10:52am June 2, 2014

Attaching Trayvon Martin to Net Neutrality: Inaccurate and Inappropriate






By Daryl Bassett, former Utility Commissioner, Arkansas Public Service Commission

I’ve spent over twenty years convening diverse groups of people and organizations around the causes that can help improve our society.  Success in bringing about social change relies not only on passion for seeing a more equitable and just world, but relies also on accuracy of the information exchanged between myself and the groups I bring together.  From accuracy flows the transparency, credibility, and trust that form the bedrock of relationships going forward.  It also goes a long way in presenting an image to the public that the coalition you build is one that should be taken seriously; a coalition that is empowered and can help infuse empowerment.

That is why I am, to put it lightly, befuddled by an article published in April on the website Fusion.net that argues if the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rules to allow broadband providers to charge content providers for providing  faster lanes for their content were in place at the time of Trayvon Martin’s death, his story would not have been catapulted to national view.

First, let’s look at what we know of the proposed rules.  The proposed rules have three main components.

The first component is an anti-blocking provision that basically prohibits an Internet service provider (ISP)from preventing  a consumer from accessing legal content from any website.  So whether you want to visit the website of either The New York Times or General Motors, you will be able to reach either site.

The second component is closely related to the first.  Your ISP, say Charter Communications, cannot discriminate among the content flowing from The New York Times or General Motors.  They would have to treat them equally when it comes to their speed of traffic.  In other words, the ISP could not throttle the download speeds of either content provider.

The first two components are not controversial.  Internet access providers have been adhering to these principles since consumers had commercial access to the Internet.  It’s simply not good business to block consumer access to websites or arbitrarily choose which website would be the content provider of the day.  Consumers would think twice about adopting broadband and the value of the network to investors would decrease.

However, the third component of the proposed rules is the source of the controversy.  This component allows content providers and ISP’s to enter an arrangement where, for a fee, the ISP opens up a faster lane for the content provider.  For a company like Netflix which now accounts for 31% of traffic flowing through the Internet, the extra lane goes a long way to ensuring consumers get a quality of video experience.  Nothing is wrong with that.  What is wrong, however, is implying that this type of arrangement would prevent us from getting important issues in front of national media.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In fact, I would argue the opposite.

The anti-blocking and anti-discrimination principles already in place when Trayvon Martin was killed ensured that websites and blogs kept the passing of Mr. Martin in the community’s consciousness.  Access to these blogs and websites were not blocked by ISPs.  No amount of web speed, however, would have garnered his story national media attention.  It was the tenacity of his family and their legal team that got him the media attention he deserved.

Allowing arrangements where a content provider pays an ISP to open another lane would have had no impact on smaller websites and blogs addressing Mr. Martin’s death.  Under theproposed rule a content provider entering such an arrangement with an ISP would receive a faster lane for its traffic to travel on.  The speeds at which other smaller providers are sending their data would not change.

Lastly, tying Trayvon Martin’s death to a discussion on net neutrality was inappropriate.  There is no passion in the argument because the premise is false.  It reeks of desperation.  It would be one thing to argue, and justifiably so, that the lack of national media attention to the shooting was in part due to a lack of diversity in national media.  If we owned more media outlets maybe the results would have been different.  But to say that the lack of national media coverage would have been severely eroded by a policy that allows Netflix greater bandwidth to send videos is a stretch, a big stretch.

If we are to maintain credible and influential voices in any policy debate, our arguments should be rational and factual minus the desperate reach for the emotional.

About the Author

Guest Contributor
Guest Contributor



The Value of Internet Equity Gets Lost in the Net Neutrality Debate

“People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs.”  ~Carl...
by Kristal High


Legislators, Civil Rights Leaders Remain Front and Center in Tech/Telecom Space

In 1995, digital inequality based on race, gender, income and geography captured the nation’s attention:  the “digital divide.”  Over the next two decades, legislators of color and civil rights organizations have been f...
by Kristal High


National Minority Organizations Urge Renewed Focus on Broadband Adoption Amid Net Neutrality Debate

Forty-two national minority organizations representing diverse, multicultural communities filed comments in the Federal Communications Commission’s open Internet proceeding focused on protecting some of the country’s most v...
by Kristal High



Free Press, Public Knowledge Exposé Echoes Dangerous Trend for Undermining Credibility

At a time when people are increasingly skeptical of whose interests are really being represented by public advocacy groups, and various civic and social associations, “follow the money trail” analysis has become a more perv...
by Kristal High


Members of Congress Share Title II Concerns with FCC Chairman

As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Chairman Thomas Wheeler mull over the best way to re-implement “net neutrality” rules, the possibility of “Title II” reclassification has come up often.  To many, incl...
by Politic365 Staff



  1. Carmen

    Well said. It’s totally inappropriate to try to capitalize on Trayvon’s memory to advance net neutrality arguments. Not cool.

  2. The problem has been the focus on irrelevant arguments – some of which are actually unsupported by the evidence.

    1. ‘George Zimmerman (GZ) racially profiled Trayvon Martin (TM)’ There is no evidence of this.

    2. ‘GZ disobeyed an order by the police’ * The civilian dispatcher, Sean Noffke, testified that he did not give GZ an order and, in fact, he, like his fellow dispatchers, are trained not make comments that sound like commands. * Noffke also testified under cross that, as a result of his asking GZ which way TM was going, GZ could have reasonably interpreted this as being asked to follow Martin. * It is also not a crime in Florida to disregard a comment made by a civilian dispatcher.

    3. ‘GZ got out of his car’ Not a crime on public property and not negligent either.

    4. ‘GZ followed TM’ Again, anyone can follow anyone on a public street unless the followee has obtained a restraining order against the follower and even there, the RS only places time, place, and manner restrictions on the person enjoined.

    5. ‘GZ wasn’t really injured’ * Under Florida’s self-defense laws, one doesn’t have to be injured AT ALL to use deadly force * No one is required to refrain from defending himself while another is engaged in or attempting to commit a felony.

    6. ‘TM is dead through no fault of his own’ * If you believe that TM assaulted GZ, then he IS dead as a result of his own actions.

    7. ‘GZ could have left’ * Under Florida law, there is not a duty to withdraw rather than use deadly force * TM was straddling GZ so how the latter was supposed to leave the scene is unanswered.

    8. ‘GZ was armed and TM wasn’t’ * One’s fists can be considered weapons and can result in severe bodily harm or death. * GZ was legally carrying a weapon * There is no requirement under the law that the same weapon be used by the assailant * A homeowner can kill an intruder whether or not he has been threatened * Those that attack cannot feign surprise if they are met with superior firepower.

    9. ‘Stand Your Ground!’ * SYG is NOT at issue in this trial. * The defense is a classic self-defense case.

    10. ‘Black men NEVER get to use SYG!’ * Wrong http://tinyurl.com/nboht35

    11. ‘GZ is a man and TM was a boy!’ * As if ‘boys’ don’t commit murder, rape, and assault everyday in this country.

  3. The game is harder to bluff since you are capable
    to watch the eyes in the other players since the communal cards are
    exposed. For example, I know a great number of men and women who feel that it’s actually a parent’s responsibility,
    or expectation, that they can should spend on their children’s college
    Futures contract trade with a wide selection of Treasury security maturities.
    So permit’s fall behind the slippery gross sales discuss
    and also choose a please take a look at this method.

    Money management is really the engine that drives this vehicle so
    understanding how much you’ve to bet and what you have left to
    bet is fundamental for this venture. Always be sure you change
    your bet during a session so that it accompanies your performance inside the game.

  4. It’s amazing designed for me to have a web page, which is useful in support of my
    knowledge. thanks admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>