http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/business/obamas-net-neutrality-bid-divides-civil-rights-groups.html 2014-12-08 00:40:52 Obama’s Net Neutrality Bid Divides Civil Rights Groups The President’s vision for regulation of the Internet has met with opposition from the N.A.A.C.P., the National Urban League and the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, among others. === WASHINGTON — When President Obama A few days later, however, the Their displeasure should not be read as a sign that most civil rights organizations were unhappy with Mr. Obama’s plan, however. When it comes to the details of Internet regulation, groups that otherwise have much common ground simply don’t see eye to eye. ColorofChange.org “The civil rights community is like every sector anywhere. While from the outside it seems like a monolith, it is not,” said Cheryl A. Leanza, a policy adviser for the The debate is but one slice of a huge campaign to lobby the five F.C.C. commissioners as they weigh Since 2002, broadband has been classified as a Title I information service under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, meaning that the F.C.C. lightly regulates it. Title II services include “common carriers” like telephone companies, whose rates the F.C.C. can regulate and whose business plans often require the commission’s approval. In May, President Obama urged the F.C.C. to reclassify broadband as a Title II service, which would generally give the commission the authority to prohibit broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against legal online content. In the four weeks since Mr. Obama’s move, over 100 companies, industry groups and coalitions have met with commissioners and their staffs. At least 67 of those groups have met with Mr. Wheeler himself — nearly four a day, on average. Included in those meetings have been civil rights groups with surprisingly divergent views. The unusual alignments can also be seen in urban governments. The cities of Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco sent representatives to meet with Mr. Wheeler’s advisers to say they agreed with tight regulation, but that view is opposed by the “I think we’re all on board with the values embedded in what President Obama said, things like accelerating broadband deployment and adoption,” said Nicol Turner-Lee, vice president of the Some of the groups that oppose Title II designation, like the Urban League and the League of United Latin American Citizens, have But those organizations say that the donations or sponsorships do not influence their positions. “We get support from people on all sides of the issue, including Google and Facebook,” said Brent A. Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens. “We don’t let any of them influence our position.” Several of those favoring Title II, meanwhile, have received funding from organizations affiliated with companies that support stronger regulation. The National Hispanic Media Coalition conducts events that are sponsored in part by companies like Google and Facebook. A trade organization sponsored by those and other Internet companies, the Jessica Gonzalez, executive vice president of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, said her organization also received support from Comcast for some of its programs. “There is a clear separation between our policy work and who funds us,” she said. One of the primary disagreements among the civil rights groups is over a practice known as “zero rating,” in which an Internet service provider makes a deal with a content provider like Facebook or Spotify to allow consumers unlimited access to that service without its counting against a cap on data usage. Because zero-rating plans are most common among mobile broadband providers, those plans could particularly affect minority communities, Ms. Turner-Lee said, which are more likely to depend on mobile systems for Internet access. It is not entirely clear how Mr. Obama’s plan would affect zero-rated apps. “The relevant question is whether there is something to be said about zero-rating plans and the ways that they can be used to further Internet adoption,” Ms. Turner-Lee said, adding that her group had not yet taken a stance. But critics say that zero-rating programs are just a form of paid prioritization that could further entrench companies like Facebook that have the financial muscle to pay for the privilege. According to the The alignment of civil rights groups both for and against Mr. Obama’s recommendation for net-neutrality enforcement is not the only oddity in this debate. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the F.C.C. acted within the law when it classified cable broadband as a lightly regulated information service. Writing a stinging dissent to that decision — that is, saying that broadband was obviously more like a utility — was an otherwise frequent nemesis of Democrats: Justice Antonin Scalia.