Posts Taged title-ii

The Value of Diversity

When all voices weigh in on a subject, offering their varying points of view from their unique perspectives, the end result is more powerful.  And I’m not just talking about getting a chance to speak – it’s just as important to listen, really listen, to the other side, and to be mindful of their words.
That’s why I think the FCC should carefully read one particular letter they received, the one signed by the Communications Workers of America, the Minority Media and Telecom Council, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the National Urban League.   That’s a broad range of voices, representing a broad range of people.
I can’t imagine too many issues where you could get this diverse group – representing tens of millions of members – to sign the same letter, but they are all concerned about the FCC’s proposed Title II regulations.  I recently wrote a piece about the current proposal being pondered by the FCC on the Huffington Post, you can read it here. While some like to say that only a few large companies are against their proposals, this letter clearly shows that is not true.  The CWA and IBEW, for instance, are champions for creating and protecting jobs – and they are deeply concerned that the FCC is putting jobs at risk, something we definitely do not need in a down economy.
You can find the letter, here: <>

I know the FCC is getting a lot of letters right now. But I hope they put this one  at the top of their stack.

The “Real” Reality Check

I came across an article today that was written by Harold Ford Jr. in response to an earlier article he published on the Huffington post ( about his thoughts on the FCC’s attempts at reclassifying broadband service as a means of regulating it.

Of course, when I went to the original article the list of comments were a mile long, and people from Free Press were calling the former Congressman a puppet and fueling the fire for others to attack his credibility and ability to think for himself.

My first question is, does this type of character bashing really help to educate the people about the issues at hand? Does it in any way advance the conversation towards solutions that will actually work? The answer is NO! It just continues to derail the conversation about Internet regulation into senseless bickering.

Really Free Press, what is it that you do? You have yet to give a clear definition of Net Neutrality. You claim to be advocates for free speech but you are hypocritical in even that stance when it comes to your own events. P.S. I’m still waiting for a response as to why my comments, and other voices of opposition, are consistently filtered out of any “dialogue” you guys initiate about Internet regulation.

The “Real” reality is that while groups like this draw more and more people into useless bickering that is more about “political” posturing than anything else, the Internet can and must continue moving forward. New technologies are being created, like HTML5, new devices are being launched and new companies are being created that are focused on bringing these products to the masses; all under the Internet’s current structure.

While some people sell hypothetical scenarios to cause anxiety, real people are getting things done. The “Real” reality is that there are people out there who need to be educated about the benefits of internet adoption now and not be confused by “what ifs” before they have a chance to get online.

The “real” reality is that the government can’t keep up with this innovation and should focus on adoption and education to bring more people to table.

The “real” reality is that unless they are willing to be a constructive part of the movement to get all Americans online, Free Press should get out of the way so that “real” solutions can take shape.


Bipartisanship is not a word you hear much anymore, and you see it in action even less.  But it was alive and well at the Michigan House of Representatives when it passed a resolution asking the FCC not to reclassify broadband as a Title II service.   Republicans and Democrats alike are justifiably concerned that the FCC’s proposals to regulate the Internet will slow investment in Michigan’s Internet broadband infrastructure and jeopardize future job growth.”

Citizens in Detroit–FCC-regulations-would-hurt-Internet and all over Michigan know something about what happens to our communities – and to our families — when fewer and fewer people find reasons to invest where they work and live.  The folks in Michigan understand that Internet regulations could serve as a disincentive to the continued investment in their communities by high-speed Internet service providers. Innovation and technology demands a new way of thinking, not old and outdated rules. Let’s not put those already most affected by high unemployment rates and poor economic conditions under new strain. Michigan got this right.

Maybe more states will follow its lead. I hope so.   Here’s a link to a news story about Michigan’s decision: