Protest in front of Verizon World Headquarters
A wide array of local media activist groups demonstrated outside Verizon World Headquarters Wednesday afternoon. Corporate-sponsored legislation pending in Congress that would both restructure how the Internet is used and strip local governments of their jurisdiction over cable companies drew people’s ire.
National Day of Out(R)age events were also held in Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco.
Much of the protest was organized around opposition to H.R.5252 or the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Bill and S.2686 which, among other things, threaten the free flow of information over the Internet. The legislation could open the door for telecommunication companies to create a tiered Internet by charging individuals, groups, and corporations a fee in exchange for providing easy access to their information online. This would stifle the ability of non-corporate organizations to relay information over the Internet.
The legislation not only compromises net neutrality, but threatens local video franchising. Cable companies are required to pay local franchise fees in exchange for permission to run cables through public streets. COPE makes it easier for telephone companies like Verizon to enter the cable market by allowing them to obtain national instead of local franchises. Companies would still have to pay franchise fees and provide Public, Educational, Governmental (PEG) access, but would adhere to standards established by federal law, without having to negotiate with local governments. Gale Brewer led a resolution in opposition to video franchise reform that passed unanimously in City Council.
The Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) has vocal about its concern for the future of public access television. Habibah Ahmad represented MNN Youth Channel at the rally. “Low income people do not always have the means to go out and make media themselves,” she said, describing why the MNN program which trains local residents 25 and under in media production is so important. Low income youth and young adults who do not otherwise have access to video production resources would lose a major communication outlet. The community would also lose an important tool for promoting political awareness and civic involvement.
Proponents of COPE say the bill would increase competition between cable companies, while opponents fear that cable access will be inequitable. Betty Yu, from MNN Community Outreach, opposed the ability of providers, under COPE, to “red-line communities,” and “cherry pick profitable areas to serve.” Mariela Rosario, Youth Channel outreach coordinator, echoed the concerns expressed by others in the rally that socioeconomics could become a determining factor in media access.
Local franchises require cable companies to provide service to the community equally, but if cable companies no longer have to answer to local law, they may extend service to high income areas while neglecting low income areas. While increased competition may drive prices down for wealthier consumers, many feared it would not benefit a less targeted, lower income market.
Common Cause reported that telecoms have spent half a billion dollars to push legislation through Congress, and protesters called out corporations like Verizon for what they see as misleading lobbying practices, such as the use of astroturf groups, or non-profit groups set up by corporations to promote specific legislation.
Verizon’s alleged involvement in the NSA spying scandal was also criticized. NYCLU representative Udi Ofer suggested that the attacks on the World Trade Center, which once stood just down the street from the protest, were used by the Executive Office to justify domestic surveillance, which, as he put it, “Flies in the face of the 4th Amendment’s protection.”
Verizon spokesperson Heather Wilner communicated Verizon’s position that the COPE bill did not actually conflict with the demands of demonstrators. Said Wilner, “The COPE bill provides for all the things they’re looking for.” For example, cable companies would still have to pay franchise fees and provide PEG access.
National Day of Out(R)age events were also held in Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco.
Much of the protest was organized around opposition to H.R.5252 or the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Bill and S.2686 which, among other things, threaten the free flow of information over the Internet. The legislation could open the door for telecommunication companies to create a tiered Internet by charging individuals, groups, and corporations a fee in exchange for providing easy access to their information online. This would stifle the ability of non-corporate organizations to relay information over the Internet.
The legislation not only compromises net neutrality, but threatens local video franchising. Cable companies are required to pay local franchise fees in exchange for permission to run cables through public streets. COPE makes it easier for telephone companies like Verizon to enter the cable market by allowing them to obtain national instead of local franchises. Companies would still have to pay franchise fees and provide Public, Educational, Governmental (PEG) access, but would adhere to standards established by federal law, without having to negotiate with local governments. Gale Brewer led a resolution in opposition to video franchise reform that passed unanimously in City Council.
The Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) has vocal about its concern for the future of public access television. Habibah Ahmad represented MNN Youth Channel at the rally. “Low income people do not always have the means to go out and make media themselves,” she said, describing why the MNN program which trains local residents 25 and under in media production is so important. Low income youth and young adults who do not otherwise have access to video production resources would lose a major communication outlet. The community would also lose an important tool for promoting political awareness and civic involvement.
Proponents of COPE say the bill would increase competition between cable companies, while opponents fear that cable access will be inequitable. Betty Yu, from MNN Community Outreach, opposed the ability of providers, under COPE, to “red-line communities,” and “cherry pick profitable areas to serve.” Mariela Rosario, Youth Channel outreach coordinator, echoed the concerns expressed by others in the rally that socioeconomics could become a determining factor in media access.
Local franchises require cable companies to provide service to the community equally, but if cable companies no longer have to answer to local law, they may extend service to high income areas while neglecting low income areas. While increased competition may drive prices down for wealthier consumers, many feared it would not benefit a less targeted, lower income market.
Common Cause reported that telecoms have spent half a billion dollars to push legislation through Congress, and protesters called out corporations like Verizon for what they see as misleading lobbying practices, such as the use of astroturf groups, or non-profit groups set up by corporations to promote specific legislation.
Verizon’s alleged involvement in the NSA spying scandal was also criticized. NYCLU representative Udi Ofer suggested that the attacks on the World Trade Center, which once stood just down the street from the protest, were used by the Executive Office to justify domestic surveillance, which, as he put it, “Flies in the face of the 4th Amendment’s protection.”
Verizon spokesperson Heather Wilner communicated Verizon’s position that the COPE bill did not actually conflict with the demands of demonstrators. Said Wilner, “The COPE bill provides for all the things they’re looking for.” For example, cable companies would still have to pay franchise fees and provide PEG access.
Add your comments