Features » March 26, 2007

Not Neutrality (cont’d)

For Chester, that scenario is unacceptable. “The American consumers—including, ironically, CWA members—have paid for the broadband system in the United States several times over through their monthly bills for phone, cable, satellite and now high-speed Internet access,” Chester says. “The idea that the phone and cable industry need to capture additional profits to build out the broadband network is a fallacious one.”

He attributes the CWA’s stance to a “narrow protectionism that sees the world so defensively, it’s not been able to embrace a proactive strategy that would be a win-win, a win for the union movement and a win for progressivism.” But if the CWA views the world defensively, it’s hard to argue that it shouldn’t. AT&T is only just beginning to recover from the recession in the early 2000s, during which the CWA saw its membership decrease by some 40,000 workers, more than 5 percent of its total. Furthermore, as Goldman points out, in 2005 AT&T and Verizon employed more than 400,000 workers (many of them unionized), which was more than four times the number of workers at Amazon, Yahoo, eBay, Google and Microsoft combined.

Dolber, who has researched CWA’s historical relationship with the telecom industry, largely agrees with Chester, calling the CWA’s anti-neutrality stance “completely counter to democracy.” But he also says it is “understandable.”

“In an industry that has faced so much difficulty in the last 25 years, it makes sense that they would want to make sure that their employers are stable,” he says. “That’s where they work—they don’t want these companies to go belly-up.”

He also notes that the CWA isn’t alone among unions that have favored their members’ interests above those of society as a whole, citing the Teamsters’ stance on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the United Auto Workers’ position on Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards. However, he says, “some unions are coming together to talk about energy and pollution and those kinds of things, and I think that really does need to start happening in the media reform movement as well.”

It’s a discussion that can’t happen soon enough. At some point in the coming months, both the Senate and the House likely will consider bills that mandate net neutrality. Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have already introduced such legislation, and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) plans to introduce a bill similar to the amendment that he attempted to attach to the COPE Act last June.

That amendment—which would have mandated neutrality—was soundly defeated by a 269–152 vote. Neutrality proponents hope a Democratic-controlled House will change that. But while Republicans voted overwhelmingly against the measure, they were joined by 58 Democrats, many of who are renowned for their union ties.

With deadlock at the federal level, AT&T and Verizon have begun campaigning at the state level to insure that franchise agreements do not include neutrality provisions. They also want to minimize the requirements for buildout and Public-Education-Government (PEG) subsidies, win the rights to “cherrypick” which areas and neighborhoods to serve, and restrict the regulatory power of municipalities.

With so many different advocates for these individual issues, it can be difficult to build a coalition united enough to defeat the telecommunications industry. In Michigan, for example, a franchising bill without neutrality provisions passed easily in the state house and senate, in large part because its buildout requirements, while not great—servicing 50 percent of the state within 5 years—were considered good enough. It didn’t hurt, either, that AT&T promised to provide up to $600 million in infrastructure and 2,000 jobs if the legislation were passed. (The CWA strongly supported the legislation, with their vice president at one point accusing Google of attempting to “hijack a pro-consumer, pro-labor bill” for bringing up concerns about its lack of neutrality provisions.)

——————————————

On March 1, the Progressive States Network, an advocacy group for progressive policies at the state level, hosted a teleconference about what provisions should be implemented in these state franchise agreements. Along with two state legislators, the other participants were the CWA’s Goldman and Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. For most of the call, the speakers carefully touched on only the areas of consensus outlined above. But when the floor was opened up to callers for a Q&A, fissures began to emerge.

One woman called from Pennsylvania, which last year saw a giant fight over neutrality provisions, and pointedly asked about mandating them at the state level. Another man called from Lafayette, La., which has been battling Bell South and Cox Communications for years over the city’s attempts to provide municipal broadband to its residents. “An effective broadband strategy must allow for public ownership of the networks,” he declared angrily. “There’s a distinction between the interests of these corporations and the interests of communities. It became very clear in the fiber fight down here.”

Finally, a woman who identified herself as a worker at the CWA spoke up. “All of this seems like such a no-brainer,” she said, “in terms of the benefits of a broadband strategy, for jobs, for education, for people with disabilities and health care. What’s become clear from the call is that some of the barriers to getting this done are going to be differences within our own ranks. But where’s the opposition coming from on the outside?”

When it was her time to respond to that question, Goldman said she was “thrilled” that “the workers who are building and maintaining and servicing the networks” were taking such an interest in these issues. But, she never got around to confronting the question.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 40% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Historically the Telecomms have made these same arguments over and over and over—that if government doesn’t do this or that, then the network won’t get built or won’t be expanded. Well, every time that’s happened, they’ve gotten what they wanted and then the network wasn’t built or expanded BECAUSE they got what they wanted and the incentive to do it was then gone. Where’s the broadband to every home we were promised in 1996? Obviously the CWA hasn’t paid attention to historical precedent. The Telecomms scaled back shortly after that legislation was passed, and CWA workers lost jobs.

  And now the Telecomms want us to legislate against Net Neutrality, a principle that was IN PLACE when the internet became so successful. The Telecomms would have us believe that if Net Neutrality is mandated they won’t build out the networks. This study, however, done by a couple University of Florida Economists, gives us the reason why exactly the opposite is true:
  http://www.hearusnow.org/fileadmin/sitecontent/TheDebateonNetNeutrality.pdf

  Though I understand that CWA people might need to be careful what they say, they surely can’t buy into the forked tongue statements of the Telecomms when so much historical and empirical evidence puts the lie to Telecomm claims. It will surely cost them more jobs if Net Neutrality isn’t mandated.

  Posted by beejay on Mar 26, 2007 at 6:01 PM

  Beejay, the telecoms of 1996 were different animals. The players are different today, and more importantly, they’re free of the regulation they were still emerging from at the time. The market is more competitive than it was then, so there IS pressure to innovate and compete in a way there just wasn’t at the time.

  But about CWA—I happen to work for a group that they’re a member of, Hands Off the Internet. I don’t want to speak for them, but this time around there is re-regulation looming that seems highly likely to scare off potential investors. I am familiar with the UFL study you cite, but are you familiar with its critics? Among them, Richard Bennett, one of the inventors behind ethernet:
  http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2007/03/12/net-neutrality-in-broken-e english-and-bad-logic/

  And that’s one of the other points often lost in the net neutrality debate—there are many more “fathers of the Internet” who oppose far-reaching, prohibitionary net neutrality laws than those who support it. The truth is nobody really knows what will happen with the Internet in 5 or 10 years, and passing laws that try to predict it is foolhardy at best—but maybe worse.

  Posted by HOTI Dave on Mar 27, 2007 at 8:37 PM

  Yes, Richard Bennett is VERY vocal. But for every comment he makes there are just as many tech types who work with the protocols and networks every day in the trenches who don’t agree with him. They just don’t yell as loudly or as much as he does. Do a search on Slashdot if you don’t believe me.

  For anyone reading this who doesn’t know, Hands Off The Internet is an astroturf group funded by the Telecomms.

  Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet isn’t just another cable TV spinoff. The Telecomms, if they want to survive, need to morph into a more Media type profit base, but unless they control content, the income stream won’t be as fat. They have a VESTED INTEREST in killing the bottom up nature of the internet, and turning it into a top-down scenario, the way cable TV is.

  http://danielhaggard.com/?p=4

  Daniel said it pretty well, I think.

  Posted by beejay on Mar 27, 2007 at 8:52 PM

  BJ is the usual leftist smear artist, he can’t argue with the message so he tries to discredit the messenger. In his blowjob world no one can have an honest difference of opinion, you are in the pay of the vested interests and he is fighting for the little guy, like Chicago cabbie whose face looks like David Irving’s hemorrhoids on a bad day.

  Posted by blondemike on Mar 27, 2007 at 10:55 PM

  HOTI Dave, I am SO HAPPY that blondemike decided to defend you instead of me. ;-)

  Posted by beejay on Mar 27, 2007 at 11:58 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 21 posts.

Also featured Global Warming: Dim Bulbs, Bright Lights
Robben Island Singers
The Royal Road to Irrelevance

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Brian Cook

• Watching The Watchers
  Mass Observation returns for the Obama inauguration. Posted on February 20, 2009
• Won’t Get Fooled Again
  (Well … maybe just one more time.) Posted on February 13, 2009
• Ban the Cluster Bomb
  More than 100 countries have agreed to stop using them. Guess which one hasn'tPosted on December 1, 2008
• Sleepwalking Through Seattle
  Battle in Seattle is a well-intentioned effort that ultimately misses the markPosted on September 19, 2008
• Unholy Allies
  In March 2007, Al Gore triumphantly returned to the Senate to testify before… morePosted on August 12, 2008