recently witnessed Governor Jan Brewer (AZ), sign SB1070 into law.  You know, the one that establishes Juan Crow in Arizona by giving local law enforcement carte blanche to question anyone they believe to be undocumented.  We voiced our emphatic opposition to this law through petitions, art, music and demonstrations.  All of these actions were facilitated through the Internet.  The tools of an open net: web casting, Twitter, online petitions, file-sharing, Instant Message and even basic e-mail make it possible for millions of people in our community to have a voice beyond their immediate surroundings.  This amplified voice through the Internet is our new democracy, one that doesn’t make the distinction between “legal” and “illegal”.  That’s what is at stake for us in the fight for net neutrality.

As we have seen with the previous Administrations, the appointment of the FCC Chairman can be the defining moment in establishing a President's communications policy. President Obama's choice of Julius Genachowski to lead the Federal Communications Commission signaled that media and telecommunications issues would take a high profile in this administration.

On November 14, 2007 then Presidential candidate Obama said, “I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality. Because once providers start to privilege some applications or websites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out and we all lose.  The Internet is perhaps to most open network in history and we have to keep it that way.”

Those of us who work in marginalized communities heard this message.  Our hope was that the rhetoric of a transformative candidacy–one geared toward uniting the various divides of the country–would seep into the broader workings of the administrative agencies in Washington, namely the FCC.

And while we, as Latinos—the fastest growing community of color in the United States—have a stake in this fight, so do millions of other people of color, poor, working-class and rural communities.  We know because nearly 400 organizations representing approximately one million people have signed the same pledge for digital inclusion that we have.  We want affordable access AND an open Internet. Why? Because net neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet. It is a powerful tool for a historically disenfranchised community, and particularly important for a younger generation who deserves constant connectivity as well as the freedom to express themselves and their culture.

We hope that the FCC Chairman listens to our voices.  We believe he will; after all he said he would.  After Chairman Genachowski delivered his agency's National Broadband Plan to the public, he sat down for a YouTube Interview in which he answered questions submitted and voted on by U.S. residents on Citizentube. The Media Action Grassroots Network (MAG-Net), of which we are a part, submitted a question that was voted number one, in our category.

 
"Will you commit to personally meeting with 'grassroots groups' (outside beltway) in the cities that you travel to, especially before moving ahead on important topics like net neutrality, media ownership, and wireless competition?”

His answer, “Yes!”  We’re counting on Chairman Genachowski’s commitment to grassroots communities being more than YouTube lip service.  We also hope that his commitment extends to these issues irrespective of geography.  Even if he’s not traveling to one of the cities we live and work in, we hope our voices matter.  We believe they do, and we hope the Chairman believes so, too. After all, the voices of the Telco’s shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard.  So we still have high hopes that the marginalization our communities face in the physical world aren’t replicated digitally.  We’re not asking for regulation that stunts investment to the Internet, instead we DEMAND the preservation of our voices which fuel its growth.
 

We need you to speak up and tell the FCC not to give away the Internet! Email Chairman Genachowski & Commissioner Clyburn and let them know we need open Internet!

Co-Authors:

• amalia deloney, MAG-Net Coordinator, Center for Media Justice
  
• Steven Renderos, Media Justice Organizer, Main Street Project
  

The Internet as a Universal Service, the Conservative and Corporate Backlash, and the Struggle Over How We Communicate.

For the past month the most important telecommunications platform of our time, the Internet, has gone without any form of regulation or government oversight.

This situation didn't cause some downward spiral collapsing email and leading to tolls for visiting pages across the web – thank goodness.

But, after the ruling in the Comcast Bit Torrent case an opening was presented for Broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to brush off government authority. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doesn't have the authority to impose regulation on ISPs. If this situation sticks ISPs have clearly stated what they intend to do – charge whatever they like for any content they like, while limiting traffic for those who don't pay high premiums.

Last week a "third way" was presented by the FCC. Instead of being stuck in the situation of applying rules that won't hold or letting ISPs act against consumer interest the FCC is looking to reclassify the internet. Essentially, they are saying that the internet is not simply an information service that is a privilege to access, but a telecommunications service in which it is a necessity to ensure access is fair, affordable, and universal.

Conservative pundits would like to tell us that such a move is a government take over of the Internet. ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T won't be able to provide service as they will be bogged down by heavy federal taxes. The government will monitor what you email and post on Facebook or your blog, track what you read and take away your freedom of speech. This rhetoric may sound exaggerated at best, and it is, but these are the remarks coming from those like Glenn Beck. Just listen to this clip.

What is truly worrisome is these statements are also coming from the telecom industry's most profitable companies.

"If the FCC follows through with the [FCC] chairman's stated intent, it will have a direct impact on jobs and investment in one of the areas of the U.S. economy that many hoped could help lead the recovery." This comes from a statement by AT&T's Jim Cicconi. What Jim and Glenn would like you to believe is that the FCC's move to define the Internet for what it is, a telecommunications necessity, will eat away at jobs in the economy and citizens' rights.

They are wrong.

And fear is the telecommunications industry's biggest tactic to keep its strangle hold on the development of the most important technology of our times.

What would defining the Internet as a necessity actually do? First it would ensure something called net neutrality, a principle that has existed on the internet since its beginnings. Net Neutrality, or better understood as Internet Freedom, means that if you post something to the Internet in one place when someone comes along somewhere else on the Internet they can get to it. Sounds simple enough, but this principle and all the implications wrapped around it are under threat because ISPs have the technology to look through every single bit of information traveling over their lines. If an ISP thinks what you are doing should cost more, like downloading a video or hosting your own online business, they can leverage an extra fee or worse block it all together. Some can pay the premiums that ISPs argue will let them further build out their networks, but if you're poor or a start-up business tough luck. Tiering traffic, the practice that ISPs would like to replace the Internet Freedom we have known, will create gated fences across the web.

The other major affect of the FCC's move is it will allow a whole host of plans the FCC recently proposed in the National Broadband Plan. Not everything in the plan is perfect (Read Steven Renderos, Media Justice Organizer on the Good, Bad, and Ugly of the plan), but the plan has some key points that will make sure communities without access get connected and the Internet is more affordable, secure, and reliable for all. Lets just take one point of the National Broadband Plan for an example – reforming the Universal Service Fund into the Connect America Fund. This could mean that by the year 2020 99% of Americans would be connected to the Internet. The plan is to accomplish this through moving money that currently ensures telephone service to subsidize networks of all types. Without reclassifying the Internet and defining it as a universally necessary service there is no Connect America fund. In short, no way to guarantee access.

And this gets us back to the statement from AT&T. Their concern is not the economic recovery for the rest of us, but their bottom-line. By calling the shots companies like AT&T are looking to control where their profits go, not creating jobs. Their vision for the internet is making a lot more money from customers who can afford it and having no one, especially a tax payer supported program, tell them to build out in rural communities or underserved urban areas.

The lines have been clearly drawn in the battle. Our side – the movement for media justice – just scored the first major victory with the FCC's decision last week. Its a victory that was only possible through the work of millions who wrote letters, blogged, and video recorded their vision for a free, open, and universal Internet. We must remember however it's only a first victory and will be short lived if the ISPs like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have anything to say about it. In the coming months we must, and will continue to be outspoken, creative, and principled in a struggle that will define how our society communicates.
 

The message couldn't have been more clear last month when FCC staff sat in a crowded Seattle conference room with about 80 local folks, gathered to share our opinions on preserving a fair and open Internet.

Click to listen to the presentation Marcos made during the FCC "Protecting a Fair and Open Internet" community forum.

Even in the tech capital of Seattle, urban communities need broadband access that is more fair, more affordable, and more reliable—and we need consumer protections from Internet providers who would keep many of us stuck in Internet slow lanes rather than treating us all fairly.

This summer, the FCC is making a sensible move to strengthen its ability to improve Internet access across the country, in response to a recent court decision which questioned the agency's authority to hold companies like Comcast accountable to our community needs. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowksi wants to make sure that the agency remains able to pursue the goals laid out in the National Broadband Plan released earlier this year; those goals include preserving Internet openness (net neutrality), and catching up with other industrialized countries in broadband speed and affordability.

Among the most important goals in that report is establishing broadband as a universal service. It's no secret that huge digital divides still exist between Internet haves and have-nots, as broadband access has been especially slow to reach many rural and tribal areas. But many urban areas are also afflicted by access problems—including some of the nation's supposed high-tech Meccas.

Few readers of Forbes were surprised last year when the business magazine ranked Seattle the nation's most tech-savvy city. Seattle is the center of a famously tech-rich area, with major software, high-tech and Internet-focused companies based in the region, and a high degree of utilization of information technologies ranging from smart phones to computers and cable television. In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis has ranked Seattle 17th in per capita income among 363 metropolitan areas, and the city also boasts among the highest rates of literacy and post-secondary graduates in the nation.

All this makes the persistence of digital divides in Seattle confounding and unsettling.

City government and community organizations have been engaged in studying the problem, and the city has created initiatives to close the gap and also researching the size and shape of the divide. The 2009 Seattle Technology Access and Adoption Report tracks the use of information technologies over time, and documents the digital divide.

“In an increasingly digital culture, the gap in [broadband] adoption threatens greater exclusion or marginalization, and sharper disparities in opportunities for education, civic participation, jobs and economic success.”

The city’s study was conducted using surveys and focus groups. Income and education were the most significant factors in determining digital exclusion, but age, ethnicity, language spoken and disability also were found  to be significant in technology adoption.  Focus groups conducted with immigrant communities also affirmed that those with language barriers are more disconnected.

One of the important uses of information technology in terms of civic affairs is the accessing of information about city services, policy-making and the opportunity to engage with elected or appointed officials. The city of Seattle, as an example, has an info-rich municipal website where users can not only pay their utility bills and report pot holes, but also send a message directly to the mayor, find out when a transportation planning meeting is taking place, and comment on policy issues that affect their daily living.

While the internet has many uses that are entertaining and could be considered frivolous, the ability to engage civically is one use where the exclusion of certain demographic groups can affect our democracy. If low-income residents are unable to access important services and information online, they are shut out of important opportunities to wield their civic power.

In addition, the success of students is increasingly determined by access to the information and resources that are available online, and which depend on the ability to connect at high speeds. Many low-income households in Seattle remain unable to afford home Internet access–that affects students' ability to complete homework, and parents' ability to communicate with teachers.

In the same way that policymakers implemented Universal Service for telephones in the last century, a similar initiative is needed today to insure that disparities of income and opportunity do not deepen the disenfranchisement of groups that are excluded from the digital revolution. We've got to make sure that the federal government, including the FCC, continues to follow this path.

In Seattle, our local Digital Justice Coalition, led by Reclaim the Media and other MAG-Net member organizations, is calling for both local and national solutions for expanding digital rights. We're pushing our city government to build a publicly-owned fiber broadband network, in order to provide affordable, fast broadband to every home/office in Seattle. This build-it-ourselves solution would go a long way towards erasing local digital divides, equalizing technology access across neighborhoods for the first time. In addition, a publicly-accountable open network would guarantee open access and net neutrality

But for the long term, federal policies are needed to protect our digital rights–not just in tech centers like Seattle, but in all urban and rural communities. That's why MAG-Net member organizations across the country are continuing to push the FCC and our elected officials to enact policies that make high-quality broadband access truly universal, maintain a fair and open Internet, and encourage all people to become fully engaged participants in our digital democracy.

Marcos Martinez is executive director of Entre Hermanos, a nonprofit devoted to HIV prevention in Seattle's Latino community. He is also board president of the Minority Executive Directors Coalition, and a board member of the Youth Media Institute. Marcos was a featured speaker at Reclaim the Media's April community forum with the FCC, "Protecting a Fair and Open Internet."

I do not belittle or demonize those champions of many noble battles past and yet to come. However, I vigorously disagree with their position on this particular issue, and adamantly reject the assumption that it’s in minority constituents’ best interests for Congress to oppose net neutrality. As a minority business owner who also specializes in broadband strategy, and has spent years assessing the efforts of people working directly with those abandoned across the digital divide, I have a valid perspective.

Organizations that view open Internet requirements as a threat to poor people do not speak for A. Mustafa Al-Aziz, CEO of a WiMAX service provider who grew up in a low-income community. He believes net neutrality is a battle for equality. “If my mom who lives in Battleboro, NC couldn’t get to Skype to make calls that are free or cheap [because Skype competes with telcos’ other services], she wouldn’t be able to afford to make long distance calls.”

These organizations do not speak for Davis Park, former Director of Community Technology Programs for the Little Tokyo Service Center. “If I’m going to pay for 756k speed, that’s what I’ll pay. But I want the same access to whatever content is on the Internet. Suppose local government gives people free online access to healthcare information and services, but only subscribers who pay an extra price to network operators can access it. This is a matter of social injustice. The same is true for access to job opportunities and educational information that’s supposed to be available for everyone.”

Likewise, they do not speak for Genaro Rendon, Director of Southwest Workers Union, which works for community empowerment. He believes net neutrality’s emphasis on equal access to information directly impacts low-income people’s ability to build up their communities. “People not informed are people not participating. The Internet is how you reach decision makers who influence whether Spanish-speaking people are allocated proper resources and representation in government.”

Nor do they speak for the St. Anthony Foundation in San Francisco, CA, a nonprofit running technology training programs to help low-income individuals enter, re-enter and/or advance in the workplace. Karl Robillard, Manager of Employment Programs and the Tech Lab, sees a threat down the road if net neutrality principles are not codified. “Right now the Internet is an open exchange of communication. But if it becomes so profit driven by providers that you need money to get to specific content, then you cut out people trying to get a leg up in the world.”

Are poor communities damned if you do, damned if you don’t?

Organizations pressuring Congress with the dubious threat that incumbents won’t invest in minority communities if net neutrality passes do not speak for the urban and rural poor who’ve suffered shabby treatment in a regulation-free environment.

Philadelphia moved to build its own broadband network because of the digital divide. Research in 2004 revealed those with physical access to broadband, meaning if you requested someone would deliver service, correlated directly to income: those in the rich parts of town easily got DSL service, those in low-income communities didn’t. Following Katrina, many poor New Orleans residents lost all communication. The city’s WiFi network was the only system working reliably for weeks. But, in that time of great need, Bell South threatened to sue to keep the city from opening this lifeline to residents even on a temporary basis.

Many rural communities that are repeatedly denied broadband services today will tell you. Low-income communities likely will not be any more desirable for telco investment if net neutrality is defeated, and it’s hard to believe under-served communities can be any less served if net neutrality passes. However, low-income communities that create ways to acquire Internet access, as those around St. Anthony’s did, have a much better chance of closing the digital divide under net neutrality principles.

A telco industry advocate argued in Ebony magazine that the FCC shouldn’t bother with net neutrality because there are more important issues for them to pursue. Nothing is further from the truth! The Internet is about the access to, and use of, resources that are the lifeblood in a global digital economy. Information denied is equal opportunity denied, advancement denied, political participation denied.

Organizations that have lined up against net neutrality are entitled to their opinions. But as with most other communities inAmerica, there are those of us within minority communities who stand firmly on the side of rules that ensure everyone has equal access and equal voice on the Information highway.

Guest blog by Craig Settles , first posted at: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/100503-they-dont-speak-for-all-minorities-on-net-neutrality on 05/28/10

Craig Settles is a broadband industry analyst, Co-Director of Communities United for Broadband [http://www.facebook.com/pages/Communities-United-for-Broadband/106218516077372?ref=ts] and author of Fighting the Next Good Fight: Bringing True Broadband to Your Community [http://www.successful.com/msp/ngfsummary.html]

There is a debate heating up in Washington about broadband that is critical to Kentucky's future prosperity. At issue is the Federal Communications Commission's ambitious plan for universal adoption of high-speed Internet, or "broadband," as a key to driving economic development, job creation, educational opportunity, effective health care and global competitiveness throughout the country.

In order to implement this National Broadband Plan, the FCC proposes reclassifying a number of broadband services under the same common carrier provisions that have enabled over 95 percent of American households to receive and afford phone service.

The big cable and phone companies, who are the primary Internet service providers, and their friends in Congress object to the FCC's move to increase competition, protect consumers and preserve an open Internet.

In Kentucky, we need the FCC's National Broadband Plan. With only 54 percent of Kentucky households receiving high-speed Internet at home, and 49 percent in rural areas, we rank 45th among the states. The unregulated, market-driven approach to providing broadband has not worked for us. Too many Kentuckians are on the wrong side of the digital divide because high-speed Internet is not available, not affordable or they lack digital literacy skills.

Over 150 families living at the foot of Pine Mountain where Letcher, Harlan and Leslie counties converge are an example of the more than 1 million Kentuckians who could benefit from the National Broadband Plan.

They know from their own experiences that high-speed Internet access is critical to their success in today's economy and society. Although they organized Pine Mountain Residents for Broadband to speak out about the problem and collectively seek solutions, they remain unable to receive service.

As a result, the community's students struggle to graduate high school and earn college degrees using dial-up speeds that make finishing homework, downloading assignments, watching lectures and completing tests online almost impossible.

One woman running a small business can't order supplies she needs when home looking after her young child and loses customers as a result. A local teacher stays long hours after school in order to file grading and attendance information that must be entered online.

Although two companies advertise high-speed Internet and provide it within a mile of some families, they are not making the service available. A company spokesperson stated in an e-mail that "the costs are often prohibitive to earn back the investment at affordable rates for customers."

Affordability is a significant barrier for people in both rural and urban areas of Kentucky. Nationally, only a third of people whose families make less than $25,000 a year have home broadband. A 2009 study by the University of Louisville's Anne Braden Institute for Social Justice Research found that, in three predominately African-American, low-income neighborhoods in Louisville, 91 percent of respondents used the Internet, but only 45 percent had broadband access at home.

That means many low-income residents have been relying on Internet services at the city's public libraries, facilities that are reducing operating hours because of budget cuts.

Kentucky policy-makers have called for increased access to broadband technology as a way to boost the state's economic competitiveness, raise earning capacities and reduce our high poverty levels. The FCC's reclassification of broadband services will allow implementation of the National Broadband Plan and give us a road map and resources for moving all Kentuckians forward in the 21st century. We need to support this effort.

Mimi Pickering is a filmmaker based in Whitesburg. Find out more about the National Broadband Plan at http://www.broadband.gov/.

Guest blog by Mimi Pickering, of Appalshop. First posted on June 4, 2010 at: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/06/04/1291887/broadband-plan-will-aid-ky.html

Consumers Union first connected with me in July 2008 through the “Cover America Tour,” a campaign to film people’s experiences with the health care system. As a cancer survivor who had spent all of her retirement savings to afford COBRA while I was unemployed, I was one of many stories featured from around the country.

COBRA, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, is a federal law that mandates an insurance program giving some employees the ability to continue health insurance coverage after leaving employment. But it doesn’t always work out that way. Consumer’s Union worked with local activists all over the country to equip us to fight for our local communities. Here’s what they had to say about my involvement on their website:

“We filmed Cindy’s story while visiting her home in Fargo, N.D., and we’ve been working closely with her ever since.”

“In October 2008, she traveled to New York for our Activist Summit where she received extensive media training and took the Blogging 101 workshop. As the health care reform debate has moved forward, Cindy has become a leader in her community, speaking at rallies, meeting with members of Congress, and telling her story to reporters on numerous occasions…Whether it’s speaking to the press, delivering hand-written letters to Congressional offices or handing out yard signs to local activists, Cindy has turned her personal struggle for affordable health care into powerful community organizing, using everything she learned at CU’s Summit.”

This year, it gives me great pride to be a trainer, presenting at the workshop “Moving Issues Through Citizen Action.” I will discuss the tools and tactics for building support and visibility for local issues that our readers care about; that we at HPR care about. I will also touch on how to move issues at the state and national levels. The topics that will be covered in this and other workshops are many, but all have to do with making your voice heard and effecting systems change. For instance, I will discuss how to communicate with media effectively. While in DC, activists will also be lobbying for policies that benefit our local community, including issues of net neutrality.

Here at HPR we realize the importance of access to information for all people. Recently the FCC reached out to the people for input on its comprehensive Broadband Plan that would provide high speed broadband to all rural areas, effectively improving affordability and access for everyone.

Net neutrality may just be the most important issue facing us today because it touches so many parts of our lives: entertainment, finance management, communication, work, education, news and information. Universal broadband would benefit people struggling in a difficult economy, and that’s most of us. In the very near future, the internet will replace all the services you use: telephone, cable, and maybe even cellular services.
Some would argue that it is a more important communication tool than telephone and a better entertainment tool than television. Because you can get both services through the internet now, it is crucial that Telecoms are regulated, so they cannot penalize people for using those services through the internet.

As a leader in telecommunications infrastructure, North Dakota also has the opportunity to lead, by urging Congress to follow the FCC’s recommendations on regulating Telecoms. Telecoms would have Congress believe that rural communities like North Dakota are in favor of the current structure for internet regulation. The truth is that we in North Dakota would benefit greatly from universal Broadband access and an open and neutral internet.

The San Francisco Bee reported that oversight from the FCC would “…prevent arbitrary denials of access to customers, prohibit unreasonable discrimination against competitor offerings, require truth in advertising and billing, steer Universal Service Funds to broadband in high-cost rural and urban areas, or require reasonably customized access services and equipment for the disabled.” Now it is up to Congress to give the FCC the authority to reclassify Telecoms in order oversee them and ensure consumer and business protection.

HPR recently joined the Media Action Grassroots Network (MAG-Net), a “local-to-local advocacy network of grassroots social justice, media, and cultural organizations working together to shift power relations for social change, through the critical use and transformation of media and communications systems. Representing 10 regions and over 100 organizations, MAG-Net’s mission is to build a transformative movement for media justice that is effective, integrated, and sustainable, and which advances racial and economic justice, gender equity, and human rights.” For more information about MAG-Net go to https://mag-net.org/.

In addition to facing important issues, the Summit will allow activists to network with like-minded people, advocacy groups, and meet with leaders in DC.

After the first night’s reception, the second morning will be spent on the Hill, in Congress. That evening Eric Schlosser, an amazing veteran investigative reporter, stars in “Food, Inc.”, with Q & A with Schlosser to follow.

The third day, Friday, there will be dozens of speakers. It will be an honor to talk with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Other speakers include, Jackie Speier, Congresswoman, 12th District of California; Rosa DeLauro, Congresswoman, Third District of Connecticut; and Austan Goolsbee, an expert on the economy and D.C.‘s funniest celebrity.

The real benefits of this summit are actually in the work that goes on with the activists. Consumer’s Union will be providing us the support and tools to do this important work.

The only thing missing at the Annual Summit is more representation from Cass, Clay, and Becker Counties. We’re sorry to say that as we go to press, this year’s Summit has already started. But you can certainly start planning for next year. Find a cheap flight or drive to DC with a group; call up a friend and see if you can stay with them. Or take advantage of the hotel rates Consumer’s Union negotiates to help keep the costs down. And if you need help with the costs, apply for one of CU’s many scholarships.

For more Consumer’s Union Summit information visit http://tiny.cc/CindyinDC

Guest Blog by: Cindy Gomez of the High Plains Reader. First posted at http://hpr1.com/opinion/article/the_consumers_unions_annual_summit/ on July 12, 2010.