FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 10, 2012

OAKLAND–  On Monday, hundreds gathered in Washington D.C. and online to hear a panel of grassroots leaders across the country discuss the challenges and successes of building community radio in communities of color.  The passage of the Local Community Radio Act, 2012 is the largest expansion community radio in U.S. History.  Yet, due to unfair restrictions of community radio and commercial media consolidation – voices of color have even less access to the airwaves today than in the past. Betty Yu, National Organizer for the Center for Media Justice and Joe Torres, CMJ Board Member, both gave opening comments.

“Historically and even today, radio is still a vital vehicle for our social justice movements, particularly in low-income, immigrant and communities of color,” said Betty Yu.  “It’s still an extremely accessible medium for communities in the U.S. and abroad, it’s one of the most culturally and politically relevant outlets for many of us.”

Speakers included Kai Aiyetoro, Prometheus Radio Project;  John Freeman, KOCZ in Opelousas, LA; Albert Knighten, Dunbar Community Radio, Dunbar, FL;  Jabari Moketsi, Gullah Sentinel, Beaufort, SC; Danielle Mkali, Main Street Project, Minneapolis, MN; and Steven Renderos, Main Street Project, Minneapolis, MN

The lively panel discussion was a huge success; speakers responded to tons of viewer-tweeted questions on community radio which ranged from how people can raise funding for radio stations to how to run a radio station once you have one.

“We want people to become comfortable with the technology and skills enough to become creative and innovative with media making,” Danielle Mkali explained. “We envision spaces where folks are running a radio station, being trained in film making and audio production, checking out equipment, learning mixed media, printmaking, film discussions and beyond whatever the neighborhood hub for media may grow into.”

To watch a video of the panel, please go to the New America Foundation website (www.newamerica.net).  For further information on the Local Community Radio Act and the access challenges facing people and communities of color please visit the Media Action Grassroots Network website (www.mag-net.org).

###

Founded in 2002, the Center for Media Justice is a dynamic progressive communications strategy and media policy tank for grassroots organizations serving communities of color and America’s poor.

Center for Media Justice Celebrates a Community Victory over AT&T’s Failed Attempt at Media Consolidation

Statement from the Center for Media Justice:

December 19, 2011 (Oakland, CA) – The Center for Media Justice cheers for a big community win with the news that AT&T will be dropping its bid to swallow up T-Mobile to the tune of $39 billion.

The proposed merger was uniformly criticized by the United States Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission and many prominent members of Congress. But, more importantly, community members raised the alarm all over the country that consolidating two of the four major cell phone carriers would result in less competition, fewer options and higher prices for the 99%. This would especially have had a negative impact on communities of color, who depend on affordable wireless coverage to get online more than any other population segment.

amalia deloney, Media Policy Field Director of Center for Media Justice stated, “Since AT&T first announced its intent to takeover T-Mobile, the Center for Media Justice has continuously raised concerns about what role a duopoly would mean for historically marginalized communities— particularly communities of color and America’s poor who disproportionately rely on access to mobile broadband to find employment, access healthcare, advance their education and organize for social and economic justice.”

This holiday season, millions of folks across the country will not be blind-sided by high phone bills, and T-Mobile employees – many of whom are people of color and all of whom are nonunion- will get to keep their jobs. Today marks an important victory for rural and poor communities, people of color, and the hard workers of America who simply can’t afford to pad the pockets of the corporate CEOs.

For more information about the Center for Media Justice and our work, please visit www.centerformediajustice.org or call Brandi Collins, Communications and Marketing Manager, at 510-698-3800 x409.

Founded in 2002, the Center for Media Justice is a dynamic progressive communications strategy and media policy tank for grassroots organizations serving communities of color and America’s poor.

As the 2011 holiday shopping season geared up, the country’s leading mobile wireless carrier, Verizon, announced a special deal. For a limited time only, customers could get the popular HTC Droid Incredible 2 smartphone for free, if they signed up for a two-year data plan. Since the phone’s full retail price is usually more than $430, the deal meant a savings of more than $200 with a new contract. It features a four-inch touchscreen and eight mega-pixel rear camera, along with top-of-the-line video and one of the industry’s fastest processors. It’s everything you need to feel like you’ve got the Internet in your pocket, and for a fraction of the price of a computer. That’s a compelling selling point for many buyers, but particularly so among the black and Latino consumers who are so key to the now-massive smartphone market.

There are 234 million cell phone subscribers in the United States, 45.5 million of whom own smartphones. By the end of 2011, the consumer electronics industry is expected to bring in more than $190 billion. The industry’s trade group, Consumer Electronics Association, noted in June that smartphone sales are the market’s primary driver. They’re expected to bring in more than $23 billion in industry revenue this year.

A remarkable share of that revenue is coming from people of color, who are adopting smartphones at faster rates than white consumers and are doing far more with them. Research shows people of color are more likely to surf the Internet, send and receive messages, engage social media and produce or publish media on their phones. The reason for that, many say, is simple: It’s the most affordable way to get onto the information superhighway. A couple hundred dollars for an Android and a data plan is much less than $1,000 for a laptop computer and broadband connection. Read the full article here.

Rural broadband advocates from five states and Washington D.C. gathered in rural Eastern Kentucky on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, for the first Rural Broadband Summit, cosponsored by the Center for Media Justice, the Center for Rural Strategies, and Free Press.

The purpose of the summit is to examine rural broadband issues, such as the lower levels of access and use among rural areas and ways the nation might lower cost and improve service to rural users.

Twenty-seven people participated in the gathering, representing groups working in arts and culture, health care, higher education, tribal issues, community development, and community organizing. They were from Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia, California, and Washington, D.C.

“This is a unique mixture of people and groups,” said Edyael Casaperalta of the Center for Rural Strategies. “And it underscores how broadband affects so many different parts of our communities – economic development, education, health care, civic engagement, and cultural expression.”

Rural communities lag the rest of the nation in broadband access and access speeds. Rural communities are likely to have fewer Internet providers and have slower download and upload speed, according to an Daily Yonder analysis of data collected by the FCC and NTIA.

Participants discussed a variety of policy solutions for improving broadband. “There are some rural areas where a government subsidy could help bring in private providers,” said James Patterson of the West Virginia Partnership of African American Churches. But there are other rural areas where providing service will never be attractive to private enterprise. “In those places there has to be an alternative,” like some kind of public access, he said.

Others advocated increasing competition by encouraging municipal and nonprofit networks in rural communities, an approach that is similar to electrical and telephone cooperatives that wired much of rural America after private enterprise had stopped expanding their networks to those areas.

Others compared broadband to a basic necessity, such as water.

“We can’t just wait until providing Internet broadband to some rural communities becomes profitable,” said Mark Kidd of Appalshop. “What if we had waited until it was profitable before we ran water and electricity to some rural areas?”

Organizers of the event said the concerns they heard about rural telecommunications were similar to what they heard in other parts of the nation.

“The stories we heard today, mirror those we’ve heard in other areas: outrageous prices, poor service, decreased choice and few consumer protections are just some of the challenges community members face when it comes to the Internet,” said amalia deloney of the Center for Media Justice. “Rural communities are looking to the FCC to protect their interests–especially as they reform the Universal Service Fund and consider the proposed acquisition of T-mobile by AT&T.  It’s clear that rural shouldn’t shoulder any more costs.”

The Universal Service Fund is a federal mechanism that helps defray the costs of telephone service to hard-to-serve areas. The Federal Communications Commission is considering changes to the fund to allow it to help lower cost for broadband access, as well.

Misty Perez of Free Press said large telecommunications corporations needed to do more to serve rural communities with broadband. “Broadband access is crucial to rural communities, which are among some of the hardest hit in the economic downturn,” she said. “But Internet service providers’ empty promises are not going to get Americans connected. We need real investment spurred by competition, and policies that put consumers ahead of the bottom line.

“Access to fast, affordable internet service is what will help rural communities participate in the modern economy, not a bunch of hot air and promises that can’t be enforced.”

The second day of the broadband event was a public hearing on broadband policy. Jonanthan Adelstein, director of the USDA Rural Utilities Service, which directs broadband and other infrastructure programs, attended.

OR you could watch the five minute video below. . .or all of the above.  Your pick.

The Center for Rural Strategies is a media and communications non-profit that seeks to portray compelling portraits of rural America and addresses rural issues via policy advocacy. One of Edyael’s roles at the organization is to coordinate the Rural Broadband Policy Group. The Rural Broadband Policy Group is a growing coalition of rural advocates that seek to articulate broadband policies that create opportunities for rural communities to participate fully in the nation’s democracy, economy, culture, and society, and to spark collaboration among rural advocates for fast, affordable, and reliable Internet. RBPG champions four Rural Broadband Principles that guide our efforts: Communication is a fundamental human right, rural America is diverse, Local ownership and Investment in community is priority, and Open Access and Network Neutrality are vital.

In between planning and preparing for the Summit, Edyael was kind of enough to answer some questions for the CMJ newsletter about her work, the upcoming Summit, and why rural communities need to get involved in the fight for Internet freedom.

CMJ: What are some of the important media justice issues facing community-based organizations and social justice advocates – particularly those based in rural areas?

EC: Access to high-speed Internet has become a basic necessity and was recognized by the UN as a human right. Today, we need high-speed Internet to apply for a job, obtain a college degree, communicate with our loved ones, stay informed, launch and manage a successful business, book travel, and many other activities that used to happen off-line. Recently, we have also seen international and national movements for social justice blossom on-line. What happens to rural, poor, and unserved areas if the revolution is happening on-line? What happens if progress comes only to communities that are connected?

For rural communities with less basic infrastructure (such as schools, libraries, banks, post offices, etc. . .) and fewer jobs, high-speed Internet access can be the difference between being part of our nation’s future or being left behind. Access to affordable high-speed Internet service, building competitive broadband infrastructure, and allowing communities to envision, build, and operate their own digital telecommunications networks are important media justice issues for rural areas.

CMJ: Give us some background on the Rural Summit and how it came to fruition.

EC: The Center for Media Justice, Free Press, and the Center for Rural Strategies are allies in the media justice movement, and had been in conversation about highlighting media justice issues from a particular rural analysis. Given the proposal of the AT&T and T-Mobile merger, we decided to highlight the impact that the takeover would have on rural communities. However, we wanted to do more than just say “no” to the merger, we wanted to also provide options that we can say “yes” to, and that’s how the Rural Broadband Summit was born.

The Rural Broadband Summit was designed as a space where rural advocates can gather to talk about the challenges to getting Internet service in rural communities, learn about policy opportunities that can help us get access, and discuss community-based solutions that can truly connect communities.

CMJ: Right now the proposed AT&T takeover of T-Mobile is a major hot topic, one that will be discussed at the Summit – why is this an important issue for rural communities and why is it important people speak out against it?

EC: If the merger takes place, rural communities, like the rest of the country, are likely to experience higher prices, fewer options, and rural carries will find more roadblocks to provide service to the rural populations they serve. Even though AT&T has presented this merger as the solution to connect rural areas, given their record, whether the merger is approved or not, rural areas are likely to continue to be neglected.

This struggle is not so much about any specific merger, but about the fact that serving rural communities is outside of the profit-interests of big telecommunications corporations, thus a corporate merger is not a solution. What’s really important for rural communities is figuring out what will connect unserved areas.

CMJ: Besides learning more about the Takeover, what other things can participants expect at the Rural Broadband Summit?

EC: Oh this is the point of the gathering and the question for rural advocates: what will connect rural communities to high-speed Internet service? Participants will have the chance to envision and share their own solutions, and we will share some timely policy issues like supporting community broadband networks, Universal Service Fund reform, and unlicensed spectrum.

CMJ: Last question – any recommendations for places to see or things to do while people are in Whitesburg for the Rural Summit?

EC: They should definitely check out Pine Mountain State Park and marvel at the beautiful Appalachian mountains and connect with advocates of the strong movement against mountain-top removal. Mountain-top removal is a coal-extraction practice that destroys mountains (by blowing off the top of the mountain), buries and pollutes streams in order to extract coal in order to produce the electricity our computers need.

Special thanks to Edyael for taking the time to answer our questions.

The Rural Broadband Summit will be held October 11-12th.  For more information including the agenda, and to RSVP please go to www.savetheinternet.com.

The Beloit College Mindset List, an annual compilation designed to examine the perspective of incoming college freshmen, leads off this year with a simple fact that has startling implications: the incoming class of 2016—largely born in 1993—has never lived in a world without the Internet.

This is a generation that has integrated constant access to the Internet into every aspect of their lives. And according to a recent study by The Newspaper Association of America Foundation, they are increasingly connecting to the Internet through their smartphones. The survey found that smartphones are replacing televisions, desktop and laptop computers and other devices as the primary provider of information among 16-20 year olds.

In a world where access to the Internet increasingly means access to opportunity, nothing could be more important than ensuring that young people can get online cheaply and stay connected. The need for wireless access is especially clear for young people of color and people from low-income communities, who are more likely to rely on their cell phones as their only means of accessing the Internet.

Given that, the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile should raise significant concerns for young people and those who are interested in protecting access to information for all. Currently T-Mobile plans cost $15 to $50 less per month than comparable plans from AT&T. If this merger is approved, new subscribers will no longer have access to this lower cost option and 80 percent of the wireless market will be controlled by just two corporations: AT&T and Verizon. The reduced competition is likely to result in higher prices for consumers. This is particularly bad news for students who are struggling to get by in an economy with high unemployment, tight family budgets and rising tuition costs.

Less competition is also likely to mean a decline in service and fewer innovations for subscribers as providers have less need to find strategies to hold onto existing customers.

We need to ensure that mobile devices and the access they provide remain affordable. Doing this will require more competition, not less in the wireless market. As the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice consider whether to approve this merger, they should think carefully about the impact it will have on the ability of this generation to access information. For the benefit of these young adults, and for all consumers, they should strike down this unnecessary and harmful merger.

Today, Rural America is home to approximately 56 million residents– 20 percent of the population of the United States, and 80% of our landmass—about the population of Italy.  It’s an important comparison that should be remembered more often, particularly when we think of the challenges that rural communities face when it comes to broadband access and adoption.

As many know, rural America is undergoing large demographic, economic, and environmental changes–the outcomes of which are inextricably tied to federal and state policies and community actions over the next decade.  Health care, housing, employment and education are just some of the areas that will be touched by these changes which affect the quality of life and community-wellbeing in rural areas.  Further, each of these sectors in their own ways, are tied to technological advances that have the potential to either create actual opportunity for social and economic inclusion, or entrench a growing socio-economic divide.

Today 19,000 communities across the nation lack broadband connectivity—the majority rural.  This digital divide illustrates more than “digital-inequality”–broadband connectivity spurs economic growth, supports continuing education, delivers job training, provides job search opportunities, and grants the U.S. a competitive advantage in today’s global economy. Rural America understands that they can’t afford to live without broadband access– do their urban neighbors?

“We all do better, when we all do better”

-Senator Paul Wellstone

The truth is, populations and activities described as either “rural” or “urban” are more closely linked across space and sectors than is usually thought.  Without careful analysis these categorizations often create a dichotomy that is both misleading and incomplete. For example, many households cross-geography–with some members living in rural areas and others in the cities.  Urban businesses often rely on rural produce or rural demand for their profitability.  Urban supermarkets sell food largely grown in rural areas.  Rural prisons are filled with urban residents and rural residents travel daily to work in urban offices.  Without a solid understanding of this interrelationship—and how it impacts the economic, social and political context—we run the risk of deepening an unhealthy (and ultimately limiting) polarization.

Unserved vs. Underserved

Within the broadband context there’s a great deal of conversation about “what urban an rural communities can learn from one-another” and while this is important, a more worthwhile question is “what can urban and rural communities learn together?” This is particularly true within the “underserved vs. unserved” frame that’s used to describe broadband challenges in rural and urban areas.  Rather than adopt a fixed definition that polarizes these two geographies, we should instead push for a deeper understanding which recognizes how these communities move in complex and related ways across a spectrum in which both definitions are true.

More time and space is needed for conversations that work from this starting point.  And, more importantly we need nuanced policy recommendations—especially within the Media and Telecommunications sector–that recognize this reality.

For more information on this topic, or to see some of the work that Center for Media Justice is doing with our Rural Allies, check out: Wired and Wireless Broadband: What’s at Stake for Rural Communities?

At the Center for Media Justice we believe that as we transition to a new economy, the power to communicate, and therefore imagine a better future, should belong to everyone.  So, we were particularly interested when we learned of the recent UN report that said, “Internet access is a human right, and ensuring universal access to the Web should be a priority for all states,”

As media justice leaders, we’ve long been saying this—often citing Article 19 of the UNHDR which states,

‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’ (United Nations, 1997).

Now it seems, the UN is as well.

The report (released on Friday, June 3) outlines how the Internet is one of the most powerful instruments of the 21st century for increasing transparency, accessing  information, and for facilitating active citizen participation in building democratic societies.

Written by UN Special Rapporteur Franke La Rue, the report comes after a year’s worth of meetings held between La Rue and local human rights organizations around the world.

Want to learn more?  Check out some of the covearage links below:

• http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/06/united-nations-wikileaks-internet-human-rights/38526/
• http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/un-declares-internet-access-a-human-right/
• http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/
• http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/united_nations_proclaims_internet_access_a_human_r.php

Like all open FCC meetings, this one was webcast–giving people across the country an opportunity to watch and listen as Native leaders spoke directly to the FCC.  Geoffrey Blackwell, Chief of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy welcomed the Native leaders and opened the meeting.  MAG-Net friends and allies from Native Public Media were in attendance, many Tweeting from the audience using the #FCCNative hashtag.

This was an important day for Native Nations, and other communities of color across the country. Not only has the Office of Native Affairs and Policy been leader for Native peoples’, they have also supported MAG-Net, and the communities we represent.  On two different occasions Geoff Blackwell (and his amazing staff) have hosted the Media Action Grassroots Network at the FCC.  And, earlier this summer, they worked with us to plan and host our second Townhall on the Future of the Internet in New Mexico.

As with today, this office continues to provide opportunities for our communities to ‘speak for ourselves’ providing platforms and spaces where we can speak directly with important regulatory bodies, like the FCC.  This is significant because when our communities are allowed to speak openly—we are able to share our whole-selves.  We’re able to bring our wisdom, values, world-views, and solutions to the table.  As a result, we’re able to shape policy that affects material conditions in our lives, and yet remains people-centered and community based.

This process looks and feels differently from the ‘whiteness and wonkiness’ that many of us associate with policy-making.  Most noticeable was the deep commitment to self-determination, cultural preservation and sovereignty that was named as essential to a healthy communications landscape.

Take a minute to check out some of the statements that were made this morning at the FCC and Tweeted publicly.