 First of all, I wanted to thank you for braving this weather here. I would much rather have horrible rains than earthquakes and whatever else we've been hit with this summer here in D.C. But thank you for coming out here. We are nearing standing room only, which is a great sign of the import of this issue here in D.C. I want to welcome you to the New America Foundation. My name is Sasha Meinrath. I direct the Open Technology Initiative, which is sort of the tech and telecom arm of the Foundation's work here. And part of our mission is really to promote universal, affordable, ubiquitous communications. And part of that is that we're really committed to maximizing a lot of the uses of open technologies, particularly for poor, rural, and other underserved constituencies. And so I find this work, a lot of the folks here in this room are engaged in, is fundamentally important and, in essence, mission critical to the work of the Open Technology Initiative. And I've worked, I've had the pleasure to work with a number of the people here today for years. And I would say that the announcement today of the launch of Black Voices for Internet Freedom is a huge step forward, one that I'm exceedingly happy to hear about. But before I turn things over to Joe and to Chance, I kind of want to touch for a moment sort of the third rail and talk a little bit about what I'll call the racial-industrial complex that's developing here in D.C. And leaves me feeling incredibly worried for the future of a lot of these issues. It's established fact that a lot of the groups that have long championed the cause of minorities in the United States are taking millions of dollars from mega corporations. And at the same time, these organizations have often placed telco representatives on their boards, policy advisory committees, and other key decision-making bodies. And the impact of these collaborations has really been, again, well-established. The same groups have become increasingly active working in the interests of these telecom incumbents in proceedings here in Washington, D.C. And in return for these millions of dollars in funding, they're expected to support the positions of these telcos and threaten with the loss of funding if they don't toe this line. And I'd say this is perhaps best exemplified. You don't have to take my word for it. You have Comcast VP Steve Kipp telling Real Girls when they tweeted their concern about FCC Commissioner Baker taking a job with Comcast, who she had just voted to allow to merge with NBCUniversal, this is his quote, even the fact that Comcast has been a major supporter of Real Girls for several years now, I am frankly shocked that your organization is slamming us on Twitter. I cannot, in good conscience, continue to provide you with funding, especially when there are so many other deserving nonprofits in town. Now, personally, I'm shocked by the behavior of Comcast in this, but the real question to me is why is Comcast shocked that somebody might have an independent voice on an issue that is clearly of import to the members of Real Girls? This explicit quid pro quo has, I believe, undermined a lot of the independence of many, too many, civil rights groups in this area of telecommunications policy. And this crisis is exactly why groups like Latinos for Internet Freedom, Black Voices for Internet Freedom are so incredibly important here today. So to dive more deeply into these issues, we have a group of what I would call true visionaries, leaders who have worked across DC and across the entire country to ensure that decision makers here from people of color who are free from this taint of this racial-industrial complex that's gone completely out of control. So I'm going to turn it over now to Joe and to Chance with a heartfelt thank you and the reason why we support all this work, because it is this tireless work that's helping to change that MO and to hold people accountable and to provide, I would say, a positive alternative. And the true voices of Internet Freedom, the true voices of the communities that have been so unfortunately underserved in the community, in the world today, I think are very much represented here in this room right now. So thank you, and I'll turn it over to Chance to continue. Well, welcome, everyone, and thank you so much to Sasha and to the New America Foundation for hosting us here today. And thanks to all of you for joining us and to everyone out there online who's watching. My name is Chance Williams, and I work for Free Press. We are a national nonprofit organization, and we're dedicated to universal affordable open access to communication and media. And I'm proud to be a part of Black Voices for Internet Freedom. So today's Digital Town Hall marks the launch of Black Voices for Internet Freedom, and it's a celebration of our sister or initiative Latinos for Internet Freedom. You can find us online. We're at blacknetfreedom.org and latinonetlibre.com. And if you're tweeting, it's hashtag netfreedom. So Black Voices for Internet Freedom is a coalition of local, regional, and national Black organizations, leaders, and their allies. And we've joined together to make sure that the Internet remains open and free from discrimination. And what you'll experience today is really the culmination of a conversation that kicked off about a year ago, when a number of us decided that it was time for people to hear our unique perspective on Internet Freedom and what it means to the Black community in every aspect of our lives. And in doing so, we were definitely inspired by Latinos for Internet Freedom. We're happy that we can all be here together today. We're happy to stand in solidarity with one another at all times, and we are a community. So to get things started, we thought it was critically important to have historical perspective on the modern fight for Internet Freedom and how it connects to some of the struggles that communities of color have been through in having a voice in print and broadcast media in the past. And we decided to go to the person that we always go to for perspective on these issues. Joe Torres, as many of you know, you probably know him as a senior advisor on government and external affairs at Free Press. He's also a part of Latinos for Internet Freedom. But what you might not know is that he's an author. And for a while now, Joe has been working away with Juan Gonzalez on a book that will be released next month called News for All the People, The Epic Story of Race and the American Media. And I'm so excited to read this book, and I'm very excited that Joe is here today to give us some remarks and give us a little bit of a preview of what we'll hear there. Hello, Joe. Good afternoon. If there were enough of our boys and Boy Scouts interested in wireless, they could erect a wireless station at the park. Let us try and get together and form an up-to-date radio club in our city. I'll be more than pleased to help. This was the message that Roland Carrington sent to African American Boy Scout troops, which was published in the newspaper, The African American. Carrington wasn't talking about smartphones or cell phones. He was talking about radio. The year was 1917. It was a full decade before Congress created the Federal Radio Commission, which gave the government the power for the first time to regulate radio. It was before big corporations would come to understand the commercial potential of radio and seize control of the industry. Just like the development of the Internet, amateurs played a key role in developing radio. And from the get-go, African Americans and Latinos will very much embrace this new medium. Radio clubs in African American communities across the country were formed over the next decade, like the Woodland Radio Association in Chicago, the Bannaker Radio Club in Baltimore. In San Antonio, John C. Rodriguez received a license to operate an amateur radio station in 1916. But by 1922, he launched a second commercial radio station in San Antonio. What's extraordinary about this is that history has generally credited a man, credited a man named Raul Cortez, who will be in the first person of color to own a broadcast station in 1946. But Rodriguez seemed to have bested him by 24 years. What I'm trying to say is that people of color have always embraced media. The first Spanish-language newspaper was published in 1808, the first African American newspaper in 1827, Freedom's Journal. And the Native American first paper was in 1828. So how could it be that people of color would shut out from owning any broadcast stations for decades after the federal government began regulating radio for the first time in 1927? And how can it be that the first series effort to bolster minority ownership did not occur until the 1970s? And why do people of color today own so few broadcast stations when we make up close to 40% of the population? To understand this question is to understand that there is nothing new about the fight for a just media system. It is why we are here today to celebrate the launching of Black Voices for Internet Freedom. Because throughout history, whenever technology emerges, it fundamentally changes the existing media system, leading to the creation of new industries such as the telegraph, radio, TV, cable, and now the Internet. But whenever this happens, our government is faced with a critical decision. Does it regulate the new emerging industry to allow for the greatest number of voices to participate? Or does it turn over control to the hands of a few? Historically, the government has chosen to centralize control of media in the hands of a few, which has historically harmed communities of color. It has prevented people of color from owning media outlets, placing a handful of gatekeepers in control of whose voices have the right to speak and whose voices have the right to be heard. It cements a white racial narrative since our communities have so little control over how we are depicted in the media. Because when others tell our stories, they often get it wrong, which causes us great harm. This is why it's critical that we learn from the past to understand what is happening today. In 1927, when the Federal Radio Commission regulated it at Airways for the first time, it turned over control of the most desirable stations to NBC and CBS. Non-commercial stations were pushed off the dial, and not a single person of color owned a commercial outlet. The most popular program on the air was Amos and Andy, a blackface minstrel show that aired on NBC. Half of our nation's radio audience tuned in every night to listen to white actors portraying African Americans as simple minded platoons. In 1931, Robert Van, publisher of the Pittsburgh Courier, one of the largest African American papers in the country, became so offended by the program that he launched a campaign to get the show off the air. The Courier started a petition drive that called on the Federal Radio Commission to hold the hearing to determine whether Amos and Andy should be kicked off the dial. The paper collected more than 740,000 petitions from readers across the country, an amazing figure, considering when there were only 10 million African Americans living in the nation. The campaign by the Courier was perhaps the first black led nationwide movement to challenge racial bigotry in America's mass media. But for the FRC, the FRC simply dismissed the petitioners. A hearing was never held. This is why we need black voices for internet freedom and Latino voices for internet freedom to make sure our voices of everyday people in our community are heard and cannot be dismissed by the FCC Congress or the Obama Administration. We have to provide to prevent history from repeating itself and prevent government from allowing AT&T and Comcast and Verizon to orchestrate a corporate takeover of the internet. We need a decentralized open communications network that allows the greatest number of voices, our voices, to participate. We need to be able to tell our own stories. What many of Latinos have been able to take to the streets in 2006 to fight for a just immigration system without an open internet. What we have heard of the extraordinary efforts to prevent the execution of Troy Davis without an open internet. So welcome black voices internet freedom to the struggle and thank you for starting a new chapter in the community's long history of fighting for a just media system. Thank you. Thank you Joe. We definitely went to the right person to frame this conversation. Right now I'd like to invite our panelists up to join us. So if you all can come up to the stage. Just really quickly to let you all know who's with us. We've got Amalia Deloni from the Center for Media Justice who is also a research fellow here at the Open Technology Initiative. Jessica Gonzalez from the National Hispanic Media Coalition. Reverend James Patterson from the partnership of African American churches and Alondria Williams from the Highlander Research and Education Center. So while everyone's getting settled in, I just want to let you know that you're going to be part of what's going to feel like a very different policy conversation than you might be used to inside the Beltway. What you're what you're going to hear our conversations that are like the ones that we have with our families. The ones that we have with our communities outside of Washington. They're going to be a lot like the conversations that we have with each other as people of color who are advocates for media reform and media justice. We know that better media is not an end unto itself, but it's a means to achieve a more just society. So the folks on this panel are social justice and civil rights leaders who are grounded in their communities and are also experts on the challenges that they face when it comes to Internet access and why an open Internet is essential to their success. These are folks that recognize that communications and technology impact our ability to address disparities that exist for communities of color. Telecom companies often try to tell us what we need and what's best for our communities, but today we're going to set the record straight. And hopefully folks who make decisions that ultimately impact our communities will start listening to us more carefully. So let's just get started by letting everyone introduce your organization and talk a little bit about the work that you do. Let's start with you, Amalia. So my name is Amalia, like Chance said, and thank you so much for everybody being here. It really is a packed room and more importantly I know there's hundreds of people watching online. So a big shout out to all the Magnet folks. I work at the Center for Media Justice. We're an intermediary national organization based in Oakland. We have staff in New York. We have staff in Chicago where I'm based. And we work across the country really with communication strategy and media policy to end racism and eliminate violence or eliminate, sorry, eliminate poverty. So for us, this whole conversation about net freedom, whether it's through black voices or Latino voices is really about changing the material conditions in the communities that people live with every day. This is not a question or a conversation for us. It's just about bits or bites, throttle or torrent. This is about access to quality education. This is about fair housing, quality housing. This is about full employment. This is about keeping and growing jobs in our communities. And this is about making sure that we have the 21st century education we need. Jessica. So I work for the National Hispanic Media Coalition. We're 25 years old and we're based in Los Angeles, but we're a national organization. And we were founded out of a concern back in the 80s in a town that was over 40% Latino. There were no Latino anchors telling the news stories and the only coverage of Latinos was a crime blotter. So that's where we come from. Today, we continue to do our work to improve the image of Latinos in the media, to increase employment opportunities for Latinos in the media and telecom industries, and to advocate for policies like the ones we're going to talk about today that benefit Latinos and other people of color. My name is James Patterson and I represent an organization called the Partnership of African American Churches. It is located, our offices are in Institute, West Virginia, but the partnership is scattered around the state. And the reason we exist is because of what I like to call disparities in the demographics of the state. Our state has 3.2% African American and then any other groups would be less than one half of a percent. So needless to say, voice to issues of concern for us were not being heard. So we called on the biggest resource that we had at the time, which was African American Church, and we got together and formed a nonprofit organization. So at this point, we deal with issues and programming around health, education, substance abuse. And a couple of years ago, our state happened to get $126 million in stimulus funds. There was a takeover of our landlines by frontier communications. And so at that point, there were like $500 million at least on the table that was going toward broadband. And there wasn't anything being said about the African American community about other communities of color. So we jumped into the whole broadband issue so far. Two, three years now we've been working on that issue. Elandria. Hi, my name is Elandria Williams and I'm here with the Highlander Research and Education Center. We're a 79-year-old center that's located in New Markets, Tennessee. But we serve at 13 states of the South and Appalachia, where my amazing friend here happens to be located. We're here in many ways because the South and Appalachia is underrepresented at the table. They're underrepresented in D.C. and they're not even thought about when it comes to conversations. Normally we're really good at coastal, we're good in New York, we're good at California, but we're not so good at the middle part of the country. And what you hear about the South and Appalachia often is not anything progressive. People think the Tea Party, people think everything against what Internet freedom stands for. And in many ways we're here to say all of us do not feel that way. A lot of us actually believe in these values, we believe in these fights and we need it for our communities. And that we also believe that you can have political democracy with that economic democracy and without racial justice. And if we don't have all of those then we will not have the country we need and the world that we need. All right. So thank you everyone. And I'm just going to, you know, we'll eventually get to a point where we can have some questions for the audience. So definitely hold on to those because we'll be calling on you. But right now I just want to start with a few questions that I have. And I want this to feel like a conversation. You know, I encourage you all to respond to one another and build on what's going on here. But Reverend Patterson, we've, you know, we've talked about Internet freedom. And I was just wondering if you could give us your thoughts on what the true meaning of that is and why you think it's so important for the black community, especially folks from outside the Beltway, to be part of the conversations that we're having around these issues. Well, I thought about it and I don't think we ought to be able to say Internet without we put a word in front of it, such as gigantic or permanent or necessary because the Internet represents in my thinking a paradigm shift. And we all know that because we're familiar with it in this room in terms of how basic society functions and it's never going to go back to what it used to be. So that when you talk about freedom to me, you're asking, does that basic paradigm shift impact me positively the same way it does every other group or does it impact me more negatively than it does any other group? If it was true freedom, then I would be impacted to the same degree by this new paradigm shift that everyone else is. Now, now, now, now, I looked on Google's website, one of their websites, and what they said was that Internet freedom was an open and a free platform for communications, for information, and for innovation. So the question I have to ask people of color is, is the Internet free to you? Is it open to you? Can you access it to the same degree that everyone else can? So if it was truly free, I'll be able to walk in any store, any carry, and buy this handy-dandy iPhone. I wouldn't have to give them $500 to one of my grandkids. I could get a chip to put in. I could get a chip to put in it, and I could use whatever carry that I wanted. When I got the bill, I wouldn't fall over and have a heart attack. Somebody would have to come and unhunt me with all. And I could keep the same number. But the real thing to me, in terms of freedom, is that how easy is it for me to participate? If something is free, I don't have to fight like the devil to participate. And that's not where we are when it comes to people of color. And this paradigm shift and this new technology that we have. So if I had to say on a scale of 1 to 10, is there true internet freedom, am I free to participate in this necessary vehicle technology that's great? I would have to say on a scale of 1 to 10 probably, about four or five. Right. I wanted to ask you, Amalia, especially because you've been there from the very beginning. As we got this Black Voices thing going, we definitely learned from Latinos for internet freedom. And there's kind of a timeline there and a trajectory of how all of this started. And I wonder if you could share some of that story. Sure. Well, I'd invite people to go to the website because there really is a remarkable timeline. It's latinonetlibre.com. And you can sort of see what we've done over the course of a year. And it's a range of things. There's political education. There's comments that we filed with the FCC. There's delegation visits that we've done with elected officials, both in our home communities and here in D.C. But I think the most important thing that we've done is we've asked the questions that no one else has asked. And we're pushing back and we're really fighting to make sure that our stories are being told and that the information that our communities need to thrive and to maintain our health and well-being are being answered. And one of the big questions that we have kept at the forefront and continue to keep at the forefront is what's going on with the AT&T T-Mobile merger. And the questions that we want to know is what is happening right now when AT&T is spending billions of dollars to put out an advertising campaign saying the jobs are being created all across the country, when in fact that money could be used to create real jobs rather than just an ad campaign. That's the kind of stuff that we want to talk about. We want to talk about what does it look like in Minnesota? That's the state where I'm from. When 31 T-Mobile centers are going to close potentially across the state, what happens to all of those families who can now no longer afford rent and heat and electricity? What happens when there's no other jobs for them to transition into because they haven't gotten the quality education they need for this new sort of digitized economy that we're talking about? What happens to all of the people of color, Latinos and blacks who tried to participate in stopping Troy Davis' execution? What happens when you can't actually regulate your status for immigration online because you're simply priced out of the market and at the same time you're being sold a story that says jobs are coming your way? Well, I like some of those questions. So do I? So I think we should address some of them. And I think just that reaction from the entire panel, you know, I think that is the 800-pound gorilla in the room is this AT&T T-Mobile merger. There have been a number of promises made, but I know in my community when somebody says merger and then out of the other side of their mouth they say it will create jobs, you would get laughed out of the room. Oh, of course. You don't have that conversation anywhere else except for Washington, D.C. and it's crazy. So I'm wondering what all of you think about that question? Well, I'm happy to lead off on this. You know, I think the AT&T T-Mobile merger would be a disaster. It is a T-Mobile disaster. For communities of color in particular, but really for everyone. You know, it's really funny because AT&T is telling a certain sort of story here inside the Beltway and that story is we're going to create jobs. We're going to, this is going to make us so efficient that your prices are going to go down. That's coming out one side of the mouth, but on the other side where they're talking to their shareholders, they're telling them about how they're going to increase the revenue of T-Mobile customers, how they're going to consolidate billing systems, consolidate retail stores, all code word for shutting things down, laying people off. And this is very concerning I think for all of us, but in particular for us at National Hispanic Media Coalition, we've seen in the last decade both AT&T and T-Mobile recruiting from our community because they want to get to this new big 16% of the country market, the Latinos. And so all those folks in the retail stores and the billing systems that are there, so they can recruit new customers, those are the folks that are going to be first to go. And so we don't want to see those job losses and we don't believe for a second that prices are going to somehow go down when they are going to have less competition and two companies are going to control 80% of the market. I think it's impossible important. I mean my sister-in-law, my brother, so many of my family members use T-Mobile prepaid service because they can't afford the contracts or they've had contracts. They're like, I can't afford the $300 phone thing, so now I have to move a little switcheroo and get a prepaid for a minute until I can pay the bill off. And so I think to get rid of one of the last remaining prepaid phone services would be horrible and astronomical for poor communities and Latino and black communities. It would just be huge because that is the one way that most people can access the internet and access cell phone service. And even though you know that the fees are way too high and that you're spending money randomly on things you don't need, it still is the one way that you're able to connect. And that's really essential. And if I could just add, because you reminded me of something that I didn't say, 50% of T-Mobile customers are people of color and there's a reason, right, because they're the most affordable national provider. And I would like to add that just because you don't have T-Mobile in your area, it doesn't mean that you don't need to be a part of this fight because we don't have a great T-Mobile presence in West Virginia. But AT&T pulled out the stops to try to get us to support their merger in what they were doing. So I would say to you to be aware, even if you don't have T-Mobile in your area. And Jessica, this might be a question for you, but I think for everyone else, this merger is going to cost AT&T $39 billion. And then we see that this is talking out of both sides of your mouth again. This notion that they could actually expand coverage to actually bring service to our communities for an investment of $3.8 billion. Can you kind of break that down and tell us what's real? Well, it was really sort of interesting what happened because we keep hearing these guys are going to pay $39 billion to take over AT&T. And then a few months ago, some lawyers and some lobbyists made a mistake and these documents started leaking. And we find out, in fact, that to do this buildout that supposedly they were going to pay $39 billion to compensate for to get T-Mobile, this same buildout, what I mean by buildout is expanding their wireless network to cover more people and to cover them better would only cost $3.8 billion. So why then spend $39 billion to do something you can do for $3.8 billion unless it's to eliminate a competitor from the market? It just doesn't make any sense. And even I think beyond that, we've had the Department of Justice weigh in on this merger and say that it's absolutely anti-competitive and that removing T-Mobile from the national marketplace would be detrimental, that there's no way around really damaging competition as long as one of the four national carriers is gone. And Amalia, I wonder if you could just kind of talk about what that validation means to hear the Department of Justice really weigh in in a way that was sort of validating everything that so many of us have been saying for so long. Yeah, I think you're right. The Department of Justice absolutely did the right thing and we need them to hold the line and we also need the FCC to follow suit and also block the merger. And I think the important thing to know is that the Department of Justice moved based on antitrust violation analysis and the legal due diligence that they need to do. And the facts were really clear. It wasn't a hard decision for them to make because the facts were so clear and this is the only decision they could reach. But I think what's also important to know, sometimes when you live outside of D.C. or you're in your own community, you hear DOJ and it just kind of conjures up scary thoughts of law enforcement to be honest, but I think this is one of those moments where we needed a body to do the right thing and really protect the public interest. I also think it's important to know that average everyday people all across the country understood that the DOJ had one decision to make and it was clear. And so through Latinos for Internet Freedom, through the Media Action Grassroots Network and really in partnership with many of the people at the table and in the audience, hundreds and hundreds of people wrote to the Department of Justice, sent letters, created a song called Mo Mergers, Mo Problems and basically laid it out and said, this is, you know, there's only one decision to make. There's only two to do this and it's in the public interest to do so. And I think that moment, that sort of demystifying or feeling like average people don't have something to say about their communication needs and their communication rights, like we really broke through that myth. Everybody cares about these issues. They talk about them in the same ways they talk about food and healthcare and housing and employment. We want access to good communication, quality communication and affordable communication. Anna Laundrie, I wonder if you can build on that because the Highlander Center does so many different types of work and that kind of overlay of what being able to access communications, how that helps and how that in many ways hinders your work when you don't have it. So I think it's important for us, especially because so many, we work across 13 states and so many people are rural and are in isolation or they're in small towns. And so the only way you can actually learn things across is you can't always be to get in your car and go down the street. Especially if it snows and you're in the mountains or if you just can't make it down the street, then you actually need internet to learn different things, right? And to have different people come across your life. One thing that, you know, for us is really important is that people don't remember. Prison beds are built based on third and fourth grade math and reading scores. Third and fourth grade math and reading scores. So that means if we are not building prisons in this country because of attitudes or because of anything you do, it's because of what you already know. So if you don't have access to information, you can't get good grades in school. If you can't learn things, then you're already tracked for jail. And then we have even more of a disparity. And for us it matters because there, I mean, right now there's a lady who works with me, whose daughter came home from school and she handed her grandmother a memory key and she said, my homework is on this. And her grandmother looked at her and said, what is that? And she said, it's a memory key. She said, and what are you supposed to do with this? And she said, it goes in the computer. She's like, there is no computer. So she's like, okay, well, I guess we're going to go to the library. Well, that is a 30-minute drive. By the time they got to the library, they had 20 minutes left. The printer was backed up because all these other people are also in the library trying to print off their homework. They come back, two kids have homework assignments, nobody else does. And that is a problem when we have an education system that's now saying that you have to also have access to the internet to write papers. You need it to do things, not in college. But we're talking at an elementary school level because this was primary in elementary school. And that's one way that the internet access, it's super, super important. Another way is we do a lot of environmental justice fights. And one is around mountaintop removal. And so I have to do education while I'm here, right? So people don't know what mountaintop removal is. Right now people are blowing up mountains in Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, West Virginia to get that cold. And so then all you have left is the little top parts of the mountain. And we ended up having a huge martier in which we got to meet with people from the EPA, which was a major. But we were able to communicate with each other using Twitter. To say, go here, this is happening. Go over there, this is happening. Without that, and if Twitter has shut that down, like they were doing the Troy Davis hashtag, then we wouldn't have had all those people come here from all over the south, all over Appalachia and the world to really talk about what do we need? How do we save our mountains? How do we save our streams? And so there's so many ways that access to internet cuts across every single issue, because it's no longer just the issue area. It's about how do you manage to do what you need to do in your life in the best way that you can live? It's about civil rights. It's about human rights. And it's about how all of us need to survive and be really successful, healthy people. And I do want to, I think we jumped really quickly right into that AT&T, T-Mobile merger without addressing, I think, a really key point. We're going to have network neutrality rules. And we know that those rules apply differently if you access the internet wirelessly through a wireless device. We also know that communities of color tend to rely on internet access through wireless devices more heavily than others. Most of the time, that's their only entry point to the internet. And so I wonder if you all could kind of take that and talk about what that means that we're sort of faced with in internet that is clearly going to be separate and unequal. I mean, I can kick it off by saying some of the statistics that we use to just really paint the picture, 18% of black, 16% of English-speaking only Latinos access the internet exclusively through their mobile devices. And we know also from a study that we did with the Social Science Research Council last year in several different cities across the country that people understand that internet is a, it's basically, it's one of their basic bills that if you talk to family members and apart from rent or a mortgage and food and clothing, they understand, particularly for their children that have the lives that they envision for their children, the potential or opportunity that they need to have internet access. And obviously people want it through a wired connection and a computer in the home, but most people can't afford that. And so people are accessing the internet through their mobile phones, many people exclusively. And I think that we have to remember, you know, you have to sort of paint the picture. We're talking about folks who are already in vulnerable and precarious situations. You know, these are people who are renting and are often moving a lot in their lives. So they can't keep a home phone line. They have to keep a mobile number. These are folks who are using a mobile phone to do multiple things, right? It's doing double duty. It's their communication tool and it's their internet access. They're dealing with all kinds of other stuff, police violence, racism, all of these different things. And now we're saying that this is the population, this entry point that we're giving you, we're actually not gonna protect you. I mean, the idea that that would be the least protected on-ramp is ludicrous to me because you're essentially saying to a vulnerable population, we'll take your money and we'll give you a tool, but we don't value enough to make sure, we don't value you as a people, you as a community enough to ensure that the experience you have, quite possibly the only online experience you have, is extra protected. And I would like to talk about taking a step back from that. There is an education component that needs to be done because there are people who don't know yet that they absolutely have to have this technology. Whether they would access it by a telephone or by a wire connection in the home. So I'm saying that as society, as this shift has been made, we have not taken the time, or telecoms or any other people have not taken the time to educate communities, particularly rural and people of color who don't yet understand that this is a technology, this is something that you absolutely have to have if you're gonna participate in many of the things that Elandria spoke of earlier. So we have to do that, and then we have to, I have to agree with Amalia. We have to make sure that we stand on point when it comes to cost, because these technologies are being cost and priced out of the reach of a lot of folks that I represent. And so I was saying on yesterday that my wife and I provided phone for my grandson. So our phone built together for the three phones is about $210 a month. And that doesn't even consider the wired connection that I have, that's another 30 or 40 bucks. That doesn't consider the telephone, the television hookup. And I said that I'm old enough to remember when the conversations around this Super Highway started. I'm not ancient, but I'm pretty old. And I remember when it started and how great this was going to be. This was explained to me that the Super Highway is coming and it's going to be great. Everybody's going to be connected around the world. No one told me it was going to cost me $300 per month to be connected. And no one told me that my daughter would not be able to afford to have it or to have it for her son. So then we would have to do that, which is not a problem. I know the importance of it. But what I'm saying in this room to us advocates, particularly people of color, we have to stand on point and say, look, this technology is so important and so critical until it has to be affordable. And we won't take no for an answer. Well, I think we have some work to do. I agree with what all of you have said. We have some work to do. I think all of us who are lucky enough to have both internet at home and internet on our phones know it's not the same. It's never been the same. We're not there yet. What the FCC has done in this order that was published today, we're all excited to dig in and start reading through all this dorky tech speak. What this does is it creates a different system for the phone and for our home internet. And so those of us who rely on our phones, here's another hurdle that we're going to have. Our phone already doesn't work as well. We can't fill out a job application on our phone. I can't go to FAFSA and apply for financial aid on my phone. And now I have a rule from the FCC that allows certain things to be blocked or degraded on my mobile device. And that's a problem. It's just creating a further division. And so folks who are relying on their mobile phones, we have work to do. All right. Well, with that, I do want to be sure we have time to take some questions from the audience or any comments based on what you all have heard. So yeah, you're sorry. I think it's an amazing conversation. I'm doing what they need to do. Thank you very much for doing that. My question is really a question of cost in terms of the overall technology of delivering internet service. And that is that we've seen sort of pushbacks on corporate hegemony and food production and any number of micro-industries that our communities rely on. I'm wondering if the cost of all of this, like getting an internet connection going online, being able to use the surf the internet to do that, is it possible for us to conceive of alternative ways to provide the service outside of the major national carriers and the corporate hegemony that is running the show right now? It's a good question. I think what's difficult about this particular industry is that the barriers to entry for alternatives are really high because you have to buy the radio waves so that you can actually let the mobile phones operate and there's a limited amount of those. You have to go through a whole licensing process through the FCC. There's like an auction where people go and bid and guess who wins those auctions? It's the folks who have the most money and so usually the people who win the auctions are AT&T and Verizon who already own everything. This is a little different in that there's a very scarce resource that we all are vying for. It's just not as easy to get our feet in the door. I think another problem or another issue is we've had this huge fight in the state of West Virginia about how $126 million is going to be used. Whether or not this smaller company wanted to get a grant, I think they wanted $30,000, to build what they called a middle mile and that would be like an interstate system of fiber across the state. Then as part of getting the money, any company that wanted to hook on to the middle mile, then to provide services for you or for me or for anyone else would be able to do so. The question is what would be the transportation cost? What would they charge this small carrier to hook on to the middle mile? So what ended up happening was the major corporation decided that they wanted to get the grant, which they did, and that they wanted to connect 1,064 different major sites in the state without running what this other company called the middle mile. So to make a long story short, the hindrance to what we're talking about in terms of community-owned networks and what have you, they are still yet to say what the transportation cost is going to be. For some instances it was as much as $10,000 per month. So if you're a small carrier out here and you want to provide internet services to me and my community and this huge corporation says, well, it's going to cost you $10,000 per month to hook on to our middle mile. So that becomes part of the process. And the other thing that I think is a hindrance is the move by major carriers to institute in states these laws that says that governments and communities cannot own and operate their own networks. So those I think are part of the battles that we have to fight on that front. I was just going to piggyback on some of the, it's not that there's a lack of innovation. I think I'd be remiss we're in New America Foundation's office and OTI is here. The wireless broadband network, the community-owned infrastructure and networks, municipal broadband networks that we see across the country but two great examples, Detroit and Philadelphia in particular, I think people are turning to and really learning a lot from. But I think at the same time, it's this question of any time, like Joe mentioned it in his intro remarks, innovation, creativity, cutting edge theory has always come out of our communities, right? And at the same time, what we're up against is legislation and a type of democracy that limits our participation, limits our full and effective participation. And I think exactly what Reverend Patterson is bringing up is that sense of democracy is working against us. We have a government that is forcing legislation and policymaking to a local level to actually prohibit us from bringing innovative, creative and more importantly self-determined and community-owned solutions to these issues. Thanks. And if there are other questions, be sure James gets the microphone to you. I have a question for Reverend Patterson. I thought you said at some point in your remarks that when we were talking about the merger that some groups had solicited your support for the merger, was that right? Yes. Could you describe that process? Well, the first thing I would have to say is we didn't have a clue. I mean, we were caught unaware of what was happening, not of what was happening. We were caught unaware of the kind of resources and the kind of strategies that would be behind this. So what happened was the company hired a person who used to be on the staff of one of our senators. So he came to the state and he got the governor to sign off on it. The president of the Senate, the speaker of the house, the attorney general, and then a national group of color. So then because we're the partnership of African-American churches, he sends this email that says, Reverend Patterson, we really want you to be a part of this. We really want you to support this. A, B, C, D, E, and F have already supported it. And you're going to look really stupid if you don't sign off. That was the just of the message. And I said, no, we're not ready to say that we agree with this and we support this at this point. And I thought that was the end of it. And in a couple more days, I get this other email. So it was constant, constant pressure to try to get, and I'll consider us a small organization. So I was questioning myself, why is this guy pushing so hard to get us to support this? And we never did. And we have a group in West Virginia that we call the user of suspects. And they're basically made up of progressively thanking people. And so some of those folks were supporting the merger. So then we were asked, would you write, because one group in particular wrote an op-ed piece and supported the merger, a group that we're 99% on the same page with most of the time. And so then the question was asked, well, will you all write an op-ed refuting the op-ed that they wrote? And I said, no, at this point, I don't want to be a part of that particular thing because our Public Service Commission had already voted to allow it to happen. And keep in mind, this is in a state where I'm pretty sure that T-Mobile doesn't have any resources. They don't have any employees. And so I was really struggling with why the pressure was on us so hard at that point. But that's how the process worked. It was a wonder and an amazement to stand back. And I think the learning point was to understand that if you're going up against this, you need to be prepared, you need to know the issue, and you need to have some resources behind you if indeed you're going to win this fight. So it was helpful in that regard. I wonder if any of the rest of you that are, especially from outside the Beltway, want to reflect on that. And I think what I hear there is something that's just very troubling in terms of this sort of constant creep of corporations and the way that they interact with our communities. I think we see it here in Washington, D.C., in the way that they spend money lobbying for the policies that they want to. But it seems to go much, much deeper than that. You know, I think it's a good entry point and it's a troubling conversation. And I also think that it's one that's not at all unique to the media policy world. You know, for many years I worked in Minnesota and in rural communities. And you know, whether it was the U.S. Army engaging in sponsorships of after-school activities or the Coca-Cola Foundation sponsoring young people's programs or McDonald's sponsoring the like Get Fit programs. You know, this is a private online conversation, right? So we can talk about these things. You know, this idea that somehow the social safety net has been rolled back and at the same time what has kind of swarmed in to take the place of corporate dollars is troubling, right? And it's troubling because it's not that the money isn't needed for important work, right? Like, we're not dumb enough as communities to not understand that we don't need resources and support. How it is coming to us is troubling. And it reminds me, actually, there's a bell hooks quote about when people are thirsty, they need water and it doesn't matter if the water is dirty or if it's clean, they need to drink. And I feel like the corporate control of our media and the predatory practices in our communities is just that. They understand that we're thirsty and they're bringing us something to drink. But I don't think that we need to be water carriers for them. I think that that's the bottom line. But that's a moment of political consciousness to understand that we have that choice and that we have the abilities within our own communities to determine our future and to actually put forward an agenda and solutions to the things that we need. And we need a system that lets us do that. So I'm not saying it's easy. It's always a fight. But I do think that we're seeing that all over, whether it is sample op-eds that are coming in papers all over the Midwest. Certainly I see them all the time. Whether it's faxes that are coming into our partner organizations with laundry lists of things. When I used to do much more rural work, it always happened around the farm bill. Monsanto, Cargill, all the weed killers sending you laundry lists of all of these. Egg this and egg that and farmers for justice this and kitchen table farmer wise for that. They send you this huge list and it is a predatory and a deliberative practice. And I think it can catch you unaware and I think they count on that. And I think that the idea that they think that they can communicate to us on that level is embarrassing and frustrating and at the same time it's part of a system. Like I don't want to give the impression that our community somehow just sort of fall for this. We don't. We're struggling to articulate a very different vision and we're caught up in a system that doesn't prioritize that. And I think sometimes it's challenging. I mean, I'm in Tennessee. The governor is in the richest family in this state. They own pilot oil. I mean, we had Senator who's family also owned the richest. Most of the most. He was a health care guy. And so they owned all these hospitals all over the state and everywhere else. And so I think it's also one of those things where at any point in doing anything political, you're also dealing with corporate corporations and corporate control at every single step, especially with the media conglomeration that has happened with like five companies owning everything and the intense privatization. So at every moment. I mean, my mom worked in the schools and she could see over 30 years when there was no corporate anything in schools to now you're fighting to get like Coca Cola out or you're fighting to actually have your food still being ran by the school and not airmark. And so I mean, I think that's the land that we live in right now. And so it's almost like assumed. I mean, I work with a lot of young people and so most of you just think that that's normal. They're like, that's what it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be an alternate way. Like, really? No, that's right. And so I think just, you know, we're sitting here talking about, you know, just to get information. You have to use Google, right? So like if that's your mode of information, it's already being filtered to get what you want. And so I think that that's just one of the ways that which we have to work around some of our, you know, like, how do you understand what's going on? How do you understand where corporate control plays and how do you understand how to move things? It's just one of those angles that you have to add in. You know, we saw this also we were, we got some lobbying from AT&T and I think really it exemplifies the importance of groups like Black Voices and Latinos for Internet Freedom because, you know, a lot of our allies that we work with and like you said, we agree with on 99% of the other issues are on the other side of this issue. And, you know, the way that they come at you, it's nothing, I mean, it is impressive. I'm not going to lie. They have facts. They have data. I mean, I think I had hundreds upon hundreds of pages. Now, NHMC fortunately does this stuff full time. But if we didn't, and I saw these facts, I mean, they have charts that make look like the prices are going down. You know, they have these things that look really good. The truth is some of these corporations, they're doing good things in terms of hiring more people of color and we think that's important. We're with that. That's good. And then lastly, they seem, their story makes a lot of sense if you don't have any time to really take a good look. And so that's where I think this resource really needs to be further utilized. My name is Lee Young. About this internet or communication, whether it's a phone company or cables, the problem is they are hacked or they are obstructed, that you cannot really have a message out or you communicate. Like, for instance, you are talking about merger, AT&T, we are saying there is obstruction and really deprived of our communication and learning and everything. But I think recently AFL, CIO, somehow they are trying to say they will create a job in domestically. So somehow this is not communicating very well, maybe among a civic organization or among the scholars. And so if this happened to be this way, then the real knowledge is not real share among the population. And so if you are going to hack that and you are not able to communicate with your officials, like a council or Merlin General Assembly or the city council, they don't allow you to testify or they will just allow you to simply not saying anything at all. So if you have this kind of situation, how are you going to improve the citizens' participation including the school education? So we got to have this kind of coalition put together, we have to fight against those who are deprived of our resources and freedom of speech, whatever you think that should be connected to our protection or resources or our rights or our income or our employment opportunities. I mean, I think one thing for us, we do popular education, we do leadership development work, that's what we do most of. And I think it's really, really important for people to understand exactly what's going on. I mean, I belong to a local union that my parent company, well the parent union has supports the merger and my local does not. And so I think oftentimes is how do you get the information out? I mean, we've been in a knowledge exchange for a week where I've learned things that I would have never known and most people where I live have no clue about. And so I think one of the reasons why it's important that black voices and Latinos voices, for here, how do you get beltway conversations and, you know, grassroots groups, how do we talk to each other? How can we, like net neutrality, we talked about that word. People were like, what does that actually mean? Really? Like, so how can, I mean, if people don't even know what something means, there's no way they can even understand it. If they just hear it, they're like, I got five other things to worry about. My job, my immigration status, do I have clean water? So then net neutrality goes to the right, even though it's something that they really need to think about. And so I do think that education is important. And people are really thinking how do we do real honest education on the ground in communities and not just with the same people we've always talked to? And how do we create language that's both helpful for people inside the beltway doing policy and statewide doing policy? And how do we create language that people understand on the ground that then connects to language that we know we have to use back on the Hill? Thanks. I think we have time for just maybe a couple more questions. If I might just follow up on the previous question, also some comments that were made earlier and Joe Torres's introductory remarks. It seems to me there are two things that come to my mind when I look at Latinos for Internet Freedom as well as Blacks for Internet Freedom, which is the concern, the issues you're talking about are about vulnerable communities. It's about the aged, it's about undereducated individuals, it's about poor communities. How do you see yourself as communities of specific communities of color leading that conversation in a way that takes advantage or that benefits from the support that you can get from these other communities that are equally vulnerable? But that may sometimes diverge in particular interests. So how do you build those coalitions in a way that it doesn't become just about, oh, this is another Black concern or it's another Latino concern? How do you preserve a certain sense of identity but make it inclusive in that way? Are there particular strategies that you've sought out or particular problems that you think come to mind? Second point I just wanted to make, I've spent a lot of time in developing countries and the conversations that we are having in the U.S. today echo a great deal of the conversations that were taking place around the digital divide in developing countries and it might be worth looking at some of the examples of how people have used other carriers that are available in Europe, for example, whether it's Vodafone or Orange or other major corporate carriers who have provided services to disadvantaged communities and perhaps there are ways, even though the costs of entry are so high, there may be ways of getting around that by reaching out beyond U.S. borders. Thank you. I think the point around what we can learn from the global south and I'm using that specifically is important and I think that it's one of the things that's so exciting about both Black voices and Latino voices for internet freedom is even the methodology and approach to come to the name was a political decision about how do we name and hold diaspora in a conversation and so that we're both recognizing that we're in the belly of the beast, the U.S. and we're understanding that we're part of a global diaspora community and that the same push and pull we feel with technology is the same push and pull we feel with migration and why we move. It's the same push and pull that we feel in all aspects of our lives. So I appreciate you bringing that up and I think the other piece I would say is that most of us come from, we come out of movements as individuals, as communities and as people and the organizations that we layer on, that's sort of the structure that we work within here, but we're movement folks. So whether it's the human rights, civil rights, communication rights, jobs and economic justice, you know, we come out of movement. So we're in constant communication and dialogue and learning and sharing within a movement context. So whether it's May 1st coalition that we're working with or pushback, I mean, we had this activity earlier this morning where we named all of the networks that we were part of. And so I think that what you see are kind of two names and a hashtag and two websites and four people and the truth is, you know, we're on people's shoulders that have come before us, you know, they are with us now. And so, you know, it's a long way of saying that I think that what you see, we're holding the vision and creativity and the history and struggle of generations of people, but just in four kind of talking heads at the moment. You know, this is always, to your first point, this is always a struggle actually, you know, for NHMC in particular because we are a hybrid, a civil rights organization and a media reform group. But Amalia's right. I mean, these folks, I mean, I look out in this audience and I see people of all different colors that I've worked with a whole lot. And so I think it's just keeping those lines of communication open and certainly we could do better at reaching out beyond this room. But just if we keep communicating, I think that's one way. But to a certain extent, our messaging is around how these issues impact Latinos because that's just where we're coming from and that's what we can speak to in an honest way. So... I have a friend whose current initiative is to create what he's calling the University of the World. And he's going to have 100 nodes of information transfer and integration in this process. And this guy is kind of a real visionary and I actually think he can do it. So I think that goes to your first point is what we're doing now in terms of continuing to know that when I go back home that I have a responsibility to work with a group of folks that I really care about about the same token I've met all of these people that lack minded individuals and organizations who not only can aid me in that process but I was thinking as we were sitting yesterday in a session who are the Latino leaders in my community? Because I don't know that yet because of the size of the community. So I think that these gatherings give us the structure and then we have to take the initiative to know that our brothers and sisters are in the same condition to fight in the same battles and get to know who they are and work together to make this happen. Another thing I would say, especially around what it means to be black voices and Latino voices or Latinos who are in that freedom, sorry, is that a lot of times we are the consumers but not the producers and the owners. And I think it's really important for us to hold that because we are the ones that are really called on a lot to consume. And we have high levels of consumption and materialism but when it comes to saying who are the techies? Can I call a techie? You generally can't find or we don't find Latinos and black people as techies. We don't find who is owning any of this thing. So it was talked about earlier. And so I think it's really important for us to go, okay, what are the access points? What is the stuff around the merger? But as we look forward and as we think about what are all the expansive ways of looking at how we're going to operate in the next six months, one year, three years, five years down the road, what are the present issues amongst us now? But also how do we really think about how we develop collective ownership of things? And how do we own some of the resources that our brother Joe Torres was talking about earlier? How do we get in some ways back but also forward to where we need to be? I think we might have time for just one more question. If anyone has anything they want to say? Okay, well, oh, we do have one. The thing that got us so upset in the last week was DOJ did the right thing. I think they waited through conflicting information and they saw that black and Hispanic groups would really be harmed by this. What bothered us was seeing these letters coming from Congress saying, you know, oh, DOJ needs the Obama administration to jump in. When the DOJ was protecting consumers, you're just like, well, gosh, who elected you? And I'm just wondering, you know... Part of the problem. Well, you know, aspirations again. But I'm just wondering how do you guys approach these members of Congress and say, wait, we are the real voices. And I guess what can those of us in this room do to help with that process? Join us, please. We're so outnumbered and so outgunned. And most of us who are here, my organization is in L.A., but I'm based here. There's like about four of us. Chance, Joe, me, Parle. That's about it on the Hill. I mean, there's not a lot of folks of color who have the time and the resources to actually go and do this. Oh, Ernesto, my bad. Sorry, five. How much did AT&T spend on lobbying last quarter? Right, exactly. How many billion? I think one of the things that we talked about several times yesterday with some decision makers was show, and what they kept saying is show me how this is in the best interest of consumers. So I think that becomes our job, to show our Congress people and our senators how what we're talking about and how our vision is in the best interest of consumers. And I think, I mean, as a person who spends a lot of my time on Capitol Hill and it's a constant education process, as you might imagine with some of these offices about these issues, because just as AT&T targets our communities, they certainly put loads of resources into miseducating members of Congress on this stuff. And I think what we have, we have the depth of relationships that when Amalia comes to town, we can go to the Hill together to make sure we tell those stories. So we do that and we carry information back and forth. And I think that is really something that is going to just become more powerful over time and hopefully we'll be able to see a shift there. Well, I think that is all we have time for right now. I just want to allow you all to say anything that you might not have gotten to get in if you have any closing thoughts, final words. We're always looking for new member organizations for both initiatives. And I think I would close by saying, I backed into media policy in a lot of ways. I came out of an organizing world that really had very little to do with DC in some ways, but I've been here a few years and I can honestly say that this is a different feel. This panel is a different look and feel. I think the language we're using is a different look and feel. I think the people who are in the room, the fact that folks all over the country are watching this and we'll take it to the next level. I think it's a different way of doing things and it's a recognition that we can lead with racial justice, we can lead with social and economic justice and we don't have to worry about shutting people down with that language. There's nothing wrong with what the movement has to offer the policymaking process and policy can be people-centered, it can be community-based and it can still win real change. Well, you know, there's a lot of talk about what's net neutrality, but this issue is really nothing new and I can't say enough how excited I am to read Joe's book when it comes out next month, but the truth is people of color have been shut out of our media system for decades, longer than decades. We have always tried to come up to the gatekeepers so that we could tell our own stories to be part of this democracy and the internet is the last chance. You know, a few weeks ago in LA, we had broadcasters go on the air and say really nasty things about the Latino community. We're thieves, we're here to rape your kids, we're here to dumb down the education system and by the way, here's this guy who works in the field, give him a call, they give out a cell phone number after they've gotten their crowd riled up he has, it's four hundreds and hundreds of phone calls, death threats, all these things. Guess who owns that radio station? Clear Channel. They own eight stations in the LA area, they own hundreds of stations across the country and they don't care about serving our community. They just don't care and so this is really about taking the power back into our own hands and getting our messages out there and raising our voices against those kinds of folks who want to tear us down. I have one simple statement. Internet freedom will mean that we no longer have to fight and struggle to be a part of this process and have equal access. That means from access to ownership to the whole nine yards. When we don't have to fight and struggle to be a part of it, then we'll have internet freedom. And I think what I would like to say is we're having a Central Appalachian Regional Network is helping support a thing called the Rural Broadband Summit in October where rural issues will really be highlighted in this and it's October 11th and 12th in Kentucky. And I think it's really important because a lot of times rural people get left out of this conversation and wireless services actually is so important for places like even where I work where you can get internet in the valley but we can't get internet in the same 188 acres. And so it's really and people get really upset when they come to my job. And so I think it's very important that we think about rural issues that we make sure the South is in the room and that we really understand how all this impacts everybody. So thank you all so much for being here. And one more time that's October 11th and 12th. And we'll be webcasts for folks who are not able to make it. Yes. We have a reason not to come. We have really good food. You'll get breakfast. You know that would be that'll be the day when your carrier would be acting up and they would have watched this and they would turn the switch on so you better come on. Well thank you all so much for being here and a big round of applause for our panel. We are very excited and there is much much more to come so look out for us and please check us out online. Thanks a lot.