Color of Change's James Rucker has an important post on his efforts thus far to make sense of the Congressional Black Caucus' entrenched opposition to net neutrality. The arguments Rucker has been hearing on his visits to Capitol Hill repeat themselves, running along the lines that if telecom companies aren't able to use a portion of the Internet to sell the custom online services they want to, then where will the money come from to wire underserved communities? A sensible fellow, Rucker asks again for concrete evidence. What are congressional offices using to back this economic argument that telecom providers might start using their profits to provide services to communities of color? He hasn't seen that evidence yet. He's going to keep looking.
Rucker's working with the proper construction here. Unless those assertions can be grounded, the sensible assumption is that the arguments made by the flotilla of invariably smart lawyers employed by the telecom companies are being accepted, unchecked. It wouldn't be the first time that technology policy was based on vague assumptions and the assurances of the people who stand to benefit from confusion. "I would like to believe that there is more to the 'civil rights' opposition to Net Neutrality than money, politics, relationships, or just plain lack of understanding." He says that if he doesn't start getting some reasonable answers, he's not going to stay open-minded about it too much longer.
You may also like:
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)